The demise of political parties is not a new phenomenon. Since at least the 1980s, parties in all established European democracies have suffered massive membership losses to the point where they only retain a very limited capacity to engage citizens. The societal anchor of political parties is seriously threatened. Vernon Bogdanor wrote in 2006 that ‘the story of the rise and fall of the mass political party is one of the great unwritten books of our time’. So why do I pick this rather old problem up again in 2009? Not because I want to write the obituary of the mass political party but because we can now see where the development of political parties might lead us. This potential new future became apparent during the US Presidential campaign.

Additionally to his remarkable personal qualities, Barack Obama – during the Democratic primaries, the Presidential campaign and now even as sitting President – has been extremely successful in using new communication technologies to connect directly with citizens. Through the use of social networking tools, online video messaging and almost real time updates on what was happening on the campaign trail – and by making many of these tools available to his supporters too – he was able to create a community that was not only prepared to vote for him but willing to organise and campaign on the local level. He was able to create a political movement he can now build upon.

The construction of this movement was above all possible because new communication techniques offered a way of being actively involved in the campaign for change. But if you look behind the technical tools you notice that Barack Obama’s campaign was able to recreate old – rather than create new – characteristics that traditional European parties, especially left-of-centre parties, have lost over the years: a sense of community and belonging.

Let us take the oldest social democratic party in the world as an example: the German SPD. When the party was founded in 1863, its backbone was educational leagues founded to educate workers. The cultural and community aspect was therefore not just a by-product but very much the founding principle of the party. Being a social democrat was not a question of membership in an organisation but rather a way of life. The identity of the party was reinforced by the large variety of social democratic newspapers and publications that contributed to this distinct culture. The cultural underpinnings of political parties were also evident elsewhere and it seems that it has been especially this attribute, that used to provide the closest link to society, that has declined most dramatically in recent decades.

It was argued that because of social and ideological changes in societies in the second half of the twentieth century, mass parties – rather homogenous constructs – developed into catch-all parties that attempted to integrate the diversifying political views and social backgrounds of citizens under the umbrella of the same party. Today, many parties look like what political scientists call ‘professional-electoral parties’. Such parties are organisations that have a highly centralised leadership and are focussed on winning votes and offices. They have largely abandoned the cultural heritage of traditional political parties. ‘Professional-electoral party’ is also the closest typology for US political parties, which are practically committees to fight elections without much activity between ballots. They are very candidate centred and lack organisational leadership.

So what is new that could show the way political parties could go from here? What has changed during the Obama campaign? In a nutshell, Barack Obama has managed to recreate the community aspects of old mass parties and integrate them into a professional-electoral party. In the contemporary context, however, culture does not mean a certain way of living but rather being part of a community based on a charismatic political leader, new political ideas and a desire for grassroots activism. The creation of this new culture in the Obama campaign has only been possible by the use of new media. So after it has transformed the economy and the way we communicate with each other, is the information, communication and technology (ICT) revolution now fundamentally changing the political process too? I think there are strong arguments in favour of this and Barack Obama’s success is evidence.

What does this mean for European parties? The socio-economic circumstances and ideological believes of citizens have indeed changed dramatically since the foundation of early European parties, political activism has however not disappeared. The success of single-issue movements such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International and the Globalisation critics of Attac clearly shows the enduring desire for political activism. Some of these movements have even grown into political parties in their own right, for instance the German Greens or – with a rather different political agenda – the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

So the first ingredient – desire for political activism – is still there. But how can it be used? European parties have tried for decades to open their structures to social movements and to use societal activism for their party purposes. They have all been largely unsuccessful so far because their strategies were unclear and their own structures often too rigid. Waking up to the potential of new technologies and the experience of the Obama campaign however makes it a necessity to try again – and to try harder. After all, the only alternative seems to be further decline. Initial steps to use new technologies have been taken but more needs to be done. Europe in general is clearly behind the US in terms of internet integration in everyday life including politics. But this can also be an opportunity for the party that comes up first with a successful mix of technologies for the European context.

The second ingredient is political ideas that can capture and motivate people. The current economic crisis has opened a window of opportunity for a new politics. There is a vacuum of ideas since the promise of prosperity facilitated by unfettered markets collapsed with the international banking sector. This void has not been filled yet. In Barack Obama’s case the simple promise for change was enough to create his movement. This was however only possible in the narrow window of opportunity at the beginning of the economic crisis and in the specific context of US politics. If his movement is to become sustainable he needs to bring in new positive ideas. President Obama has understood this and has kept the close link to his followers even after assuming office. The way in which he encouraged living room discussions about his economic stimulus package across the US was a remarkable move and combined the desire for activism with political content. The sense of belonging and potential for activism created by a ‘I received an email from the President’ moment should not be underestimated.

