Rethinking Political Strategy: The Discipline of Political Becoming

Political action carries a life beyond the moment in which it takes place, entering the larger movement through which societies develop and collective consciousness expands toward new possibilities of human flourishing. The political environment is shaped by elections, aspirations and expectations of citizens, public sentiments, and the responsibilities carried by political institutions along with constantly changing circumstances, requiring political strategy to continually interpret these forces and translate them into a coherent direction for political action.

The significance of political decisions therefore extends beyond the circumstances in which they are made, as their cumulative effects gradually shape institutions, public consciousness, social relationships, and the possibilities available to future generations.

Statecraft extends across a broader horizon of time because institutions require years to mature. Public trust develops through continuity, while economic and technological capabilities require sustained investment.  Diplomatic relationships evolve through accumulated confidence, and social cohesion emerges through processes that can extend across political generations.

This places a fundamental question at the centre of political strategy: how can political leadership address the demands and respond effectively to the realities of the present while shaping the institutional and social conditions that will influence the future far beyond the political cycle?

I believe this question brings us to the idea of political becoming.

I use the term here to describe the longer process through which political decisions, institutions, public narratives, collective consciousness and forms of leadership gradually shape what a society becomes.

Political strategy, viewed through this lens, acquires a larger temporal and civilisational dimension. The objective extends from achieving a particular political outcome towards understanding the institutional, social and human conditions that such an outcome creates over time.

The discipline of political becoming therefore asks us to examine the relationship between political action and the society that action gradually produces.

The Political Cycle and the Strategic Horizon

The political cycle creates a natural emphasis on visibility, measurable outcomes and immediate political relevance, while many of the foundations upon which a stable and prosperous society rests require a considerably longer period of cultivation.

An institution may require a decade to establish its credibility, an educational reform may influence several generations, technological capacity may determine a country’s competitiveness for decades, and a diplomatic relationship may acquire its greatest strategic value through years of sustained engagement.

This difference between political time and strategic time deserves greater attention because political leadership carries responsibility across both horizons, requiring decisions that address the circumstances of the present while contributing to the institutional and social conditions of the future.

A political organisation may ask what can be accomplished within the present cycle, while a statesperson or strategist must also consider what the present cycle is creating for the political environment that follows.

The larger question therefore becomes one of continuity: what institutions, capabilities, relationships and forms of public consciousness are being strengthened through today’s political choices, and how will they influence the possibilities available to the next generation?

This is where political strategy begins to acquire the deeper character of statecraft.

Kautilya and the Intelligence of Political Strategy

Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra offers one of the most sophisticated classical engagements with political power, administration, intelligence, diplomacy, economic strength, security and the conduct of the ruler, while placing considerable emphasis upon judgement, circumstance and strategic calculation.

The political world described in the Arthaśāstra is dynamic, with alliances, threats, resources and relationships continually influencing the choices available to the ruler, making political intelligence a matter of understanding circumstances and responding to them with deliberation.

Alongside this realism exists a conception of political responsibility that deserves equal attention.

Kautilya writes:

“In the happiness of his subjects lies his happiness; in their welfare his welfare.”

— Kautilya, Arthaśāstra, Book I, Chapter 19

The statement places the welfare of the political community within the larger conception of successful rule, creating an important relationship between political effectiveness and public welfare.

The ruler’s interests and the welfare of the political community are therefore connected within the larger architecture of statecraft, making the condition of society itself an important measure of political success.

This also changes the way strategic success can be evaluated.

A decision may generate an immediate political advantage while its institutional and social consequences continue to unfold for years afterwards, making the assessment of second and third-order consequences an essential part of political judgement.

The strategic mind therefore operates across several layers of consequence, considering the immediate result, the institutional effect, the social response and the longer trajectory that a political decision may initiate.

Political becoming begins precisely at this point: when political leadership starts examining what its decisions are gradually producing beyond the immediate political objective.

Political Becoming as a Discipline of Time

Political becoming begins with clarity of purpose because an organisation can shape a longer political trajectory when it possesses a sufficiently clear understanding of what it seeks to create.

Once the larger objective becomes visible, time acquires strategic significance.

A political decision can influence institutional capacity, public trust, social relationships and collective expectations long after the immediate political moment has passed, making the temporal dimension of political judgement central to the study of statecraft.

This requires an organisation to think across several horizons simultaneously: the immediate political environment, the medium-term development of institutions and capabilities, the longer transformation of society, and the intergenerational consequences of decisions made in the present.

Political becoming therefore provides a way of thinking about strategy through continuity, consequence and transformation.

