Can there be politics beyond elections?

Congress politician Jairam Ramesh tried hard to present the Bharat Jodo Yatra (BJY) as an ‘apolitical’ act. Introducing the new Congress move Hath Se Hath Jodo to mobilise voters, Ramesh made a categorical remark that unlike BJY, this new initiative was entirely ‘political’. This is not the first time Congress has made a distinction between moral claim and political acts. During the Delhi assembly election of 2015, the party published a poster captioned ‘Rajniti nahi, kajniti’. Congress is not the only political party that adheres to this binary of politics and morality. BJP is equally apprehensive about pure politics. Party brass often criticise the opposition for indulging in what they call vote-bank politics in order to make a claim for virtuous nationalistic resolve. It is true politics is usually understood as a harmful, interest-oriented and selfish activity. But the unease of our political class with politics underlines a serious crisis of legitimacy. After all, politicians are supposed to wholeheartedly indulge in politics as their core professional duty. The distinction between moral claims and political acts, in this sense, is problematic. Does it mean that politics is completely devoid of ethics? Centrality of elections This negative perception of politics is relatively recent. The Gandhi-led national movement introduced a deeply spiritual idea of politics. Gandhi himself defined politics as a kind of moral duty of a satyagrahi. This idealistic imagination of politics is reflected in the constituent assembly debates. That may be the reason why the Preamble of the Constitution envisages politics as a legitimate mechanism to achieve egalitarian social values such as justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Introduction of competitive electoral politics in the 1950s was the first major structural change that affected the established meanings of politics in two significant ways. Although parties continued to celebrate politics as a moral ideological enterprise, winnability in elections emerged as a practical requirement for political survival. Parties began to use ideology to justify practical manoeuvring and war of positions. medium nocaption98254039 Emergency regime of Indira Gandhi (1975-77) is a good example. Emergency was defended as a moral success to achieve nation-building and progress; while the opposition was criticised, even refuted, for being involved in anti-national politics. The centrality of elections also reconfigured the ‘end and means’ debate in politics. Gandhi’s famous statement that purity of means is always needed to achieve desired end did not work in the domain of election. From ticket distribution basis caste/religion to booth capturing, elections eventually became the most visible expression of power politics. Constitution as a morality The 1990s was a watershed moment in this regard. Globalisation of Indian economy directly impacted popular representation of politics. The end of Cold War and the dismantling of the USSR created an environment in which political ideology became relatively less significant. At the same time, a political consensus in favour of market economy began to take shape. In this volatile context, the election-centric meaning of politics was interestingly redefined. The political class started to recognise the Constitution as the ultimate source of morality. The Constitution was appreciated as an end in itself while politics was seen as a necessary yet imperfect mode to run the system. The Constitution became an ideological document, a ‘holy book’, to legitimise the moral existence of the political class. This moral adherence to the Constitution is however not seen as inspiration for new standards in public life or to regain ethical values in election-centric politics. Political parties, it seems, want us to believe that politics and the Constitution are two different entities: Constitution is ideal, while politics is real. AAP, for instance, came into existence with a commitment to establish a new ‘corruption free’ political culture. Its founders wrote a thoughtful party constitution to protect a few moral claims and principles. However, the success of the party in subsequent elections forced AAP establishment to give priority to political compulsions and requirements. At present, AAP does not defend itself as an idealist party; instead, it is very much interested in behaving like a political realist. This wider acceptance of politics as an unprincipled, dubious, interest-oriented activity creates an impression that there is no space for a morally committed political endeavour. This is not true. People’s movements in contemporary India represent a very different kind of politics. These movements raise the issues of caste, class, gender and communalism to make a case for a politics of justice, inclusiveness and equality. This version of politics draws its inspirations from the Constitution itself. It reminds us that politics is not merely about electoral competitiveness; it is a realm of possibilities, an art to think of the unthinkable and a conviction to achieve what seems to be unachievable. The writer is Associate Professor, Centre for the Study of Developing SocietiesIllustration by Chad Crowe