The last ingredient in the mix is charismatic leadership. Early attempts of online campaigning in Europe have shown that it is very difficult to build mass participation in a political online campaign if there is not an appealing political figure at the top. Parties as such seem to be rather inappropriate vehicles for such campaigns. Identification becomes much easier if people are involved. So if the European political culture develops in the direction set out in the United States, it is likely that politics becomes more personalised and centred around political ideas represented by certain politicians.

Political parties have been declining for decades without finding a way to stop their downfall. The ICT revolution is here to stay and has already transformed many areas of our lives. The Obama campaign in the US has broken new ground and is certainly an important example to watch. But the question is how these developments can be worked into European party politics. A simple ‘copy and paste’ will not work. But the revitalisation of political culture and activism using new technologies is the most promising opportunity on offer to change the fate of political parties. Given the alternative, it is certainly worth trying.

They say that the two things you should never discuss are politics and religion, but that does not stop a lot of the talk of the heated politics of Chicago. Many people want to know Chicago politics inside and out, and want to know what the big news for the city’s political scene is. This love for the Chicago political scene is something many in the city share. However, finding people to talk to about politics can be extremely difficult to do.

Just as the history of Chicago has been very diverse, so have its political views. The politics of Chicago have not only been heated, but have led to impacts in the nation that is here today. They have also laid the groundwork to a number of events that would be factors in the world as a whole as a well. Some of the newer cities of the United States have to give thanks to some of the greater minds and political views of the Windy City.

In recent years, some of the greats in the corporate world and political world have sought places in the Southwestern United States. Some have seen this as a means of fleeing the fires that they fueled in Chicago, other have merely seen this as them wanting to have a transition to the next stage of their lives. The heated politics of Chicago can literally eat someone alive and spit out the remains without a second thought. That is part of what makes Chicago one of the political centers and also one of the hot spots for change in the Midwest.

Many have seen the legendary Al Capone as a nightmare in the streets of Chicago, and have seen how he would consume the legal system. One can’t say Capone’s name though without mentioning how he was the catalyst in the creation of the FBI. This level of corruption that Capone brought forth also instigated a higher level of how politics were viewed in Chicago and how the dirty politicians were dealt with. In the bluntest of terms, just as the Chicago sports fans won’t tolerate verbal jabs; the political arena of Chicago is no different.

Some have seen that Chicago is one of the harder roads for politicians, yet it is also a road that had garnered a higher level of respect of the politicians that have surfaced from the torrents of the political world there. This has been a city that has shown what a cut throat environment politics can be and also where a politician can be revered by those that support them.

They must have been tiding up on the way to the forth coming general election. Lately, the media reported an agreed pact by the opposition political parties -led by Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) to form a coalition -with exception of Democratic Party.

In another report, National Resistance Movement (NRM) towel was dragged down when one of their senior party officials got pinned down for involvement in dubious deals -something that would damage NRM bid for 2011 presidency. Meanwhile, the same sources said the President had dissociated himself from the troubled officials -and allowed the law to take its course.

It is a time when political parties begin packaging, branding and re-branding their manifestos for the political market. The question of whether we shall have something new rather than the old same stories would be there for Ugandans to answer.

But 2011 could be a time when people are much fatigued by elections since 1996. More so, could be fed up of voting same opposition political party candidates without success, yet at the cost of standing in long queues for hours.

And with the same excuse being that elections were rigged. How to raise people’s hope and confidence amidst fear of election rigging and voter buying, this time round, would be another challenge to the opposition political parties.

Still, It is a time Ugandans would need to see their concrete achievements both, as a political party in power and, as one preparing for victory in the forth coming general election. The incumbent, still, must have an inch in those achievements because the visible changes occurred during his reign. This, in turn, would demand that the opposition begin their speeches by first; to appreciating the ruling regime for the strides taken to make Uganda what it is today.

However, the presidential candidates -without military background would have to find and extra point to make. Much as people refuse to accept, Uganda is a new Nigeria -where time and again, a presidential hopeful must be an army general. The same message could go to the young generation aspiring to become Uganda presidents.

