Priyadarshan's column: Is it more important to contest elections or bring about a change in the country?

Should the CJP become a political party now? Many arguments are being made in favor of it. There is widespread support and attachment from the youth with him. She is known for her new language of resistance. Not only this, the system that the current generation is disillusioned with also includes the old parties. Why, then, should a mass organisation in a democracy refrain from real and legitimate politics? Ultimately, all change is driven by politics. On the surface, these arguments look correct. But there are counter-arguments too. After the Anna movement, the Aam Aadmi Party was formed with almost the same logic. Soon she lost her revolutionary energy and joined the status quoist stream of politics. That is, as soon as you enter politics, many compulsions surround you. You need money to fight elections — so you go soft on the capitalists. If you have to create popular slogans to get votes, then you start avoiding obsolete ideas or revolutionary notions. Gradually, you become compromising and all your fights are limited to winning elections and forming the government. You protect casteism somewhere and you promote communalism somewhere. But whether it is the AAP that emerged from the Anna movement or the CJP from Jantar Mantar – what will happen if it does not contest the elections? The energy of anger that erupted from the Anna movement projected the BJP at the national level. Had the AAP not been formed, Delhi would probably have become a BJP in those days. But then the same question is – is it important to form a government or to create a winds of change? Democracy needs not only political parties, but also social organizations, pressure groups that can bend the course of politics, force political parties to talk about the issues suggested by them. It is the effect of Jantar Mantar and the basically non-political movements of Jharkhand that the corruption of education, competitive examinations and appointments that had been going on for decades suddenly became a burning issue. Similarly, all political parties suddenly realized that it was necessary to connect with Gen-G and Gen-Alpha, to communicate with them. The country needs an alternative politics. But the parties that were formed in the name of this alternative politics themselves became a burden on democracy. What is worrisome these days is that democracy has become synonymous with electoral victory, parliamentary majority, whereas any ideal and healthy democracy requires a lot of constitutional and social institutions. We also have such institutions, but they seem to be losing their brilliance, their edge and their resistance to parliamentary politics. The rest of the socio-cultural organizations have become absolutely irrelevant. Neither the voice of writers nor intellectuals associated with other disciplines remains. They are compensated by taking the opinion of film stars or cricketers on an important issue. So there is a huge intellectual vacuum, which requires more non-political efforts than political to fill. The good thing is that Abhijit Deepke has said that he wants to keep the CJP as a pressure group — but it will also have to expand its socio-intellectual pace only then it will be able to pave the way for a meaningful and genuine alternative — forcing political parties to raise the necessary issues and move in the right direction. Democracy needs not only political parties, but also social organizations, pressure groups that can bend the course of politics and compel political parties to talk about the issues suggested by them. (These are the author's own views)