Political Activism and Electoral Dividends

Political Activism and Electoral Dividends​

Date: 29th Dec. 2019 By: Amit Bhushan

With the current dose of political activism, the opposition may have been able to establish and may be able to communicate (which is much more important) its ‘ground presence’. The smaller parties and Netas (in opposition) may just become ‘fodder stock’ in their attempt to steal the limelight of such action. This is because a ‘common line’ is the stepping stone for a common Neta and it is this Neta’s party which stands to gain relatively more. The government action might have been to soothe ruffled feathers of its so called ‘majoritarian supporters’, however it in turned propelled a debate between secular/liberal vs (what’s perceived to be/described as a) majority. It is this line to which its parent has mostly lost although then subsequently tends to disgorge into a caste based division. This is then ‘used’ by seasoned Netas to carve out an assembly of caste and religion to their own advantage to herald to power, an age old trick known to all except for the ‘so called Chanakyas of the day’. Or it may be that these Chanakyas are too aware of, but just want to stick to political lines rather than really looking to challenge the current political situation. But nevertheless the politics of sort continues and unlikely to change till some initiative by ‘Game’ Netas takes shape. Hopefully one will have to wait for the Bengal elections or may be till the UP elections for the same. This is perhaps because both the ruling party and large opposition parties don’t want to acknowledge/give prominence to economic issues and reaction of newbie and smaller parties need to be watched out for, if they are any different.

The biggest challenge for the Netas is political performance against the expectations that they have set up, about which even the commercial news media chooses to remain ‘electorally neutral’. What’s implied here is that such ‘performance vs expectation comparison’ is almost never done by the media during elections and this task is conveniently left to the so called ‘opposition Netas’. Then discussion of the performance of a party in neighboring state (to one going to elections) is also a strict no-no. The electoral silence of the Netas in opposition in various states during electoral rounds in some other states is almost deafening and the commercial news media may want to maintain it the same way (as it has done in the past). This is even while the perceived voting patterns may have changed (why ‘perceived pattern’ is because some of the media is now trying to explain economics behind voting while some other would stick to old caste and religion based lines. Actual voting may perhaps been always dictated by this ‘new analogy’). So the present opposition may have found a panacea in current situation where-in ‘over the top (i.e. tele and news media)’, it would assemble under a common line, while ‘below the line (electoral canvassing by its Netas)’ speeches would be about local issues (read jobs, pathetic rural/agri returns, schooling/skilling, water/electricity/sanitation woes etc.). The actual cause for change remains economic issues, with electoral political lines merely serving as a group identity for political parties with Maharastra rounds even defying the same and becoming a round of survival and upmanship though its importance in politics cannot be negated.

The response by the ruling party seems to be a big gaffe. While it tends to counter the unity in opposition, however it does little to highlight the failure of performance by the opposition in states which are ruled by them. Of course by avoiding such discussions, it tends to keep pressures away from state leaders under its rule, however with a string of losses there may be a need to wisen up. While it has been desperately trying to counter the ‘unifying line’, it has failed to counter its vote catching below the line campaign. So the attempt by the ruling party is to merely keep the opposition divided rather than to actually challenge them. Even the vice versa about the opposition parties may be true as they too have mainly responded to ‘political line’ of the ruling party, rather than mounting any economic counter offensive by highlighting failures in states in a big way and this may be true even after having won a few states. The fact is highlighted as the much talked about ‘food processing’ related investments that could have an impact on some of the agri/rural sector woes remain almost null, in states ruled by which ever party. And this is despite it is the rural areas which seem to be in active ‘political change’ mode and this remains so even in states current being ruled by the opposition. One can easily gaze this by changed voting patterns in states as well as in immediate aftermath in national elections. This remains a cause of political tumult which keeps throwing surprises for the party/coalition in power and Netas on all sides need to watch for. Let the ‘Game’ evolve…..

