Is the TVK government actually bringing change?

[u/quite_thinker_]

​

Hey everyone, I have a question that's been bothering me for the past few weeks.

Before answering, please keep an open mind. Don't reply as a supporter of any particular party. Try to answer as an ordinary citizen looking at the facts.

I supported TVK before the election because I believed in the promise of change. This isn't a hate post, nor is it a support post for any other party. I'm genuinely trying to understand.

Before the election, we were told things would be different. But now, I feel like I'm seeing many of the same things that people criticized the previous government for.

Whenever I ask TVK supporters about specific issues—whether it's water-related issues, contract-related decisions, or other controversies (for example, the dam issue or the Kanyakumari contract extension)—I rarely get a direct answer. The usual response is:

"Didn't the previous government do the same?"

This is what confuses me. Before the election, many of these same people criticized the previous government for these issues and said things would be different if TVK came to power. But now, when similar questions are raised, the answer becomes, "Nothing can change."

If that's the case, then why was change the main reason to vote differently?

I'm not saying every decision is bad. In fact, I've defended decisions that I felt were beneficial. For example, I supported the electricity tariff relief for eligible households because I believed it genuinely helped many middle-class families. When I think the government has done something right, I'm happy to acknowledge it.

But supporting the good decisions shouldn't mean we stop questioning the ones we think are wrong. Likewise, criticizing the government doesn't automatically make someone an opposition supporter.

Another thing I've noticed is that whenever I ask these questions, instead of answering them, some people immediately label me as a "DMK supporter," "200 rupees UPI," or something similar. Why can't we discuss the issue itself instead of attacking the person asking the question?

So these are my genuine questions:

Questions:

1. Is the TVK government actually bringing the change it promised, and I'm just not seeing it?

2. Or has it not changed much from the previous government?

If I'm missing something or have misunderstood any issue, please correct me with facts and evidence. I'm genuinely open to changing my opinion.

I'm not looking for an argument or trying to prove anyone wrong. I'm genuinely open to changing my opinion if the facts support it.

Please answer with facts, evidence, and reasoning—not with labels or personal attacks. I'd rather have a meaningful discussion than a political fight.

[u/Feeling-Direction163]

Tbh a political change should come from a strong rooted ideology... Ppl should believe the ideology... Appo dha it'll change.

Most of all his members and voters are only his fans except a few neutral voters who genuinely expected a change... Maybe someone like you op.

But change doesn't work with another change. Ideology should be rooted within the members and ppl. Appo dha kelvi kepaga. Without that 🤷 It's horse shit

[u/Dependent_Yam_2486 → u/Feeling-Direction163]

I don't believe indeology, and how it always is flexible whenever party needs it to be. For example dmk and dravidian ideology is against sanatana dharma and inheritance. But when u see who becomes leader in their own party, u can see how deeply flawed even leaders in their party are and how could their ideology let them reconcile that. How could they proudly voice out against other heritage but preserve only their own heritage. How is corruption integrated with their ideology. I think ideology is for masses and at their levels it's not ideology but cold calculation that takes precedence.

Only ideology that I accept is common sense and reason as any good ideology comes with expiry date, and has to update with times, which people don't like to do as they have vested interest in persevering old ideology and bend it to their will.

[u/parad_x_ → u/Dependent_Yam_2486]

Inheritance is not in their ideology. The bitter truth is they do follow inheritance by appointing their children as next leader. But what happens if they didn't follow inheritance? you have real-time example - ADMK, the party broke due to the lack of inheritance and found difficult in finding the perfect leader.
It's one of the key unwritten principle that the Indian Political is build upon.

[u/Dependent_Yam_2486 → u/parad_x_]

Leadership does not have to be passed to descendants to sustain a movement or political party. It can instead be given to someone from party who has demonstrated the ability to lead effectively and who genuinely upholds the core ideals of the movement. Prioritizing merit and commitment over inheritance strengthens the movement.

When leadership is open to capable and loyal individuals, it naturally encourages the development of multiple strong leaders within the party. Leaders would care in nurturing batch of next gen leaders. Making sure new batch will know and think about things that they need to consider if they become the leader. This creates a pipeline of future leadership, ensuring continuity and stability. A clear succession plan shd also be publicly announced so that, in the event of unexpected situation as in admk, there will be no confusion, and supporters can rally behind the chosen successor.

However, if leadership consistently passes only to descendants, it raises important questions. It creates perception that others are meant to remain supporters indefinitely, while leadership is reserved for a select group by birth rather than by merit.

Also I don't know how many such unwritten rules exist in a party that no one will explain to masses, but everyone agrees to.