The spirited campaign of Zohran Mamdani has caught my attention. It has all the bells and whistles of an underdog campaign, adapted to the social media needs of the Generation Z and beyond. His “online first” campaign is being celebrated all across the globe, with the “progressive” bandwagon jumping right behind his peppy reels and zestful online persona.

The democratic party is not united, of course. Editorial board of the New York Times, just two weeks ago, did not believe that Mr. Mamdani deserves a spot on New Yorkers’ ballots”, labelling his experience “too thin” and comparing his campaign platform to “a turbocharged version of Mr. de Blasio’s dismaying mayoralty”. It is understandable that the Democratic Party would take a little while before they turn the corner. The support of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), is not too much of a clout when it comes to capturing the large political machine that the Democratic Party is.

That Politics is intertwined with capital is a gross understatement. It is a euphemism invented to comfort people who like to think that their “interest” and “identities” are large enough to influence politics of a nation. For most people, political action is an afterthought. It is something that comes to them, and then they act. A set of parties are presented to them; they pick sides and fight with the clubs handed over to them.

The two major facets of political activity simply fly over their heads. One is to read, research and talk till we have documented a set of problems, which upon solving will make our lives better. The other is to find enough people to endorse your solution and now you are a bloc strong enough to initiate change. It is naive to believe that ballot alone will force change. Ballot simply reflects the prevailing socio-economic equations. That every candidate needs truckloads of money to win even in developing countries is no secret. In many underdeveloped countries, election expenses are touted as a reason to perpetuate authoritarianism.

Coming back, the political organisation of bringing people together and priming them for action is something that needs deeper exploration. Sure, we all would like to have lawful assemblies that deliberate things without falling off the guardrails of a civilised society. When discussing ‘politics’, the de facto mood is that of social tension. What does this policy entail? What can possibly change? Why is this person acting the way he does? Are we ordained to suffer for ever? Or can we do anything at all?

All these questions lead to very different results if we were to close our eyes and meditate on them. Suppose that there is no adversary whom you must defeat in a contest of “debate”. It is just you vs your ‘inner voice’, seeking truth. Can these ideas objectively bring in change? Will they make sense if you factor in the changes that can happen in the next five years? If you were someone who is directly affected by the policy, how would you convince yourself that you deserve to face the consequences? My years observing politics has taught me one thing. Very few people take the trouble of learning the ropes of any business that requires skill. Politics is no exception. Politics requires you to have a set of skills that will place you in a podium where you will be watched and acted upon. Some politicians are too self absorbed to think that it is their destiny or their hard work that has made people (read power) coalesce around them. That they hold certain qualities that make them worthy of power. But the wise ones know that it is the designs of the society that require that power must sit somewhere for the time being, we can only dress ourselves up and expect the rain to fall right over our heads.

But politics is fun, and highly rewarding to those who learn the sleights and aspire to perspire till they turn the curve and find themselves at the vortex of power.

Here, what matters most is the creation and sustenance of huge political machines and the existence of a pathway that will lead to them being captured by the ‘unwashed’ masses. A good political machine, by design is constantly susceptible to be overtaken by a ragtag group of insider ‘revolutionaries’.

In that sense, Democratic Machine (or any political party in India for that matter) is hardly a “good” political machine. From that vantage point, Zohran’s campaign (and just in, his victory!) is a beacon of hope indeed.

But then, the sceptical political observer in me refuses to believe in the brand Zohran. Not because he could be a ‘bad’ actor, but his campaign by default has trained a large political machine on him. This may ultimately benefit him, but it would also make his path forward infinitely more difficult.

But then, it is important to have a coherent socialist political voice in the US. If the most digitally connected country and deeply divided first world country cannot be convinced to take up or at least entertain the idea of socialism, it becomes more and more difficult in the developing world.

An alternate mode of organising the masses is indeed a ray of hope. Just that I refuse to be moved by social media phenomena. Or they would have to endure the weathering of time and show us that they will indeed fight till the last nail to ensure that their promises are kept.