Irom Sharmila’s
recent loss in the Manipur Assembly elections has sparked off a debate. Many
commentators, largely on social media, were shocked to learn that Irom Sharmila
only managed to get 90 votes. These commentators contrasted Irom Sharmila’s bad
show at the elections with her 16 years of struggle against the draconian Armed
Forces (Special Powers) Act, or AFSPA. Many felt that Irom Sharmila’s long and
arduous activism should have resulted in her sailing through; or at least
ensured a close fight against her opponent.
Like in Manipur,
Goa also witnessed a few activists jumping into the electoral arena. Some
contested as independent candidates, while others contested on the tickets
offered by political parties. In most of these cases these activists performed
very poorly. The focus of this article is the activist of a particular kind who
contests elections after trying to reform the system from the outside. This
activist is deeply connected with localized, environment-related, socially
conscious movements and generally hails from the marginalized sections. As such
an activist does his/her activism at a huge personal sacrifice. Their activism,
by default, makes them anti-establishment.
I would like to
briefly discuss the activism of Ravindra Velip, who unsuccessfully contested in
Sanguem. The rampant destruction caused by the mining companies in cahoots with
the Goa government forced Velip to oppose this destruction of his native
village of Caurem. Leading several agitations, Velip and his fellow-activists
were arrested in March 2016. Here he suffered a murderous assault. Velip and his fellow villagers in Caurem – a
village largely populated by STs – were not necessarily opposed to mining per se but refused to put up with the
illegalities of the mining companies and the government. They rather argued
that the locals had a claim to the resources of the village, wherein most of
the benefits will go to the people of the area rather than giant corporations.
Contesting in the constituency of Sanguem, which contains many mines, Velip
brought his experiences as an anti-mining activist to his campaign. Indeed, he
used his experiences to articulate a politics of change. But the end result was
dismal – Velip only received 658 votes.
If one follows
Velip’s interventions in the public sphere, it will be clear that his politics
is neither lacking in activism nor in idealism. So why did such activism and
idealism not translate into a thumping victory? To this, we can suggest that
there is a gap between idealism and how people vote. On the other side of the
issue, there is also a gap between ideals and how power is brokered once
representatives are elected. Recent events leading to the formation of the
Manohar Parrikar-led government have shown that electoral verdicts can be turned
upside down in a matter of few hours. What happens and what is said behind
closed doors is not known to the general public. Removed from the public eye,
these negotiations operate in an economy that subverts any politics of
idealism.
Away from the
corridors of power, it is believed that ‘the people’ form the keystone of the electoral
process. If the poor performance of activists in this election is any
indication, then it appears that other factors come into play that make people
vote for the status quo. One can observe that votes are cast on the basis of
the ‘cult of the personality’. This person generally emerges as a leader by
making it big in business and/or facilitating the bureaucratic and legal
difficulties of the people of his area. He/she is an activist of another type
(in common parlance, a ‘social worker’), the quintessential person who gets
your work done. This person due to being rich, or of dominant caste, or due to
an extensive personal network that he creates habitually reaches out to people
in times of need, even if he is conveniently not addressing the structural set
up that has caused the problems for the people in the first place. Often this ‘cult of the personality’ neatly fits into the
aspiration of various caste groups; sometimes people simply vote because the
candidate belongs to their own caste.
What also takes
precedence as well over idealism is the access to basic amenities in towns and
villages.Voting is done on the basis of how effectively a candidate can deliver
development, which in common parlance means water, electricity, roads, or at
least claims to effectively deliver this development once elected. (Such a
development is not the same as the other type of development which the government promotes through mega-projects).
These issues, closest to the lived reality of the people, resonate more
effectively than idealism that claims to overhaul the entire system.And,
painful as it is, we have to accept that money and other such favors are also
exchanged that do affect the outcomes of elections.
To be fair, many
activists have actively worked against the exchange of money during elections,
and to bring about transparency in the corridors of power, but the fact that it
makes very little impact on elections, or on persons in the higher echelons of
power suggests that issues of basic amenities, and local or caste-based loyalties
take precedence over the current form of idealism.The activist and his/her
idealism cannot tackle such well-entrenched power structures as easily as one
might think.These ideals seem to not work if pitted against the ‘cult of the
personality’ and the exchange of money for votes. Even the anti-incumbency wave
doesn’t seem to have much of an impact.
Considering such
realities that affect whom people choose to vote in elections,activists need to
think more deeply how idealism needs to be compatible with the complex
decisions that people make whilst voting. It will be quite tragic if politics
in Goa does not get enriched by the huge sacrifices made by activists from
marginalized communities, and if principles of liberty, equality, and justice
are not deepened in Goan politics. Or else, we will only witness more power
struggles detrimental to public interests.
(Illustrations by Angela Ferrao. First published in O Heraldo, dt: 29 March, 2017)
No comments:
Post a Comment