Social Movements in Politics: Is it worth it?

The social movements in Latin America played a big role in the process of changing the situation of the Latin American states. Throughout the region, different social movements were able to oust governments, create governments and protect themselves from the hands of the state. Through their mobilization, their tactics and frequent pressure to the government, many of these social movements achieved even though not entirely their demands to the government. These movements concerns range from economic opportunities to assertion of self-determination. And in one way or another, they have been able to broadcast their concern and had them acted upon by the government. And these movements are able to achieve their goals through different tactics. It may be quite usual for many people to associate social movements with mass mobilization, noise barrage, vigils, strikes, frequent blocking of roads, picket dialogues, occupying public spaces, and other activities including a large number of people carrying banners, burning edifices, chanting and so on and so forth. Movements are frequently characterized by organizing these mobilizations that aim to awaken the government. These are activities outside the institutions and thus, aim to direct to the institutions. However, not all social movements stick to the tactic mentioned above. Some may opt to enter the institutions and begin doing their agenda. But what does bring about to the movements? Will this become easier for them to push forward their goals or will this be a problem in the materialization of their visions? Are social movements compatible with politics? A good question to begin with in examining the possibilities and outcomes of having a movement forming alliance with political parties or even forming their own political parties. The relationship between social movements and politics or political parties is a two way relationship, both benefits from the other. Politicians need the social movements to draw voters into voting them, and the social movements need the politicians in helping them achieve their goals and attend to the issues the movements are concerned. They both need each other in many ways. And it can be argued that the best way for them to achieve their goals is to form alliance with each other or in other ways, the movements forming parties that would work on their concerns. However, it can also be said that the two can

exist without forming alliances; that they can still pursue their interests while being impersonal and not by forming formal relationship. As much as alliances hope to consolidate the interests and achieve greater results, there will always be a possibility of incompatibility that may produce greater problems. The differences of the nature of movements and political parties can be a cause of conflict. Because, as movements are true to their goals and interests regardless of whoever is in the government, the political parties will always be ready to sway even a little depending on who is sitting in power. This will create problems in the production of results for both. When movements step up to the political arena, there becomes a duality of approach that may contradict each other, one that wants to eradicate the system and one that works within the system. These approaches may create factions within the movements and conflicts within them that may cause their fall. In the end, we can say that movements entering politics could be possible but to answer the question of its worth can be answered by the outcomes of the movements effort and ability to balance their two tactics and create results that would benefit everyone.