Politics of the Poor and Political Work

Introduction

The poor in India often live on land they do not own or work in informal enterprises that are often in violation of the law thus forcing them to access services and infrastructure through political negotiations, trading votes for public goods and resources. This mode of survival which is made possible through political negotiations has prompted a group of scholars to term it the ‘politics of the governed’ (Chatterjee, 2004, 2011), ‘politics of the poor’ (Das & Randeria, 2015; Datta, 2012; Haritas, 2021, p. I; Roy, 2018), ‘politics of poverty’ (Roy, 2003) and the ‘politics of life’ (Bayat, 2010; Das, 2011; Das & Walton, 2015) The operative word here being ‘politics’ this scholarship, which initially emerged to explain the struggles of slum dwellers for housing and services, has also extended to include the political arrangements that enable the local and informal economies of poor groups (Benjamin, 2000; Chatterjee, 2011). Chatterjee’s proposition of the politics of the governed, where he distinguishes between the citizenship rights of the wealthy with the politics that poor groups have to rely on, has been critiqued by other scholars who view the practices of the poor as efforts to claim equal citizenship. In this view, citizenship is constantly in flux, eroding or expanding incrementally (Das, 2011; Eckert, 2006, 2011; Holston, 2008) as groups strengthen rights through practices thus constituting themselves as citizens and resisting their treatment as ‘subjects’ (Eckert, 2006). Politics is in this latter view a mode of claiming citizenship, rather than an alternative to citizenship rights.

My doctoral research (Haritas, 2021), in a slum rehabilitation area in the peripheries of Bangalore, ¹ has explored the continued struggles of the rehabilitated poor, unwrapping what this ‘politics’ implies within neighbourhoods, between men and women, and between the state and the rehabilitated poor. While unearthing the reasons why the rehabilitated poor continued to struggle for housing and services, ² I studied the gendered underbelly of the ‘politics of the poor’—how men came to become ‘leaders’ and representatives of their neighbourhoods, aligning themselves to elected representatives and political parties, while women provided them a base within neighbourhoods, building and strengthening relationships, providing the numbers required for collective action and the political base that could be used to trade votes for State resources. While men were remunerated for their work, women engaged in everyday politics as an extension of their domestic work to ensure the proper functioning of their homes. They spent considerable time and efforts resolving conflicts in the neighbourhood, building consensus amongst residents, organising collective initiatives to manage waste and sanitation issues, supervising the functioning of subsidised food shops, maintaining ties with NGO staff and local state officials, obtaining and sharing crucial information, etc. This work of building political consensus required for political negotiations with the state requires specific skills, such as the ability to communicate effectively, resolve conflicts and maintain good relations; documentation and record keeping; production and use of key identity documents; the strategic use of information; etc. In organised collective action such as protests, women were also frequently called upon to tender ‘emotion work’, to elicit the sympathies and patronage of decision-makers and to sway decisions in their favour. As these engagements take up time, efforts, skills with the promise of being compensated with access to resources, I proposed that this is not merely ‘politics’ but is ‘political work’.

In later research on solidarity economy practices of women ³ with a fisherwomen’s association in Udupi (Thara, 2021), I noticed similar strategies, with fisherwomen organising themselves into a collective and negotiating with the State to continue to manage the local fish market in Udupi, while the State had taken over control and management of fish markets in other parts of the city. Women spent a considerable amount of time and effort in political negotiations over and above their work of fish selling, similar to the women in the rehabilitation areas whose everyday political negotiations were perceived as an extension of their domestic work. In exchanges with other researchers in this project (Guérin et al., 2021; Karunakaran, 2021), we noticed that women were having to engage in everyday politics in addition to their reproductive roles and paid work with women having to develop and hone their ability to negotiate and bargain with employers and the State. These tactical skills included the ability to identify ‘windows of opportunity’ on when and who to approach, making decisions on whether to negotiate, keep a low profile, complain or pay a bribe (Guérin et al., 2021).

In an effort to bring together our research experiences to test and strengthen the concept of ‘political work’, we presented our reflections in early 2022 at the French Institute Pondicherry. While there was general agreement over the work involved in accessing State resources or support, the use of the term ‘political’ was discussed and debated. Given that development literature has frequently referred to the ‘voluntary’ work (Doshi, 2011) and altruism of women (Brickell & Chant, 2010) ‘in the service of the new poverty agenda’ (Molyneux, 2006) and the instrumentalisation of women and women’s work by development institutions (Chant & Sweetman, 2012) ⁴ should we not term this work as ‘developmental work’? If not, what is the difference between ‘political work’ and ‘altruism’ or ‘voluntarism’ described in development literature? A second concern was that the term ‘political work’ can be misunderstood for work conducted for political parties or candidates. These debates and discussions therefore motivate this article, where my effort is to clarify the use of the term ‘political’ by drawing from scholarship on ‘politics of the poor’ and ‘citizenship practices’, which prompted my own investigations into the roles women played in such politics.

‘Politics’, Governmentality, Citizenship and Life

Chatterjee used the term ‘politics of the governed’ to describe the informal arrangements between poor groups and the State, as different from the legal modes used by wealthier groups. Unlike propertied citizens who can claim certain rights from the State, the poor do not have rights but have ‘entitlements’ (Chatterjee, 2004, p. 69) and are hence treated as ‘populations’ and beneficiaries to be ‘governed’. They cannot be treated as proper citizens as their very existence is made possible due to their illegalities such as the unauthorised occupation of land they do not own. Therefore, treating them as citizens would compromise the very premise of law and legality which the State is meant to install and enforce. On the other hand, social and political reasons force the State and its authorities to provide facilities and benefits ‘without jeopardising the overall structure of legality and property’. The poor are thus integrated through political arrangements, without upsetting the existing class-based hierarchies (that are also intertwined with caste, religion and gender).

