Backpage

IT does appear that, at least for the proximate future, we are unlikely to be troubled by the somewhat hysterical mobilization accompanying the anti-corruption agitations launched by the Anna Hazare team and Baba Ramdev. While there is little doubt that the ‘movement’ has lost steam – both the declining numbers of those in attendance and reduced media coverage are reasonable indication – this should not be read as a sign that the ‘issue’ has lost salience or that the anger against corruption and the devious machinations of the political class has subsided. What is far more likely is that the organizers and leading activists behind these agitations have belatedly realized the limitations of their variety of pressure politics in forcing the establishment into agreeing to their demands. Possibly this is why, despite their vociferous denunciation of the political class (and politics), some of them are now toying with the idea of forming a new political party and contesting elections.

The seeming volte-face has left many confused. Barring the political parties, many of whom have welcomed the move, possibly cynically, since they feel that the decision to join the ‘murky’ world of real-politik will divest the movement organizers of their moral sheen, most supporters appear unenthusiastic, sensing a betrayal of professed ideals. Most believe that under our current ‘rules of the game’, success in the electoral arena can only be ensured by engaging in and mastering the very practices that they currently decry – reliance on big money, appeal to emotive and divisive issues, cultivation of a sectional base, and so on. And there is some merit to the argument. While it is true that use of money and muscle power, or emotive, sectional and divisive appeal is no guarantee of electoral success, it is equally difficult to deny that mere appeal to reason or ethical conduct, even a history of sacrifice and service, rarely generates the needed returns.

This, after all, is not the first time that non-party political activists have chosen to plunge into electoral politics, this despite the high rate of failure associated with such transitions. Whatever the received wisdom of the national movement, or the trade union, peasant and social struggles of the 1950s and ’60s, even the anti-Emergency struggles, which saw many movement leaders becoming successful politicians, the experience of the past few decades have been disappointing. Barring regional movements (the student led anti-foreigner agitation in Assam; for statehood in Jharkahand and Uttarakhand) which transformed into political parties and even managed to assume power (though to what end is debatable), most movement activists have failed as politicians. Such at least has been the experience of those associated with the stirring struggles against big dams, resisting eviction and destructive development, organizing informal sector workers, and so on.

This experience appears to hold, not just in the bigger and more complex arena of elections to the state legislatures and Parliament but even at the level of the panchayat/municipality. Most social activists who win local body elections do so as members of political parties, rarely as independents, whatever the quality of their earlier engagement and social contribution. This is not to paint a dismal picture of parties and politicians – a sufficient number of politicians, across parties, can claim an equally impressive legacy. Nevertheless, sustained electoral political success does seem to demand some additional qualities, including inculcating a ‘practical realism’ that movement activists with their ‘constrained sense of the permissible’ find difficult to reconcile with.

What holds true for individuals applies more so for parties. Most movements emerge and evolve around focused, limited concerns, directed mainly against a perceived negative rather than propose a realizable alternative, i.e., as movements of opposition/resistance not reconstruction. Normally they attract sharply defined and limited constituencies, though one could argue that anti-corruption or anti-authoritarian movements often energize a much wider social base. Successful political parties need not just efficient organization, with all that it entails, and a cohering ideology, but also an appreciation of power and an ability to work through and reconcile conflicting claims, all justified to varying degrees. To state sharply, successful politicians and political parties need to be able to appeal to a diverse constituency while simultaneously rising above all. Only then can they manage our diverse and complex polity. Possibly this is why earlier attempts to form a coalition of movements, each working with a specific issue/concern and a defined support base – as a first step towards forming a new party – have floundered.

The path to an alternative politics, be it through forming a new political party or engaging with and seeking to influence the existing parties is not easy. It will be interesting to watch what choice the anti-corruption movement makes.

Harsh Sethi