The strategy of forming a coalition, still, remains an inevitable one -on the part of the opposition political parties, if they are to pose any sort of challenge to the ruling NRM. Democratic Party’s deviancy in the face of the fact therein -was simply being unaware the purpose or simply lost touch with it -as an opposition, it was selfish, and above all; childish.

You cannot be asked to take a safer path, where there are no landmines, such that no harm is inflicted along the way to your home -and simply say no. Such actions were not only self-defeating, but showed that the person is just stubborn for no reason. How can you spend over 46 years without knowing how being power feels like and, then, you continue demanding more on katebe?

More still, it is around the same time when political parties check their resource base and make active mass voter consultations to boost voter confidence and trust. And use the same opportunity to disperse members of the research desk to asses’ political party strength -which could be ideal.

As of now, Ugandan politics would be said to have reached a fairly good level -when Ugandans shall no longer be afraid to indentify with the political parties they support. At the same time, they would could have the freedom to vote alternative political parties, where they do not belong -but without necessarily defecting.

Media support could be another very basic component to add in the presidential bid plans. There should be no excuses of media control. Simply, media access must be met. Older political parties might have been very intelligent, then. It is unbelievable to note that they at one time owned party newspapers. If they had not mismanaged their own assets, they could be, by now, richer than President Museveni’s NRM.

While DP had The Citizen -as its private media, UPC owned The People. Now, their views are only limited at political party offices. Even with press conferences they make, not everything is included in the final new print -a luxury (of exclusive information relay) they enjoyed with their own newspapers. Yet, also, at the times of elections, there could be a conflict over media access. The question, still, remains are political parties prepared for 2011 general election?

With police laws, unless permission was denied on acceptable grounds, matters of reaching out to the masses at this time are a must-execute. Amidst any bias by Uganda Police, it could be a matter of self-service. The police, then, would be labeled a failure, and having turned against the people they must serve.

It is, also, a time for making friends across ideological lines -without having to be aggressive or confrontational. These people may sympathize and vote candidates out their political parties. Indeed, there have been cases, where family members refuse to vote their own father!?

The court business, too, must be evaluated. Having to say going to court would be the alternative, can be a waste of time. After all, it has never worked for anyone. The focus, instead, could be to register election victory -as simple as that. Any otherwise, would be show of no political party purpose in the exercise.

Besides, there must be readiness for the cost of getting to victory. Very expectedly some fanatics could get hold of arms and shoot at anyone to intimate and divert voter purpose. And if unlucky, it could be, this time round, a presidential candidate. If in Makerere University strike, there could be a maximum of about two deaths, national elections could have more -given the different population sizes and seriousness of the contest.

However, political parties must remain stead fast, and choose to play a safe game of non-violence -yet focused on demonstrating the need for victory. The local terrorists could be left for time to tell their fate -naturally (spiritually) or artificially, judgments exists and no one is safe upon inflicting pain on another.

According to a 2007 survey by Vault, 66% of respondents say that their co-workers discuss politics at work, while 46% have witnessed a political argument at the office.

With election season in full swing, impassioned political debate has the potential to escalate into conflict of a deeply personal nature, some of which may create bad will among co-workers that can far outlast the current issues of the day.

While a certain amount of political discussion at work is unavoidable, it’s not surprising that such talk often leads to heated and emotional argument. Political viewpoints often serve as umbrellas that cover a spectrum of deeply held personal beliefs that are informed by an individual’s religion, culture, upbringing, economic class and other influences.

Appropriateness: When and how much?

Best practice dictates that employees avoid political discussion of any form during the regular conduct of business. Interjecting political commentary into meetings, work-related email and/or other official communication is highly unprofessional and grossly inappropriate. Doing so drags down productivity, creates unnecessary distraction, and can potentially alienate fellow employees and/or clients.

While the line is clear in the conduct of official business, it’s not as clear when socializing with co-workers while on the job. The following are a few guidelines to help you steer clear of any unintended harmful side-effects that may come about when expressing your political views.

Be mindful of those around you:

While a boisterous political discussion may seem to you to be the perfect way to spend your lunch break, others may not share your enthusiasm for politics. Never take an individual’s silence as agreement. It is equally likely to signal discomfort.

Before launching into a political discussion, ask all within earshot two questions:

1. Are you comfortable having a political discussion with me?
2. Do you mind overhearing me talk about politics?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then it is not appropriate to continue.

Remember that others may feel as strongly as you:

While it can be frustrating when someone refuses to be swayed by your
seemingly reasonable arguments, it’s important to remember that others have deeply and honestly held convictions as well. Bullying and/or pestering others until they come around to your viewpoint is inappropriate behavior and will likely create conflict, workplace disruption, and hard feelings.