It asks what is being strengthened through political action, what is being cultivated through political communication, what forms of public consciousness are emerging, and what possibilities are being created for the future.

The central question becomes:

What is today’s political strategy making possible for tomorrow’s society?

Ashoka and the Reorientation of Political Power

Ashoka provides one of the most compelling historical examples of a transformation in the conception of political power.

The Kalinga war became a profound turning point in his political imagination, as the experience of conquest brought questions of suffering, responsibility and the purpose of political authority into the centre of his later understanding of rule.

In Rock Edict XIII, Ashoka writes:

“Now it is conquest by dhamma that the Beloved of the Gods considers to be the best conquest.”

— Ashoka, Rock Edict XIII

The significance of this transformation lies in the changing meaning of conquest itself.

Political influence acquired an ethical and social dimension, with Dhamma becoming an important element in the conception of how political authority could relate to people, communities and neighbouring societies.

Ashoka’s political thought therefore offers an important question for contemporary statecraft: how can political power create durable influence through the quality of the political order it produces, the relationships it develops and the welfare it advances?

Can Socially Engaged Buddhism contribute to transformation of political thought, reshaping how power, statecraft, political organisation and the future of societies are conceived?

Socially engaged Buddhism creates a wider field for thinking about how political organisations are structured and solidified, bringing questions of interdependence, peace, ethics, economics, human security, dignity and global village responsibility into contemporary political thought. It opens political strategy towards a broader conception of statecraft, where the relationships within societies and between nations, the well-being and dignity of people, and the conditions shaping our shared future become integral to the strategic horizon.

From this perspective, political decisions can be examined through a wider field of consequence. Their significance can be considered through the relationships they shape, the cultures they cultivate within institutions and more importantly the degree of trust they generate among citizens. And how this adds to the quality and evolution of collective life.

The question of political strategy therefore becomes a question of political becoming: what kind of society is political action gradually bringing into existence?

Gandhi, Political Strategy and the Relevance of

Hind Swaraj

Mahatma Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj acquires a particularly contemporary significance when examined through the sociological and civilisational analysis developed by Professor Amit Kumar Sharma in Hind Swaraj Ki Prasangikta.

Professor Sharma’s work is especially significant because it approaches Hind Swaraj through a wider examination of society, culture, political consciousness and civilisation, allowing Gandhi’s text to enter contemporary discussions concerning the relationship between political transformation and the deeper conditions of social life.

His engagement with Hind Swaraj provides an important intellectual bridge between political action and the civilisational environment within which political action takes place. This perspective becomes particularly relevant to political strategy because political institutions operate within cultures, social relationships and systems of meaning that influence how citizens understand authority, responsibility, progress and collective life.

Professor Sharma’s work consequently provides a valuable foundation for examining Gandhi’s relevance through a longer horizon, where political transformation acquires meaning through the kind of social and cultural order that gradually emerges from it.

This also connects directly with the idea of political becoming.

Political change takes place within society, while society itself is continually shaped by political institutions, political ideas and political practices. The relationship is therefore dynamic, with political action influencing the conditions through which future political possibilities emerge.

Gandhi’s formulation remains particularly significant:

“The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree.”

— Mahatma Gandhi, Hind Swaraj

The metaphor introduces a profound strategic consideration because political methods participate in the creation of political culture.

Methods influence habits, habits influence institutions, institutions influence relationships, and relationships gradually influence the character of society.

A political organisation therefore has to consider the immediate effectiveness of a method alongside the political culture that repeated use of that method may cultivate over time.

Professor Sharma’s Hind Swaraj Ki Prasangikta provides an important intellectual foundation for engaging with precisely this relationship between political transformation, civilisation, social consciousness and the larger conditions of collective life.

The deeper question becomes:

What kind of society is political strategy ultimately designed to make possible?

From Humanitarian Conviction to Political Transformation

Some of the most consequential political transformations in modern history emerged from individuals whose concern for human dignity developed into sustained political action. The commitment to Humanitarianism gradually became organised through discipline, collective mobilisation and a larger conception of the future.

Mahatma Gandhi transformed ethical conviction into a mass political movement, demonstrating how an idea rooted in human dignity could acquire political force through disciplined collective action.

Martin Luther King Jr. similarly transformed a profound commitment to human dignity and racial justice into a movement that reshaped political and social foundations of American life.

In Letter from Birmingham Jail, King wrote:

“Justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

— Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963

His example introduces an important dimension into political becoming because the transformation of society requires an understanding of the relationship between moral urgency, political mobilisation and historical circumstance.

