Civil society groups have often cited the above trends as a reason for right candidates with the right agenda to fight elections.
“Elections are a key area where an activist can take a stand. Winning or losing should not be the criterion to access the impact of their participation in the recent elections.In fact, in the long run, such participation can lead to serious questions over the use of money power in elections and could prove to be a catalyst for electoral reform,” activist Medha Patkar said.
Currently, there is no data available to gauge how many such candidates or groups would join elections. But in the 2014 elections India witnessed maximum number of environmental activists contesting elections. Courtesy, AAP that fielded more than 400 candidates. Out of them, close to 110 were activists working on environmental issues.
While most of them couldn’t win, they made local issues the top priority in even parliamentary elections.
More importantly, these experiments never suffered from the disjoint between governance and politics. They demand political changes that ensure people’s rights over land, forest and water, among other things. They proactively facilitate electoral events like campaigning to push their agenda among politicians. Their electoral success is negligible but they still are the prologue of AAP experiment.
In the 21st century some leaders of voluntary organisations joined mainstream political parties, contested elections and sometimes won, like Madhusudan Mistry who won the parliamentary elections from Gujarat as a Congress party candidate.
alliance was set up in 1992 to offer solidarity to various communities fighting violation of their rights. NAPM terms itself a non-party political movement.
In 2004, it created the People’s Political Front, a separate but related wing that can contest elections. By doing this, NAPM retained its non-party image. The Front promises an alternative to the Delhi-centric political parties.
.
Viewed from this perspective, social activists contesting the recent general elections is a significant development. It is being said that this may expose civil society activists to the wrath of the government.
There are reasons to treat this observation with caution. First, ideological leanings and political persuasions of civil society activists, even when they are not openly and clearly articulated, are known to political players, irrespective of whether they contest elections.
Astute politicians accept the so-called non-partisanship of social activists as long as it suits them. This game of hide and seek is likely to continue.
Second, politicians have been challenging civil society to prove their mass base and legitimacy through elections. They now seem to be gleeful to have “called their bluff”.
The dismal electoral performance of the activists can provide the politicians adequate justification for ignoring their demands and agitations in the future.
In fact, the defeat of the activists can be seen as a weakening of the bargaining position of social movements.
civil actions is likely to get restricted in the coming period,” says Rajesh Tandon of PRIA.