Avoiding escalation always begins with the respecting the rights of others to believe differently than you. When in doubt, it’s best to “agree to disagree” and drop the issue.

Never make it personal:

People of good faith can disagree on all manner of things. A particular political viewpoint is nothing more than a set of ideas and has no bearing on an individual’s integrity or intelligence.

Never allow political disagreement to become personal. Always take care to avoid inflammatory language, personal insults, and sweeping generalizations.

Allow your sensibilities to be guided by basic courtesy. A good rule of thumb is to follow the same conversational etiquette that you would follow if you were a dinner guest in your co-worker’s home.

Handling Harassment

No employee should feel compelled to agree with or remain silent in the face of aggressive political advocacy. Attempts to embarrass, ostracize, harass or punish employees for their political ideologies can create a hostile work environment.

If you are uncomfortable with the discussion of politics at your workplace, it’s recommended that you make your feelings known and politely assert your wish to avoid political discussion at the office. If met with resistance or retaliation, report your discomfort to a supervisor or a Human Resource representative.

Law and Politics are usually confused with one another and cannot be meticulously separated from each other; as we usually hear the Faculty of Law and Politics, Center for Political and Legal Tuition, Professor of Law and Politics, etc. These are the facts that initiate me an idea to bring the core difference between Law and Politics and put it on a public display. The core difference would help the student to deeper understand the subject matters.

Do you have such the wonder? If no, start to make yourself curious about the core difference between Law and Politics to initiate your mental vocation and if yes, this is an article to unveil you a unique difference between Law and Politics to make you deeply understand.

As a student of Law, newspaper columnist, expert author, media liaison officer, legal and political assistant, I have found one complete differences between Law and Politics. This difference is “the interpretation.”

Most students of Law and Politics do not know that the most important theme of their education is “the interpretation.” Why I dare to say this? Up to the present, we have billions of sources ranking from books and international media publication to the abstract sources, but these so-called information will not make us a true political analyst or lawyer.

What we are seeing on these sources is just “plain information”, so what are these information are. If information is just all about information, University is not needed, because most of these sources are available everywhere and even free. The things that we have not found on these sources are “the interpretation” or the path to interpretational secretes. Let’s now jump up to the very core of our article.

Legal interpretation must be “within”: in interpreting the law, the lawyer of any party or the conflicting parties themselves cannot interpret the law out of the law being enforced in the country where the trial is being heard. This may seem very vague and let us bring an example to clarify. If you commit or are accused of committing a crime in the country in which you are residing in, you or your lawyer are not entitled to interpret the law out of the laws being enforced in your residing country. To a stricter extent, the laws being used for interpretation must circumnavigate the crime that you did or are accused of committing. This case is different from “political interpretation.”

Law and Politics may be equally broad, but interpretation in politics is much broader than in legal one. Have you ever noticed that a political analyst for a university in America would use approach in political interpretation by drawing examples from any country, any sources and any celebrities in the world. Political interpretation (analysis) is not as “within” as in law.

Politics is much more flexible and so much softer than law. Other merits why politics allow much broader interpretation, because we even see a huge similarities between socialist and capitalist states (similar political application), but the laws in these two separate kinds of state are totally different. I know the last one sentence is too vague for you, but let’s start the legal and political interpretation.

Lay Vicheka is a translator for the most celebrated translation agency in the Kingdom of Cambodia, Pyramid Translation Co.Ltd.. He is now hoding other two professions: freelance writer for Search Newspaper; focusing on social issues and students’ issues and Media Liaison Officer for Asia’s first free on-line IELTS consultation website. Lay Vicheka is the expert author for ezine and prolific article contributor to other websites around the world such as articlecity, 365articles, spiderden, talesofasia, etc (Just google him). He is also a volunteer Cambodian-newspapers columnist (Rasmey Kampuchea and Kampuchea Thmey). Lay Vicheka has great experience in law and politics, as he used to be legal and English-language assistant to a Cambodian member of parliament, migration experience (home-based business) and in writing. He is also member of a New York-based research company. Posting address: 221H Street 93, Tuol Sangke quarter, Russey Keo district, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

At that stage I wondered how many people out there knew about all the money one can make on the Net working from home? As I am a very nosy person, all the letters I received after that, tickled me pink. I started to find out what this was all about. Then I realized that there are people out there waiting for me to start a new beginning. Needless to say I was sick of my current job. Working for 20 years without any promotion, salary ain’t getting better, things getting more hectic by the day! That is when I decided to take a break.

