In sum, politicians may experienced both external and internal barries to free speech potencially affecting whether they engage in controversial issues in the public sphere and how they adjust to challenge the real perceived party culture.
Good leader don’t leave people behind. They don’t change forward without others. They mobelize others and continually inspire them to strive towards the destination. Good leader don’t wait around for other to guide them. They take the initiative and demonstrate the courage and fortunate to make things happen. They are focused on the common good. It is possible to lead people astray and to have bad intension. Hitler, for example, was effective in leading people to a place they thought they wanted to go. His misrepresentation and propaganda mistakes his nefarious plot. People were deceived by contract the genuinely common good is the focus of good leaders. The role of young politiciansand their experience while acting in public it plays a vital role in 21st century’s political scenario of our country. It is a position of power and influence; and it may as is the case for many previous leaders of political organisations in our country results in a life long political career. However, the visibility of political leadership also involves the denger of negative experiences.
Politically active youth are the key to the development of democracy. The history and influential position of the Indian political organisations suggest that political youth organisation and the particular interest in this context. Most leaders of the youth organisation represent with voteing rights in the parents party’s executive committee and they are active participate in party meetings. Even though conflict occasionally occurs the youth organisation are often the more ideologically anchored, and have historically tended to propose more radical political solutions of social problems to their parents parties.
Some individuals then others depending on their actual or alleged group membership, as well as on the topics they choose to engage in additionally, certain point of view are more contested than others individual who choose to take on deviant positions in the public sphere, by challenging mainstream options on controversial issues may experience social sections resulting in their voices, being silenced, withdrawal from the public sphere or the development of echo chambers. Brought together these barriers to public participation constitute social boundaries of free speech, how social boundaries of free speech play out in the political field is of great interest. In a democratic perspective political decision making should be based on the dissemination of competing perspectives on a given issue which subsequently should be followed by processes of deliberation. The political field may be defined as a semi-autonomus social field organise around a binary logic in which the heterodox and orthodox, the transformists and the conservation, represent the main opposition poles. These poles exists both between parties and within each organisation and the dynamics between them is crucial for political debates and decision making.
The external barriers to politicians’ free speech are linked to the dynamics of the public sphere. Although politicians act and argue in their role as politician, they are also individual carrying makes of difference can be, for example, skin colour, ethnic or religious background, gender, disability or sexual orientation. These makers are not objective fact with a given’effect’ on individual identity or life chance, but become meaningful through individual self-indentification to group caste-gories and by the categorisation made by others through symbolic and social boundary work. Regardless of the role individuals, making some more vulnerable then others. Analysing, how makers of difference may result in the extreme exposure of some politicians while others can contreate exclusively on their role as politicians.
The internal barries to free speech are located within the party organisation while political parties are organising operating in accordance with formal structures, they are also charecterized by different party cultures and traditions of individually linked to political ideology. Party culture determines the actual freedom of group members, the expectations about how they are to act able to obtain social status. Wheather a party culture is open or closed to dissent and dissemination of deviation points of view may be decisive to politician’s ability or willingness to speak their mind. Ofcourse, challenging the ideological or topical foundation of a political party may be considered taboo in the most parties.
However, what these taboo areas consists of differs accross the political spectrum, and so also might be the real or perceived sanctions experienced by those crossing the line. The boundaries of free speech also stem from the internal life of party organisation. Political parties are charecterized by informal culture with varying traditions for dissent and open conflicts.
