My perspective is that civic activism and civic politics has its own important role in shaping the democratic discourse as well in countering the excess of state and non state actors. Once civic activists get in to elections or electoral political arena as individual claimants, they lose election as well as the credible space within the larger civic political discourse. Civic social activism and electoral politics are as different as chalk and cheese , in its content, modes of action and responses.
These two arenas of politics are driven by entirely different logic of power and two different modes of politics responses. However, both these modes of politics are important for democracy. The civic politics or citizen politics is to assert the role of the agency of the citizen to challenge and change oppression, human rights violation and all excess of power in whatever mode. Their primary purpose is not to capture the state power through elections. The very purpose of electoral politics is to fight and win election. Fighting and winning elections are largely to capture the state power and use the power of the state to change society. Political parties are organised and designed as networks or cadre organisations primary to contest and win election to run the government and use that power for policy change. It works within the logic of the state power. On the other hand, civic politics operate outside the state power- and it is often a countervailing power to constrain the excess of the state or to push or influence the state to act in the larger common interest. Theses are different logic of dealing with power and to different approach to the power of the state. Both these modes of politics are important for sustenance of democracy and democratic governance, though they work in entirely different way.
These two arenas of politics are driven by entirely different logic of power and two different modes of politics responses. However, both these modes of politics are important for democracy. The civic politics or citizen politics is to assert the role of the agency of the citizen to challenge and change oppression, human rights violation and all excess of power in whatever mode. Their primary purpose is not to capture the state power through elections. The very purpose of electoral politics is to fight and win election. Fighting and winning elections are largely to capture the state power and use the power of the state to change society. Political parties are organised and designed as networks or cadre organisations primary to contest and win election to run the government and use that power for policy change. It works within the logic of the state power. On the other hand, civic politics operate outside the state power- and it is often a countervailing power to constrain the excess of the state or to push or influence the state to act in the larger common interest. Theses are different logic of dealing with power and to different approach to the power of the state. Both these modes of politics are important for sustenance of democracy and democratic governance, though they work in entirely different way.
Milk is good as milk. Lime juice is good as lime juice. But when you mix both It actually spoils both. These are two parallel streams. You simply cant ride two boats. Civic activism or intervention as a citizen is driven by a different sense of mission by an individual notion of 'agency', electoral politics/party politics is driven by loyalty to a collective enterprise and collective imagination. In terms of civic activism , courage of individual conviction is very important. In a collective enterprise the negotiation of ideals, interests and identity are important. In a collective enterprise, the puritans with high doze of individual conviction can't survive for long. And in the Indian context elections are fought on collective enterprise designed and geared to fight and win election. Individual activists simply are not tuned to this and can't manage to fight election alone, unless they transform a network in to a collective enterprise like AAP experiment.
Of course, there are many examples of civic activists joining the mainstream political parties and also contesting and winning election. Then it is a choice that need to be made as there are pros and cons for both. When an activist join an established political party to contest election, then he/she may not be able to be the torch bearer of one cause. And often they may have to put their civic activism on back burner and compromise on number of issues as most of the political parties operate on a common minimum consensus and often very pragmatic /opportunistic( often at the cost of ideals and even ideology) in winning election at any cost. Because if a political party can't win elections, they become redundant. That is not the case with civic politics or civic activism as their primary aim is not to win election.
Activism is often an individual choice and often individualized political response. It is often about the power of ONE. Political party and elections are collective enterprise. Gandhi in south Africa was more of an activist and India he transformed in to man of collective political enterprise of the Indian National Congress. In any collective enterprise, the individual-self can only surviving by negotiating space with others, by tolerating the difference, suffering a lots of people who disagree with you and through competing spaces for political battles.In conventional electoral politics and political party, the patience and persistent work is key for success. If one lose an election, a member or leader of a political party will have to wait five years to win an election. It is also a high-risk high return political arena. Political leaders actually face the challenges of staying power as electoral politics is often a marathon. Sometime a person has to work twenty years to get elected or get in to an influencing position, unless you have godfather or father to sponsor you and push you to win electoral politics.
On the contrary, individual activist make individual choice to fight for a cause, dedicate their life for something that they believe in and their ability to tolerate difference and negotiation space within a larger collective is very less. Some of the individualized activists also suffer from an almost narcissistic savior syndrome. They are too much convinced about themselves to negotiate or compromise with larger political pattern. Many of them swim against the tide. They are often mission driven in life. When they become very successful in transforming mindset or political discourse, the establishments take over them after their death as Icons or Mahatma. Because they are ready to live and die for a cause. Though when they are alive the establishment either try to finish them off or co-opt and once they die, they get transformed in to icons and saints.
Gandhi is one of the few that straddled both world of activism and collective politics. But here too it is important to note that he kept away from the state power. He began as a civic social activist in South Africa. That was his DNA of politics. However, he could easily also get in to mass politics of the Indian National Congress. But in the end he became an activist symbolizing the power of ONE- standing up alone, when all his Congress followers took over the Indian State. Gandhi was killed for again being an activist as the political collective took over the state power. And then the Indian state took over Gandhi and made him an icon of the Indian State. Dead Gandhi is alive in the Indian currencies.
No comments:
Post a Comment