The best of it all is that once you get started on your own home business, help is available everywhere, even if you are a total newbie on the Internet as well as a computer. Actually to become a home entrepreneur is extremely easy. I would like to inform you that at this stage in time I am still working full day, married with 2 young kids and that did not stop me at all!

If you do not know anything about Internet marketing, how to advertise etc. that is no problem! Like I have said before, help is just a click away! The whole home-entrepreneurs-thing on the Internet is a family thing. I gathered that after just a few weeks that everybody seems to help everybody. That is just fantastic. Please remember that only some of the things you have to do to let your business run smoothly, is for free. But you must bear in mind that a small budget is of utmost importance. Nobody can operate without money. You do need a small budget. When you have a website and are signed up with one or more affiliate programmes, let all your friends in your address book know what your plan of action is so that they also can benefit from what you are doing. This home business of yours depends entirely on you at what pace you want to move.

I would like to give you a few pointers :

· Firstly get yourself subscribed as a free affiliate to one of the main affiliate programmes on the Net, like SFI. (etc…)

· The next thing you do is build that opt-in list everyone is talking about. If you do not have a list, that is where the action and hard work starts! The reason for that is that you cannot have a product and nobody to sell it to! The list is very important; you do need traffic to your site. That is what this business is all about. Don’t forget that!

Political science as a discipline is relatively new and in recent years gained enough recognition among young students of the United States. It is mainly includes various sub-fields like philosophy and theory of political system, political economy, policy studies, international relations, and a collection of other related fields. The major aim of political science is to help a student make a career in politics and give them a proper knowledge of the political procedure that might be helpful.

Students who make a career in this branch of social science are generally called political scientists and can lead to exciting careers in federal, state and local governments; law; business; international organizations and electoral politics.

Their job responsibilities mainly revolve around analysing different areas of political behaviour, including public administration, public opinion, taxation and voting. Apart from this, they generally carry out research on different public issues and political relationships and resources. These research procedure can be both within a single country or internationally. However, the research and analysis process frequently includes judicial rulings, public opinion and decision-making. Adding to this, they also recommend solutions and at times perform research to make better decisions on matters that generally affect citizens, business and environment.

Employment Outlook

The job outlook of this domain actually seems to be very inspiring. In fact, as per the latest study conducted by the Bureau of Labour Statistic of the United States it is anticipated that in the next few years the jobs for political scientists will increase further. As per few experts, the overall employment is also projected to grow about as fast as the average for all occupations.

Salary Outlook and Other Benefits

Average earning of political scientists fully depends on their education, experience and geographical position of the organization. The starting salary range for a political scientist average near about $27,000. Nevertheless, with experience and higher educational success, the income may further increase to $65,000 or more. Adding to this, any graduate with a bachelor’s degree in political science can enjoy a decent earning and may earn almost $2,500 more per annum than the average person having just a bachelor’s degree. Besides this, bachelor’s degree holders can also move into job force as paralegals or administrative assistants. Moreover, political scientists employed by colleges and universities even get enough opportunities to add to their income by teaching summer school courses, writing books or doing consulting work. They may even enjoy several benefits, such as health insurance & retirement plans, paid holidays & vacations etc. depending upon their positions.

Required Educational Qualification

So, by now if you are looking forward making a career in political science or want to grow as political scientist you need to have an advanced doctorate degree in political science. If you earn a Ph.D. in political science, you may work as professors in colleges and universities. More often these positions often lead to important service in schools, communities and the nation. Other than these, there are bachelor’s and master’s level programs in political science as well. While the graduate degrees in political science are respected by all employment sectors, the master’s are highly appreciated by private and public agencies and a growing number of numerous non-profit associations.

Today it is definitely one of the few career options that may provide you the long-term job growth and meaningful rewards.

It is important then that you understand what politics really is. Politics, at its core, is defined by Wikipedia as the process by which groups of people make decisions. At its core, politics sounds quite simple. What makes it complicated are the individuals involved in making the decisions. Because human beings are not perfect, the political system is never going to be perfect. This is something that most people don’t understand about politics. You can put all of the pomp and circumstance into politics that you want, in the end; it is more about human beings getting their way than about the process itself.

It has been said quite often that politics is a dirty business. In the United States Congress, for example, politics has taken on an air of hatred and manipulation. Many citizens of the United States feel that they are left out of the process of politics and that their elected representatives are more interested in scoring personal points than in working toward the betterment of their states and districts. In the last few decades special interest groups have taken on an entirely new role and lobbyists have become particularly vilified.