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

Okay, here's an article exploring the relationship between political activism and electoral dividends, considering various angles and nuances:

Beyond Protests: How Political Activism Translates (Or Doesn't) into Electoral Success

Political activism, the driving force behind social change, takes many forms: marches, boycotts, online campaigns, grassroots organizing. But does this fervor on the streets and in the digital sphere translate into concrete electoral victories? The relationship between political activism and electoral dividends is far more complex than a simple cause-and-effect. While activism can undoubtedly influence election outcomes, it’s not a guaranteed path to power, and understanding the nuances is crucial for both activists and political strategists.

The Power of Mobilization and Awareness:

At its core, political activism seeks to raise awareness about specific issues and mobilize communities to care and act. Successful activism can dramatically shift public discourse, bringing previously marginalized concerns into mainstream consciousness. Think of the Civil Rights Movement: the powerful marches and sit-ins not only challenged segregation laws but also galvanized a generation to demand equality at the ballot box. Similarly, environmental activism has elevated climate change into a key political issue, forcing candidates to address it directly.

In this way, activism lays the groundwork for electoral success. By highlighting previously ignored problems and galvanizing a base of support, activists can create the conditions where candidates who champion their cause stand a better chance of winning. These movements can also push existing parties to adopt progressive platforms, effectively forcing the hand of established political players.

Bridging the Gap: From the Street to the Ballot Box:

However, translating activism into electoral gains is not automatic. There are several key factors that determine its success:

• Organization and Strategy: Effective activism requires more than just passion; it needs strategic planning, clear goals, and well-structured organizations. The ability to channel activist energy into concrete electoral strategies, such as voter registration drives, candidate support, and get-out-the-vote campaigns, is crucial.
• Broad Appeal vs. Niche Issue: Activism focused on very specific or niche issues might struggle to translate into widespread electoral success. While mobilizing a dedicated base is important, political parties and candidates need to appeal to a broader electorate to win elections. Often, activists must find ways to frame their specific concerns within larger, more relatable narratives.
• Sustained Engagement: A single protest or online campaign is unlikely to lead to tangible electoral change. Sustained engagement, with consistent communication and ongoing efforts, is essential for building a movement that can influence long-term political outcomes.
• Messaging and Framing: How activists frame their message can significantly impact its electability. A message that resonates with a broader audience, speaking to their values and concerns, is more likely to influence voting decisions. Activists must be adept at communicating their demands in a persuasive and accessible manner.
• Counter-Mobilization: Activism often triggers counter-mobilization from opposing groups. This can lead to a backlash, where the very issue that activists are fighting for becomes a source of division and conflict, potentially hindering electoral gains. Activists must anticipate and address this pushback.

The Limits of Activism as a Direct Path to Power:

It's important to acknowledge that activism, in its purest form, is rarely solely focused on electoral victories. It can also be about:

• Changing Hearts and Minds: Activism seeks to shift deeply held beliefs and challenge the status quo, even if it doesn't immediately translate into political wins.
• Building Community and Solidarity: Activism can be a powerful force for building community and fostering solidarity among marginalized groups, which can be essential for long-term social and political change.
• Holding Power Accountable: Even without direct electoral success, activism can pressure those in power to be more transparent, ethical, and responsive to the needs of the people.

A Symbiotic Relationship:

Ultimately, the relationship between political activism and electoral dividends is symbiotic. Activism can create the conditions for electoral success by raising awareness, mobilizing communities, and shifting public discourse. However, activists also need to understand the mechanics of electoral politics and strategically translate their efforts into tangible political gains.

Moving forward, a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of this complex relationship is crucial for anyone hoping to create meaningful social and political change. It requires a delicate balance of passion and pragmatism, where activism fuels electoral energy and strategic planning turns that energy into lasting impact. The streets and the ballot box, when working together, can be a formidable force for positive transformation.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Political Activism and Electoral Dividends​