Sustained preparation can strengthen the possibility of meaningful change, while moral urgency can create circumstances in which organised action becomes essential.

Political becoming therefore requires discernment about the political meaning of time, allowing leadership to recognise when social conditions have reached a point at which collective action can transform the direction of political life.

Nelson Mandela offers another dimension through the relationship between political struggle and future vision.

In his Rivonia Trial statement, Mandela articulated:

“I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.”

— Nelson Mandela, Rivonia Trial Statement, 1964

The statement reflects the importance of carrying a conception of the future alongside the political struggle of the present.

Political strategy gains depth when it holds two questions within the same strategic horizon:: what transformation is being pursued in the present, and what kind of society is that transformation intended to create?

Political becoming therefore places the future within the political imagination itself.

Constructive, Pro-Social, Future-Oriented Political Communication, Exercised with Accountability, to Imagine a Better Future

Political communication is one of the most important tools through which societies construct political reality. Over time, it shapes what people pay attention to, what they perceive as important and the narratives through which they interpret the social and political environment around them.

For a political organisation, this creates a significant responsibility and a corresponding accountability, because the narratives it repeatedly places before the public can shape the emotional and cognitive climate in which society understands itself, interprets its circumstances, and imagines its collective future.

In an environment where political communication can easily become centred on conflict, fear, grievance and division, there is an equally important need to consciously develop constructive, pro-social, future-oriented political communication, exercised with accountability, to imagine a better future.

This responsibility becomes even more meaningful when such an approach is adopted because it contributes something that may be less visible within the prevailing political discourse; meaningful change can begin when an organisation chooses to introduce a different quality of communication even before that approach becomes the dominant political practice.

Cognitive science provides an important foundation for understanding why this matters.

Human cognition has a pronounced sensitivity towards threat, uncertainty and potential loss, commonly described as negativity bias, through which emotionally significant and threatening information can receive greater attention and cognitive priority.

Political communication can therefore gain considerable visibility through narratives that repeatedly activate fear, crisis, conflict and grievance, particularly when these emotions become the primary means through which citizens interpret their political environment.

The strategic question extends beyond the ability to capture attention.

It concerns the direction in which that attention is being guided.

A political organisation has the capacity to acknowledge genuine challenges while simultaneously creating cognitive space for possibility, agency and collective progress.

Research on positive emotional states suggests that under appropriate conditions, they can support broader attention, greater openness to possibilities, and a wider range of responses to complex circumstances.

This carries a significant implication for political strategy:

The way a society understands its challenges can exist alongside its capacity to imagine possibilities beyond them, for a more constructive vision of the future.

Constructive communication therefore becomes a strategic choice, particularly when it is designed to strengthen social cohesion,cultivate solidarity, encourage agency, expand the imagination of what is possible and connect present political choices with a larger vision of collective wellbeing.

For a political organisation, this also creates a question of accountability:

What are we repeatedly asking society to pay attention to, what emotional environment are we contributing to through our communication, and what kind of future are we making easier for people to imagine?

This is where attention becomes a dimension of statecraft.

The strategic objective becomes the cultivation of a communication culture that can engage difficult realities while generating possibility, recognise threats while strengthening agency, accommodate differences while deepening social cohesion, and respond to the present while keeping the future within the collective field of vision.

For me, this represents an important intersection between cognitive science, political strategy, public consciousness and socially engaged thought.

A political organisation that understands the power of attention also understands that communication carries consequences beyond the immediate political moment, because the narratives repeatedly placed into the public sphere contribute to the psychological and social environment through which citizens understand their circumstances, relate to one another and imagine what their society can become.

To shape public attention is therefore also to participate in shaping the future.

The Future as a Dimension of Political Becoming

Strategic foresight begins with a simple premise. It asks political leadership to think beyond the conditions of the present and engage meaningfully with the possibilities that lie ahead, keeping the future within the strategic horizon of political decision-making.

Political life is entering a period in which social media platforms,artificial intelligence, technological transformation, demographic transitions, ecological pressures and new information ecosystems are altering the relationship between citizens, institutions and the wider societal fabric. These shifts are also transforming public engagement and the ways societies understand their collective trajectory, creating new strategic questions about how political leadership prepares for the futures emerging from the present.

The strategist therefore has to examine emerging trends, anticipate potential disruptions, assess institutional vulnerabilities and determine the capabilities that future societies will require to navigate an increasingly complex world.

This is where futuristic vision becomes strategically significant.

A futuristic vision is a disciplined capacity to connect present choices with future possibilities and to develop the institutional, intellectual and human capabilities required to navigate those possibilities.