This disillusion toward politics is nothing new. Plato-the famous Greek philosopher-believed that all political systems were corrupt at their cores and that societies leaders should be chosen from an elite group of individuals who were began leadership training at birth. Aristotle argued that man is inherently political and that personal and political ethics are often the same thing.

One of the most famous political philosophers, Machiavelli advised that leaders of politics be brutal and manipulative and do whatever they could to retain their power. Machiavelli is studied today and his work is considered to be one of the leading authorities on how to behave in politics. Is it any wonder then, that the political systems of so many nations look corrupt?

The heart of politics is good: it is how laws are made and how individuals are judged by the societies that surround them. Without politics, nobody would know what was allowed and what was not allowed when they left the house. Unfortunately, many people view politics as a way to get ahead or to gain some sort of power over the people they live and work with. It is because of these “bad eggs” that politics has become regarded as an evil and ugly business.

The text “Building Great Teams: Charting the Path of Organizational Politics” (Book Surge, 2007) takes you inside one of the greatest team building organizations in the world, the United States Marine Corps, to examine and discover the strategies that business leaders must be willing to learn, use and employ for building ordinary groups into extraordinary teams; leading the right team of commandos who understand what it takes to win on the business battlefield and defeat workplace politics using warfare as the key to experience a significant win. The strategies within the text defines workplace and office politics as “the path to smart growth…using the power to accelerate the careers of high potential future leaders and teams power in the workplace.” It implies that office politics are not always negative, but offer opportunities for greatness. And while workplace politics aren’t necessarily avoidable, people can learn to understand their purpose, find their voice and understand how-to strengthen and build the teams dynamics and interpersonal communications skills – all while managing responsibilities with tact, poise, and polish.

The game of politics, when understood how-to use it as a strategic weapon, helps to successfully chart the path of personal and professional growth as the essential task to achieve personal mastery from the results of peak performance. Organizational politics also offers the hidden treasures that allow people to stand-out from the crowd. They learn to demonstrate their ability to navigate the maze of successful team building – a task that is viewed as positive organizational behavior from the individual that is perceived as an extraordinary leader. This is the type of person that others seek to follow and emulate for the greatness they wish to develop for themselves.

Workplace Politics vs. The Battlefield Engagement

Just as in any military engagement, in order to win one must know the rules better than his/her competitor to outsmart them on the battlefield. It also is beneficial to be a part of the right team for controlling the elements of the battlefront. However, some might claim the workplace and the military are very different in many ways. Thinking from this approach causes significant missteps in organizational politics. There are significant issues that are similar in the workplace and on a military battlefield. For starters, the one constant is “people.” Any time that people are involved in a scenario, decision-making must play a role in the ability to win. Using the strategies from the United States Marine Corps, people are responsible for making critical decisions from the highest ranking officer down to the lowest ranking enlisted – and the decision could mean life or death.

Well, the same goes for the workplace. People are responsible for making critical decisions that could mean that the organization acquires strategic assets (executive suite decisions) or that a customer is treated in a way that causes them to continue doing business with the organization. Both can be seen as life or death for the organization. As seen with Wachovia bank, a decision from the top level leadership was made to acquire Westgate Financial to boost their mortgage business. When the U.S. mortgage markets and industry imploded during the financial crisis, the organization was effected with incredible implications – it became the beginning of the end for one of the country’s largest banks and people lost careers and more. Similar to the likes of a military battlefield engagement and a series of wrong decisions made by leadership, loss of life was experienced.

But what most people fail to realize is that the workplace is too a battlefield. Business is warfare and those who understand how to navigate the politics always win. Consider the game of chess. Chess can be low-key and quiet, a friendly game between friends. Or it can be explosive and highly competitive, set amid a crowd of observers, where the ultimate winner reaps world-wide accolades. Consider the skill behind the game of chess. It requires well-planned strategy and a great deal of mental acuity and patience, not to mention years of practice to reach an elite status.

These are the same skills required by a great leader, one who has the ability to guide an organization and one who understands the world of workplace politics. On the other hand, while playing a game such as chess, there can only be a single winner where there often can be a more neutral outcome in the world of workplace politics. With the proper skills of negotiation and influence, savvy leadership might be able to create a win-win situation.

