Gaurav Sharma falters on a “road less travelled”
It’s not fully clear what Labour MP Dr Gaurav Sharma was up to when he unleashed an outlandish attack on the party bosses, whips, and leader’s office – accusing them of all being party to some kind of institutionalised “bullying” meted out to relatively new MPs in the caucus.
Was he seeking a “fair treatment” without any “pre-determined outcome” to salvage his badly bruised self-reputation? Or being slightly more ambitious and probably delusional to attempt inflicting genuine damage to a still very popular party leader Jacinda Ardern.
Whatever it was, can now safely be described as a road less travelled – unconventional, out of ordinary, non-conformist – even anarchistic.
Right from his first scathing op-ed piece taking a direct hit on the alleged collusion between parliamentary services and party whips and the leader’s office to a flurry of subsequent social media posts revealing publicly some private text messages of private conversations publicly, there was nothing normal or conventional about it as most of the ardent observers of the game of politics would normally understand.
Sharma even closed the last possible door of negotiation just minutes before the last caucus meeting that was called upon to discuss his fate by refusing to take up the call from none other than Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, thereby defying the cardinal principle of politics to never close the door of negotiation even to your perceived worst of adversaries.
And all this when he was going all out full throttle against the senior leadership of his party and revealing something or everything to the media at a frantic pace and hoping to accentuate his case in the public eye.
Little did he realise that Prime Minister Ardern – the master of communication and managing public perception – would gladly lap up this opportunity and use it with aplomb in her own media address to not only wrest the public narrative but also discredit Sharma’s claim of widespread bullying towards rookie MPs.
To conclude that Sharma was naïve may further hurt his already badly bruised self-reputation that he so desperately sought to resurrect by going public after allegedly finding no genuine fair hearing within the party structure for more than one and half years in parliament.
So it might be less painful for him if it is concluded that he was on a road less travelled and was just being unconventional, to remain unpredictable in his tirade against much powerful party bosses.
It’s another matter though that there would not be any conventional way available to raise the issue of alleged bullying of first-time MPs, by different pre-existing power structures within the parliamentary services and the party.
Anyway, Sharma has reportedly squandered many prompt chances available to him for a full-fledged interview with seasoned journalists that would have at least helped his case in presenting his side of the story far more coherently than what actually came out in public through his unconventional and outrageous ways.
It’s not fully clear what Labour MP Dr Gaurav Sharma was up to when he unleashed an outlandish attack on the party bosses, whips, and leader’s office – accusing them of all being party to some kind of institutionalised “bullying” meted out to relatively new MPs in the caucus.
Was he seeking a “fair...
It’s not fully clear what Labour MP Dr Gaurav Sharma was up to when he unleashed an outlandish attack on the party bosses, whips, and leader’s office – accusing them of all being party to some kind of institutionalised “bullying” meted out to relatively new MPs in the caucus.
Was he seeking a “fair treatment” without any “pre-determined outcome” to salvage his badly bruised self-reputation? Or being slightly more ambitious and probably delusional to attempt inflicting genuine damage to a still very popular party leader Jacinda Ardern.
Whatever it was, can now safely be described as a road less travelled – unconventional, out of ordinary, non-conformist – even anarchistic.
Right from his first scathing op-ed piece taking a direct hit on the alleged collusion between parliamentary services and party whips and the leader’s office to a flurry of subsequent social media posts revealing publicly some private text messages of private conversations publicly, there was nothing normal or conventional about it as most of the ardent observers of the game of politics would normally understand.
Sharma even closed the last possible door of negotiation just minutes before the last caucus meeting that was called upon to discuss his fate by refusing to take up the call from none other than Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, thereby defying the cardinal principle of politics to never close the door of negotiation even to your perceived worst of adversaries.
And all this when he was going all out full throttle against the senior leadership of his party and revealing something or everything to the media at a frantic pace and hoping to accentuate his case in the public eye.
Little did he realise that Prime Minister Ardern – the master of communication and managing public perception – would gladly lap up this opportunity and use it with aplomb in her own media address to not only wrest the public narrative but also discredit Sharma’s claim of widespread bullying towards rookie MPs.
To conclude that Sharma was naïve may further hurt his already badly bruised self-reputation that he so desperately sought to resurrect by going public after allegedly finding no genuine fair hearing within the party structure for more than one and half years in parliament.
So it might be less painful for him if it is concluded that he was on a road less travelled and was just being unconventional, to remain unpredictable in his tirade against much powerful party bosses.
It’s another matter though that there would not be any conventional way available to raise the issue of alleged bullying of first-time MPs, by different pre-existing power structures within the parliamentary services and the party.
Anyway, Sharma has reportedly squandered many prompt chances available to him for a full-fledged interview with seasoned journalists that would have at least helped his case in presenting his side of the story far more coherently than what actually came out in public through his unconventional and outrageous ways.
Leave a Comment