Date: 29th Dec. 2019 By: Amit Bhushan

With the current dose of political activism, the opposition may have been able to establish and may be able to communicate (which is much more important) its ‘ground presence’. The smaller parties and Netas (in opposition) may just become ‘fodder stock’ in their attempt to steal the limelight of such action. This is because a ‘common line’ is the stepping stone for a common Neta and it is this Neta’s party which stands to gain relatively more. The government action might have been to soothe ruffled feathers of its so called ‘majoritarian supporters’, however it in turned propelled a debate between secular/liberal vs (what’s perceived to be/described as a) majority. It is this line to which its parent has mostly lost although then subsequently tends to disgorge into a caste based division. This is then ‘used’ by seasoned Netas to carve out an assembly of caste and religion to their own advantage to herald to power, an age old trick known to all except for the ‘so called Chanakyas of the day’. Or it may be that these Chanakyas are too aware of, but just want to stick to political lines rather than really looking to challenge the current political situation. But nevertheless the politics of sort continues and unlikely to change till some initiative by ‘Game’ Netas takes shape. Hopefully one will have to wait for the Bengal elections or may be till the UP elections for the same. This is perhaps because both the ruling party and large opposition parties don’t want to acknowledge/give prominence to economic issues and reaction of newbie and smaller parties need to be watched out for, if they are any different.

The biggest challenge for the Netas is political performance against the expectations that they have set up, about which even the commercial news media chooses to remain ‘electorally neutral’. What’s implied here is that such ‘performance vs expectation comparison’ is almost never done by the media during elections and this task is conveniently left to the so called ‘opposition Netas’. Then discussion of the performance of a party in neighboring state (to one going to elections) is also a strict no-no. The electoral silence of the Netas in opposition in various states during electoral rounds in some other states is almost deafening and the commercial news media may want to maintain it the same way (as it has done in the past). This is even while the perceived voting patterns may have changed (why ‘perceived pattern’ is because some of the media is now trying to explain economics behind voting while some other would stick to old caste and religion based lines. Actual voting may perhaps been always dictated by this ‘new analogy’). So the present opposition may have found a panacea in current situation where-in ‘over the top (i.e. tele and news media)’, it would assemble under a common line, while ‘below the line (electoral canvassing by its Netas)’ speeches would be about local issues (read jobs, pathetic rural/agri returns, schooling/skilling, water/electricity/sanitation woes etc.). The actual cause for change remains economic issues, with electoral political lines merely serving as a group identity for political parties with Maharastra rounds even defying the same and becoming a round of survival and upmanship though its importance in politics cannot be negated.

The response by the ruling party seems to be a big gaffe. While it tends to counter the unity in opposition, however it does little to highlight the failure of performance by the opposition in states which are ruled by them. Of course by avoiding such discussions, it tends to keep pressures away from state leaders under its rule, however with a string of losses there may be a need to wisen up. While it has been desperately trying to counter the ‘unifying line’, it has failed to counter its vote catching below the line campaign. So the attempt by the ruling party is to merely keep the opposition divided rather than to actually challenge them. Even the vice versa about the opposition parties may be true as they too have mainly responded to ‘political line’ of the ruling party, rather than mounting any economic counter offensive by highlighting failures in states in a big way and this may be true even after having won a few states. The fact is highlighted as the much talked about ‘food processing’ related investments that could have an impact on some of the agri/rural sector woes remain almost null, in states ruled by which ever party. And this is despite it is the rural areas which seem to be in active ‘political change’ mode and this remains so even in states current being ruled by the opposition. One can easily gaze this by changed voting patterns in states as well as in immediate aftermath in national elections. This remains a cause of political tumult which keeps throwing surprises for the party/coalition in power and Netas on all sides need to watch for. Let the ‘Game’ evolve…..

This political article is a masterclass in architectural writing, where every element serves to construct a compelling argument. The writer's writing style is both authoritative and exceptionally precise, cutting through the common obfuscation of political discourse to reveal the core issues. There's an intellectual rigor evident in the prose, yet it remains remarkably accessible, guiding the reader through complex ideas without condescension. The structure of the piece is its backbone, meticulously designed to build a logical and unassailable case. Each paragraph and section is placed with strategic intent, creating a seamless flow that naturally leads to a profound understanding of the political landscape being discussed. Crucially, the unwavering clarity of the analysis is the article's greatest strength; every nuance of policy and every facet of political strategy are laid bare with such lucidity that the implications are undeniable and instantly graspable, making it an invaluable resource for informed citizens.