The Truth about Politics in the Workplace

Politics will always be part of an organization because people are people. The dynamic relationships of individuals who run a business enterprise play an important part in how the business operates: How the mission map, posture statements, vision, values and organizational culture is forged. And while the average Jane or Joe might feel like they are being run over by co-workers who manipulate the system, bully, gossip, backstab and brown nose to get what they want, there is more to workplace politics than those negative daily encounters. The quintessential aspect of organizational politics is the team. Building great teams’ hits at one of the most discussed topics in business media and the workplace: Organizational Behavior, transformational leadership, organizational renewal and inter-office politics. The day of the individual worker is over, as today’s business arena demands that workers possess the ability to effectively work as team units that consistently produce extraordinary outcomes from their performance. It is a scenario all top leaders and managers knows well: The organization, their people, and their systems all require efficient and effective processes to remain constant in its approach to move quickly toward new and innovative ways of reaching mission-critical objectives.

Good leaders are a thing of the past, as global economies now require more than good – they seek greatness and ordinary just does not fit the bill any longer. They now require the ordinary to be “extraordinary.” The new battlefield in the workplace requires the extraordinary leaders’ understanding of workplace politics and the accompanying landscape to be significant. They can no longer work in the old silos of the past that was developed by the silly political conflicts. No, these extraordinary leaders can no longer exhibit the behaviors that ultimately invite disaster. This is not to say that leaders of the past demonstrated the behaviors that put-up with negative politics that caused disastrous outcomes nor does it imply every good leader has found his/her way to the top of the heap by climbing over the bodies of crushed co-workers. It simply means that leadership understands workplace politics well enough to use them as “strategic weapons” to produce positive returns without the mud slinging and backsliding of unethical and immoral actions.

Understanding how-to chart the path of organizational politics means being able to maneuver using political warfare to enhance the organization’s ability to rise to the top of its industry, without leaving one of its warriors lying wounded on the battlefield. It means having a well crafted Battleplan, understanding the players, building positive alliances and coalition of forces, using the art of war as a significant warfighting strategy that all stakeholders understand and buy-in to for winning, and finally, developing a compelling case study for the associates of the organization to understand the comprehensive approach for integrating strategic human capital and team development initiatives into the fold.

Convert Uniqueness into Ultimate Power

The best leaders are the people that understand the nature of warfare in dealing with and overcoming workplace politics. These are the men and women who have a tone on the pulse of the workplace – internal and external – and know what it takes to remain on task “ethically” to lead others into greatness. Here are five important things to know about politically savvy leaders:

° They understand the critical importance of the team associates to be “LeaderShaped” into

GREATNESS. They understand the “what” and “how” in developing a GREAT team.
° They make decisive decisions for the benefit of the Future Picture
° They understand the “culture” in the system that the team must influence.
° They know what it take to strategically “execute” and win as a team.
° They know how-to use the “Six Political Signs of Business Leadership” to achieve

professional mastery to the people and organization:

1. a clear “Vision” of issues.
2. Understand the “Value” drivers within the team.
3. “Behavioral” influence of leadership to the Future Picture.
4. “Strategy” Modeling (Enterprise Decision Making).
5. Strategic “Execution” (Governance).
6. “Duplication of Protocol” (learnable-teachable methods for future engagements).

Engaging the battlefield that is influenced by workplace politics, for many, may mean asserting their power, pushing and shoving like the elementary school bully until they get what they want. But that’s really just the toxic behavior and conduct that eliminates the possibilities for leadership and the organization they influence to win. One of the best ways to lose power is to overtly use it. Instead, the best leaders know that power comes from influence – and influence is subjective to behavior, character and the value system that drives the people responsible for charting the pathway.

In the text, the author also outlines how, in most cases, team leaders never hit their goals – not because they lack talent within the associate ranks, but because they are naïve to the complexities of team dynamics. The author outlines the strategic-execution methods that smart leaders understand and use to determine what type of team model best suits their specific environment, what key skills to look for (and which to avoid), and how to coax top performances from everyone starting from day one.

Author Robert Dilenschneider explains in his book, “Power and Influence: The Rules Have Changed”: True power and influence means accepting responsibility, taking the heat and keeping your word. So even if someone supports the supposition that leadership is just another way of playing political games, it doesn’t necessarily mean this is a bad thing. When properly played, workplace politics can lead to great achievements and outcomes. Pitts believes that extraordinary teams that are great engage politics well. They are LeaderShaped and driven by extraordinary people who make a distinctive impact – they deliver significant and superior performance over a long period of time. There are some striking characteristics of great teams who achieve sustained success within their mission across its life cycle. They experience an increased level of professional mastery in developing and executing as great teams do. These teams have gone through a process; a process that is forged in a furnace of professional development, transformational thinking, and strategic-execution.

