1996: Mr. Nagabhairava Jayaprakash Narayan, Retd. I.A.S. Officer, Andhra Pradesh State, India, founded a Movement called "Lok Satta". It literally means: "Satta=power. Lok=People. Lok Satta=Power of the People". So far so good. He converted LokSatta into a political party in 2006, initially as a State Level Party, and subsequently an All India level party. 2016 March: Shri Jayaprakash Narayan, is reported to have announced that he is quitting politics, and that Lok Satta would continue as a non-political organisation. He is also reported to have said that they will not be contesting elections. Today, one Telugu Channel telecast a report about it, intermittantly tinging it with a Telugu Language song from dEvadAsu titled "antA bhrAnti yEnA, jIvitAna velugintEnA, AASA nirASEnA migilEdI cintEnA? అంతా భ్రాంతి యేనా జీవితానా వెలుగింతేనా? ఆశా నిరాశేనా మిగిలేదీ చింతేనా ? Approx. Engl: Is everything an illusion? Is there no light in life? Should hope become a disappointment? What remains? Only regrets, remorse(s) and repentance(s)? "
It is difficult to answer this question.
Disappointments may arise when persons start organisations with personal ambitions and goals. On the other hand, if persons believe that their duty and task are just to spread the right principles and theories, while at the same time trying to bring them into implementation and launch stage. What is more important is, parties are not founded by persons. Parties are founded by principles which motivate persons.
There are bound to be revolts, treacheries, upheavals, and disappointments in politics. India is not the only country, where this problem exists.
For example, in United States, Mr. Bernie Sanders, the 74 years contender for Democratic Presidential Nomination, may have to face a similar disappointment, particularly because he is getting advanced in age. The other two runners-up in Republican Presidential Nomination, Mr. Ted Cruz (just 45 years age), Mr. Marco Rubio (just 44 years age), at least have an advantage of age before them. They can try and succeed next time.
There is one big difference between United States, and India. Members of Parties in United States, elect their nominees, through some sort of democratic process of voting, howsoever, skewed or defective it may be. Parties in India, on the other hand, do not have any proper democratic process to elect Presidential, Prime Ministerial Nominees. Parties in India are personal fiefdoms of the Founders and their coteries.
Aspirants for Party Presidential Nominations in United States, mobilise huge funds from both large donors, and small donors, though technically every candidate claims he-she has mobilised funds mostly from small donors. Whatever it is, in United States, fund mobilisation depends on personal efforts of the candidates and their supporters.
Lok Satta and Aam Admi Parties in India promised to become exceptions to the general rule of parties being personal fiefdoms, but experience shows that they are not exceptions. Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan tried to monopolise Lok Satta. Mr. Arvind Kejriwal monopolised Aam Admi Party. Though BJP claims to be not a dynastic party, it is remotely controlled by its founding organisation R.S.S. (Rashtriya Svayam Sevak Sangh).
HARD AND HARSH REALITIES
Parties in India (or probably in the entire world, including United States) cannot be run without funds.
Promoters and Founders of Parties have to depend on Corporates for large chunk of funds for running parties.
Industrialists and Business Persons demand their shares of the spoils, demanding a greater role for them, via Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Memberships, Admission into Cabinet with key portfolios, favourable tax and industrial policies to their industrial and business empires.
Parties depend on Film Stars, Cricketers for mass appeal, nominating them to Legislatures and Parliament. Example: BJP has issued ticket to Mr. Srishant, a Cricketer, to contest from Tiruvananthapuram Assembly.
If these are the realities, parties can never be run as CLEAN ENTITIES.
We have to work out practical ways-out for this existential and survival issue.
Founders of parties, basically do not want to lose control over the organisations they establish. Consequently, Parties lose their internal democracy. Howsoever energetic and charismatic leaders of parties may be, the structures of parties cannot be built downward from top to bottom. They are to get elected from bottom grass-roots to top. One question remains. Unscrupulous persons who do not have any commitment to the principles of the party, or who do not have at least their own principles join the party and hyjack it. This danger intensifies when a party shows signs of scoring in elections. As long as a party does not show tendencies of succeeding, no unscrupulous person will come forward to join. The crucial question, therefore, should admissions into parties be rigidly controlled?
Under ordinary circumstances, local units of parties are to have the authority to admit new members. Decentralisation is the ideal option, but affluent persons may dominate local units, by bringing their own henchmen into the Party.
To continue. सशेष. ఇంకా ఉంది.