Political becoming therefore includes the capacity to imagine multiple futures and consciously develop the capabilities required to shape the most constructive possibilities among them.

The future consequently becomes a dimension of political strategy itself.

A political organisation that develops this capacity begins to think in multiple horizons, connecting immediate action with institutional development, social transformation and intergenerational consequences.

Ten Questions for Any Political Organisation

Any political organisation seeking to develop a longer strategic horizon could begin with ten questions:

1. What is the larger political purpose that guides the organisation beyond the immediate political cycle?

2. What kind of society is the organisation seeking to contribute to through its political work?

3. What consequences could today’s political choices create five, ten or twenty years from now?

4. Which institutions and capabilities require long-term investment today?

5. What kind of relationship with citizens is the organisation seeking to cultivate over time?

6. Which political, social and diplomatic relationships require continuity, trust and sustained attention over time?

7. Which technological, demographic and social developments have the potential to reshape the political landscape and redefine the conditions of the future?

8. What capabilities will the organisation require to remain strategically relevant in that future?

9. What kind of political culture and public consciousness are its methods gradually creating?

10. What will remain of today’s political work when the present political cycle has ended?

These questions introduce a longer temporal horizon into political decision-making and create a bridge between political strategy, strategic foresight, public consciousness and statecraft.

From Political Strategy to Collective Well-Being

Political becoming ultimately concerns the relationship between power, time and consequence.

Kautilya brings strategic calculation and political intelligence into the study of power while placing the welfare of the people within the larger conception of successful rule. Ashoka offers a historical example of political authority acquiring a deeper relationship with Dhamma, welfare and social responsibility. Gandhi brings the means of political action into the architecture of the political end. Professor Amit Kumar Sharma’s engagement with Hind Swaraj opens a sociological and civilisational inquiry into political transformation, culture and evolution of collective consciousness. Martin Luther King Jr. illuminates the relationship between moral agency and organised political action, while Nelson Mandela demonstrates the significance of sustaining a vision of the future through periods of profound political transformation.

These experiences emerge from different historical circumstances and intellectual traditions, yet they allow us to examine a common question:

What does political leadership ultimately seek to create?

For me, the answer has to extend towards the quality of collective life that political decisions make possible.

The larger measure of political strategy lies in the conditions it creates for human beings to live, participate, develop and flourish within society, with institutional strength, social trust, economic opportunity, human dignity, cultural confidence, psychological resilience and meaningful participation forming interconnected dimensions of collective wellbeing.

This is where collective well-being becomes the larger purpose of political becoming.

The future becomes more than a horizon towards which an organisation projects its ambitions; it becomes a responsibility towards the people who will inhabit the consequences of decisions made in the present.

This is where socially engaged Buddhism offers a meaningful intellectual contribution, particularly through its sustained engagement with suffering, interdependence, compassion, ethical conduct and human flourishing, and through its invitation to consider how these principles can acquire relevance within the collective conditions of society.

The question of political strategy therefore acquires a larger dimension:

What kind of collective life are we enabling through the decisions we make today?

This shifts political strategy towards the cultivation of conditions for collective well-being across generations.

A political organisation that thinks beyond its immediate political cycle begins to consider the institutions it leaves behind, the capabilities it develops, the relationships it strengthens, the public consciousness it cultivates and the possibilities it creates for those who come after it.

That, ultimately, is where political strategy begins to become statecraft.

Political strategy concerns the direction of power.

Statecraft concerns the consequences of that power across time.

Political becoming concerns the society that emerges through those consequences.

And the highest purpose of all three, in my view, should be the creation of conditions in which collective well-being can endure into the future.

The most consequential political vision may therefore belong to the leadership capable of holding the urgency of the present and the responsibility of the future within the same field of thought, using power with sufficient foresight to create institutions, relationships, capabilities and forms of public consciousness whose deepest value may emerge across generations.

The future of political strategy ultimately lies in the quality of collective life it makes possible.

Primary Sources and Intellectual Foundations

Kauṭilya — Arthaśāstra, Book I, Chapter 19

Ashoka — Rock Edict XIII

Mahatma Gandhi — Hind Swaraj

Professor Amit Kumar Sharma — Hind Swaraj Ki Prasangikta, Kautilya Prakashan, 2005; third expanded and enlarged edition, Hindi Kamal Prakashan, 2018

Martin Luther King Jr. — Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963

Nelson Mandela — Rivonia Trial Statement, 1964

Quotations from translated historical texts may vary across editions and translations.

Srishti Sharma

Buddhologist