Workplace politics, good or evil, are a very real part of the work environment. Whether people subscribe to the belief that leadership is just another way of engaging the political battlefield or not, it is important to keep in mind that as long as there are people working together as great teams do, there will be politics, but the outcomes will be far different from the results of the past. Great teams are the way to successfully engage the battlefield – greatness from the team is how to engage politics well and win it using fair tactics.

The green movement in American politics showed that the first of the reasons for forming a political third party actually are useful way of having an impact on politics. The main reason the American political system has only two parties is the ballot setup and how political elections are won. As we all know, it takes a majority or 51% of the vote to win most elections in politics and 51% of the state’s citizens votes to win all of the state’s electoral college votes.

The majority system in politics pits two candidates against each other and gives no incentives for only winning 15% of the votes. The contrast to the American political system is Great Britain, which has a proportional system. Because of this system, politics in Great Britain are different at their core from American politics. In a proportional political system, if there are 10 seats available and a political party wins 20% of the vote then they win 2 seats out of 10. I’m sure you can imagine how this influences the whole art and strategy of politics in this system.

Ok so what is unity and what do they have to do with all of this?

Unity08 on the surface is trying to sell itself as the party of the people and uses polls and catchy marketing to try to convince people to join their cause. They are a wannabe third party that has no core issue(s) that are not covered by the two major parties. They actually claim that they take on the more crucial issues rather than the somewhat important issues that don’t actually affect people.

They show base for their support by citing a polls that show the American public agrees with some things that are totally unrelated to a third party in politics. Things such as dissatisfaction with the way the country is headed and polarizaton. Also they polled on hypothetical questions of a different unity ticket and probably asked whether they agree or disagree with the idea. Good political pollsters know that people are always more likely to agree on any question when given the choice.

Ok now what do they have to do with third party politics? Well technically, they claim they do not want to be a third party. No No….They want to influence the big 2 political parties by giving them a wake up call. Oh it gets much better than this. They seem to contradict themselves a lot. They don’t want to leave their political parties but they want a moderate candidate or one person from each big political party to join together and run under their ticket.

So on some of their crucial political issues of national debt, nuclear proliferation, health care for all, and the disappearance of the American Dream they just want one candidate from each party to come together and run?

Ok Ok….Slow me down if I am wrong about this but is their differences on how to go about these issues what makes America the model democratic republic? Did our founding fathers not set our political system up with just that clash and debate?

I feel like I am under the Capitol Dome looking at the painting of Thomas Jefferson apparently stepping on John Adams toe and unity asking Mr. Jefferson if they could shake him up and then to embrace Mr. Adams like his political best friend. The political founding fathers setup the American system on the ideals of Newtonian physics where 2 political parties would both butt heads and the equal opposite reaction would end in a balance.

You cannot expect to take bits and pieces from each different approach given by the major parties, throw them into a blender and out comes the perfect solution. Most moderates in politics today hold views on political issues that are held by both political parties. However, they are affiliated with a certain political party because they believe in their core platform.

Finally, if unity08 plans to have one prominent member from each party on their presidential ticket for the 2008 political elections then how do they decide which party holds the President and which one holds the Vice President. I feel like I shouldn’t need to say this but unity08 makes it out like they do not see the huge difference in power between those two political offices.

So my final thought is this…The main founders and backers of unity08 are in this thing for exactly one reason. *Drumroll* MONEY. Plain and simple. Unity08 said they are seeking an advisory council from the FEC to see if they can be considered not a political committee. This means they do not want to be bound to FEC rules. Also nothing states that they are a non-profit and therefore I have to wonder whether they are not just a for-profit company.

Finally, one of the main founders bio on their webpage states this…

“Hamilton Jordan, Atlanta, Georgia. Carter White House Chief of Staff, writer, investor; focused on for-profit and non-profit start-ups; most importantly, father of three.”

This could mean nothing but it sure sticks out…investor;…for-profit and non-profit start-ups. Also, most of these former political people would not have wasted their time on this if they couldn’t control the cut they’ll make as consultants for unity08.

hmmm…This thing smells of scam and unrealistic dreams that not only contradict the founding fathers political setup for America but are also bad for America. The 2 party system is and will always be the best system for America. Does America need political advocates and higher citizen engagement? Of course! Conflict and honest debate is the best path to the perfect solution.