To integrate these groups into ‘public life’, a ‘substructure of paralegal arrangements’ was put in place. The State treats population groups not as ‘civil society’ but as ‘political society’ in which welfare is not administered as ‘charity’ but is negotiated. Thus, ‘what benefits would be given to which groups and for how long depend on a series of strategic negotiations’ (Chatterjee, 2004, p. 137). To obtain these benefits, the poor ‘must succeed in applying the right pressure at the right places in the governmental machinery’. Given the entrenched power hierarchies, accessing benefits could necessitate ‘bending or stretching of rules’ and building ‘local political consensus’ to sway the State in their favour. Poor groups therefore appeal that the State treat their violations of laws as exceptions to the general law and ‘governmental decisions aimed at regulating the vast populations of the urban poor usually add up to a huge pile of exceptions to the normal application of the law’. Poor groups do not deny their violations but instead appeal to the ‘recognised obligation’ of the State to provide for them. Populations therefore have to navigate ‘this uncertain terrain by making a large array of connections outside the group—with other groups in similar situations, with more privileged and influential groups, with government functionaries, perhaps with political parties and leaders’.

These engagements of the poor with the State have real repercussions on electoral politics in India which is largely premised on what the State provides to population groups. The ability of elected representatives to respond to the needs of the poor largely determines their electoral success. Chatterjee argues that the poor relate to the State in fundamentally different ways from the wealthy thus reshaping democratic practice. As the objective of democracy can only be ensured through the representation of all groups, the inevitable result is that groups will strategically mobilise around resources that are distributed based on political expediency (Chatterjee, 2004, p. 22). While the use of the vote can be perceived as a practice of citizenship, when it is exchanged for specific resources, it is employed in ‘strategic politics’. This has real implications not only on democratic outcomes but also on the democratic practice itself and the resultant forms of democracy such as popular democracies, in which States are forced to respond to the ‘moral assertion of popular demands’.

Chatterjee tethers the distinction between civil and political society to economic status, with civil society integrated into corporate economies (formal sector) while political society populates the non-corporate economies (informal sector). ⁵ The State is forced to provide for political society in the context of State enforced capitalist accumulation. Market forces and State assisted land acquisition forces peasants to give up their land, while on the other hand capital intensive modes of production nourished by the development of new technologies and automation have reduced the demand for industrial labour. As primitive accumulation produces poverty and inequality, its effects must be reversed or at the least softened by the State through the provision of welfare. Welfare and livelihood schemes including micro-credit are used by the State to sustain groups affected by primitive accumulation. The State plays a balancing act, on one hand supporting economic growth and the capitalist accumulation of wealthier groups, while on the other hand enabling the subsistence of poorer groups through welfare (Chatterjee, 2011, pp. 16, 212–215).

The emergence of welfare and social citizenship rights such as the right to food, education and employment has helped assuage tensions between capitalism and democracy, with democratic struggle replacing class struggle. The provision of welfare may thus legitimise rather than mitigate inequalities of class, as it serves to eliminate social conflict and incorporates the working class in different ways (Jayal, 2013, pp. 177–178). This explains the transformation of labour movements that have abandoned negotiations with employers for workers’ benefits, instead negotiating welfare benefits from the state (Agarwala, 2006) a point that Karunakaran will illustrate in her own article in this issue. Therefore, though welfare was reduced in other parts of the world, the Indian state while embracing capitalism through liberal and neo liberal policies, laid emphasis on certain socio-economic rights including the right to food (National Food Security Act, 2013); education (Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009) and work (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005), targeting it to the poor. Populations have to therefore be taken care of so as to ensure the well-being of wealthier groups—this Chatterjee notes is ‘the difficult and innovative process of politics’.

Politics and Political Work (Conclusion)

While the political aspect of these practices is clear, the vocabulary of politics, mobilisation, struggle, resistance, protest, negotiation, etc., eclipses the time, efforts and skills required to undertake such engagements with the state. This reality of holding the state accountable for its promises is not limited to the urban poor but can be observed in all instances of the State being held responsible and accountable for providing basic services and amenities, essential to life itself. In my research, my own ideas of such politics was challenged when women frequently referred to their engagements with the state as ‘work’, often comparing themselves with NGO staff who were remunerated for their work, and demanding that what they were doing be recognised as work and compensated. Women who were trained by a local NGO to do the paperwork essential to access a ration card and keep checks on the local ration shop, frequently complained that while the NGO staff were paid for their work, they were not similarly remunerated. The NGO staff viewed this work as something women had to do for themselves—something that comprised empowerment, in order to access subsidised food, while women residents spoke of how much time and effort, they had to spend to make the shops function efficiently, demanding therefore the recognition of what they did as work and not empowerment. Holding up the State to its commitments and ensuring efficient and timely distribution of essential resources, demands time, efforts, skills and provides sustenance in return. A single act of access is never sufficient and their efforts have to be routinely renewed and repeated for continued access to resources. Termed ‘everyday politics’ (Bayat, 1997, 2000, 2010; Kerkvliet, 2009) these negotiations demand a constant and continued engagement that is often time sensitive requiring immediate actions or responses. To accommodate these engagements, women frequently decide not to pursue paid work opportunities, as the material consequences of ‘political work’ can provide access to crucial resources such as subsidised housing, subsidised food, basic infrastructure, education, etc, that cannot otherwise be provided by poorly paid wage work. This substitution of wages with welfare implies the substitution of paid work with unpaid work to access non-monetary resources crucial to the sustenance of life. My research reveals that women more than men frequently engage in ‘political work’ as they view it as an extension of their domestic responsibilities. Thus, political work can be seen as an extension of the work of social reproduction, thus reinforcing the sexual division of labour even as women engage in issues of public concern.