POLITICIAN & ACTIVIST
By Anirban Roy, Advocate
A well known actress from Mumbai also known for her good work on social causes posed this question to me “What is the difference between a Politician and an Activist?”. Apparently she wanted to contest the Corporation Elections and was denied a ticket by a political party who asked her to make up her mind as to whether she desired to be a “Politician” or an “Activist”. She was baffled as she was of the view that there is no difference between the two terms.
A difficult question. But lets first try and understand this strange animal called “Politician”.
“Politician” – One of the most maligned words across the world and certainly in India as of date. These guys are treated with contempt as if they come from a different planet. Even a kid in India will tell you that all “Politicians” are “selfish”, “corrupt” and just “bad”.
Now, a very basic question. Who is a “Politician”?. I am not a political science student and my common sense answer to that would be that a “Politician” is one who is engaged in public affairs and governance. So “Politician” is not a bad word per se in my dictionary.
From the perspective of governance of a country and handling of its public affairs, we require different types and shades of “Politicians”.
Firstly, since all of us cannot take part in governance, we necessarily need “representatives” who can speak on our behalf at the forums i.e. Corporations, Assemblies & Parliament. Although suggested today by certain celebrities with abstract thoughts, we can neither do away with these forums nor with these representatives.
Secondly, when we are talking of a country as big as India, we obviously cannot have a bunch of individual “representatives” running the country. Now come on, members of a housing society cannot unanimously agree on any issue and we are talking about India. So we require organized groups with firmed up views on various issues (irrespective of the individual views of individual members) so that there is greater control. The slang term for such an organized group is “political parties”.
Thirdly, to hold together “political parties” and make them grow we require “strategists”. Something akin to what Kautilya did for Chandragupta.
Fourthly, we require “leaders” who can hold together people and shape up public opinions and give directions to them.
Fifthly, we require “statesmen” who can think at a macro level and develop a vision for the entire nation. We may or may not agree with their visions but we do require such visionaries. Gandhiji and Netaji were certainly “Politicians” even if we hesitate to term them as such.
All the above five, if not more, are the different shades of “Politicians”. A “representative” is not necessarily a “leader” who is not necessarily a “strategist” and who is not necessarily a “statesman”. But all shades of “Politicians” are necessary for governance and conduct of public affairs of a country.
Lets now see a few aspects peculiar to “Politicians”.
Whether one accepts or not, a “Politician” of any category has to carry a load along with him. People, his partymen and in the modern Indian context, “Coalition Partners”. And therefore he has to balance. Quite like a husband who balances between his wife and his mother. There are so many things which he does which his wife knows but his mother does not or his mother knows but his wife does not or both do not know. All for the welfare of the family. Manipulation begins at home !!! Just imagine what kind of balancing one has to do when the numbers grow manifold for a “Politician”. All for the welfare of the society. So by compulsion a “Politician” becomes a manipulator.
To govern the country a “political party” needs to be in control and for that it has to continuously aspire to come to power and for that it has to make itself known to the people. This cannot be achieved by merely holding close door meetings. A “political party” needs to make noise. We can afford to toss the coin on the carpet but a “political party” needs to toss the coin on the floor. Same applies to an individual “Politician”.
To get power, mere good intentions and good work would not be sufficient for any “political party”. It needs to strategise and make deals to move forward and all of which cannot be made public. So a “political party” at times needs to act differently from what it can talk about openly and from what its actual views are. So compromises and double speak emerge. Same applies to an individual “Politicians”.
We certainly cannot expect “Politicians” to pump in funds for their activities from their homes. They have to necessarily accept monies from people who are overflowing with it. And can we expect these donors not to impose their terms? “Politicians” and “political parties” need to return favours.
The above are not exhaustive of the essential features of a “Politician” but merely illustrative. However they give us an indication that “Politics” is not an easy game. However, per se, these features are not negative.
How then do we get “bad” and “corrupt” “Politicians”? When a “Politician” fails to use his discretion and overdoes the above and does so not for the ultimate benefit of the society but for his own self enrichment, he becomes “bad” and “corrupt”. Further when he ultimately gets power and he abuses that power for his own self enrichment, he becomes “bad” and “corrupt”.
Unfortunately for us we seem to be having too many of these “bad” and “corrupt” “Politicians”. The solution lies not in wishing these “Politicians” away and not in alienating them from society. And certainly not by staying away from “Politics”. We cannot afford a disenchantment from public life or else the world for our children would be worse than what we have.
The other problem that we face is that we do not have dearth of “representatives”, “strategists” and “political parties”. What we do not have are “leaders” and “statesmen”. By their essential nature, “leaders” and “statesmen” can never be “bad” and “corrupt”. We need to fill this gap of “leaders” and “statesmen” and for this, good people should come forward.
Now coming back to the question we started with. “Politician” V/s “Activist”.
An “Activist” is a person who passionately works for a cause. Be it for the destitute women or mal-nutritious children or trees or stray dogs whatever or just helping people with their problems. An “Activist” needs commitment, sincerity, competence, capacity etc at a personal level and financial backing wherever needed. The focus is on one issue that is taken up and rigorously followed. An “Activist” does not face the multi-faceted challenges that a “Politician” faces although he / she may have others. An “Activist” does not need to be manipulative, or make noise or compromise or return favours. The “Activist” can chart his / her own course and does not need to conform to views, decisions, plans and policies of the “political party” to which he / she belongs. An “Activist” is free and carefree.
If an “Activist” desires to enter public life and take part in governance he / she certainly can certainly become a “Politician” as well and there certainly can be no bar. But if an “Activist” desires to work under the banner of a “political party”, he / she has to give up a chunk of the freedom. The alternative to that would be “Ekla Chalo Re” as suggested by Rabindranath Tagore to Gandhiji. Be an Independent and chart your own course and set new rules.
Anirban Roy
February 04, 2012
Email : anirban@royslawfirm.com
Twitter : @Anirban From RLF
Facebook : Anirban FromRlf