Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics Index of politics articles Politics by country Politics by subdivision Political economy Political history Political history of the world Political philosophy
Political systems Anarchist Capitalist City-state Communist Democracy Federacy Feudalism Mixed economy Dictatorship Directorial Meritocracy Monarchy Parliamentary Presidential Semi-presidential Theocracy
Academic disciplines Political science Political scientists International relations (theory) Comparative politics
Public administration Bureaucracy Street-level bureaucracy Adhocracy
Policy Public policy (Legal doctrine) Public interest Foreign policy
Organs of government Separation of powers Legislature Executive Judiciary Electoral branch
Other topics Sovereignty Theories of political behavior Biology and political orientation
Subseries Elections Electoral systems Voting Federalism Form of government Ideology Political campaigning Political parties
Politics portal
v t e

A political party is a political organization that typically seeks to influence government policy, usually by nominating their own candidates and trying to seat them in political office. ^[1] Parties participate in electoral campaigns and educational outreach or protest actions. Parties often espouse an expressed ideology or vision bolstered by a written platform with specific goals, forming a coalition among disparate interests.

Regulation[link]

The freedom to form, declare membership in, or campaign for candidates from a political party is considered a measurement of a state's adherence to liberal democracy as a political value. Regulation of parties may run from a crackdown on or repression of all opposition parties, a norm for authoritarian governments, to the repression of certain parties which hold or promote ideals which run counter to the general ideology of the state's incumbents (or possess membership by-laws which are legally unenforceable).

Furthermore, in the case of far-right, far-left and regionalist parties in the national parliaments of much of the European Union, mainstream political parties may form an informal cordon sanitaire which applies a policy of non-cooperation towards those "Outsider Parties" present in the legislature which are viewed as 'anti-system' or otherwise unacceptable for government. Cordon Sanitaires, however, have been increasingly abandoned over the past two decades in multi-party democracies as the pressure to construct broad coalitions in order to win elections - along with the increased willingness of outsider parties themselves to participate in government - has led to many such parties entering electoral and government coalitions.^[2]

Starting in the second half of the 20th century modern democracies have introduced rules for the flow of funds through party coffers, e.g. the Canada Election Act 1976, the PPRA in the U.K. or the FECA in the U.S.. Such political finance regimes stipulate a variety of regulations for the transparency of fundraising and expenditure, limit or ban specific kinds of activity and provide public subsidies for party activity, including campaigning.

Voting systems[link]

The type of electoral system is a major factor in determining the type of party political system. In countries with a simple plurality voting system, parties elected tend to be few (often only two in any given jurisdiction). In countries that have a proportional representation voting system, as exists throughout Europe, or to a greater extent preferential voting systems, such as in Australia or Ireland, three or more parties are often elected to parliament in significant proportions, and thus may have more access to public office.

Partisan style[link]

Partisan style varies from government to government, depending on how many parties there are, and how much influence each individual party has.

Nonpartisan[link]

In a nonpartisan system, no official political parties exist, sometimes reflecting legal restrictions on political parties. In nonpartisan elections, each candidate is eligible for office on his or her own merits. In nonpartisan legislatures, there are no typically formal party alignments within the legislature. The administration of George Washington and the first few sessions of the United States Congress were nonpartisan. Washington also warned against political parties during his Farewell Address.^[3] In the United States, the unicameral legislature of Nebraska is nonpartisan. In Canada, the territorial legislatures of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut are nonpartisan. In New Zealand, Tokelau has a nonpartisan parliament. Many city and county governments^[vague] are nonpartisan. Nonpartisan elections and modes of governance are common outside of state institutions.^[4] Unless there are legal prohibitions against political parties, factions within nonpartisan systems often evolve into political parties.

Single dominant party[link]

In single-party systems, one political party is legally allowed to hold effective power. Although minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they are legally required to accept the leadership of the dominant party. This party may not always be identical to the government, although sometimes positions within the party may in fact be more important than positions within the government. North Korea and China is an example; others can be found in Fascist states, such as Nazi Germany between 1934 and 1945. The single-party system is thus usually equated with dictatorships and tyranny.

In dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may be even a deeply established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Sometimes, political, social and economic circumstances, and public opinion are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries with less of an established democratic tradition, it is possible the dominant party will remain in power by using patronage and sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the definition between Dominant and single-party system becomes rather blurred. Examples of dominant party systems include the People's Action Party in Singapore, the African National Congress in South Africa, the Human Rights Protection Party in Samoa, and the Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro in Montenegro. One party dominant systems also existed in Mexico with the Institutional Revolutionary Party until the 1990s, in the southern United States with the Democratic Party from the late 19th century until the 1970s, in Indonesia with the Golongan Karya (Party of the Functional Groups) from the early 1970s until 1998, and in Japan with the Liberal Democratic Party until 2009.

Two political parties[link]

Two-party systems are states such as Jamaica, and Ghana in which there are two political parties dominant to such an extent that electoral success under the banner of any other party is almost impossible. One right wing coalition party and one left wing coalition party is the most common ideological breakdown in such a system but in two-party states political parties are traditionally catch all parties which are ideologically broad and inclusive.

The United States is widely considered a two-party system. Since the birth of the republic a conservative (such as the Republican Party) and liberal (such as the Democratic Party) party have usually been the status quo within American politics, with some exception. Third parties often receive little support and are not often the victors in many races. Despite this, there have been several examples of third parties siphoning votes from major parties that were expected to win (such as Theodore Roosevelt in the election of 1912 and Ross Perot in the election of 1992).

The UK political system, while technically a multi-party system, has functioned generally as a two-party (sometimes called a "two-and-a-half party) system; since the 1920s the two largest political parties have been the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. Before the Labour Party rose in British politics the Liberal Party was the other major political party along with the Conservatives. Though coalition and minority governments have been an occasional feature of parliamentary politics, the first-past-the-post electoral system used for general elections tends to maintain the dominance of these two parties, though each has in the past century relied upon a third party to deliver a working majority in Parliament.^[5] (A plurality voting system usually leads to a two-party system, a relationship described by Maurice Duverger and known as Duverger's Law.^[6]) However, the 2010 General Election resulted in a coalition government led by the Conservative Party and including the Liberal Democrats. There are also numerous other parties that hold or have held a number of seats in Parliament.

Multiple political parties[link]

A poster for the European Parliament election 2004 in Italy, showing party lists

Multi-party systems are systems in which more than two parties are represented and elected to public office.

Australia, Canada, Pakistan, India, Ireland, United Kingdom and Norway are examples of countries with two strong parties and additional smaller parties that have also obtained representation. The smaller or "third" parties may form a part of a coalition government together with one of the larger parties or act independently from the other dominant parties.

More commonly, in cases where there are three or more parties, no one party is likely to gain power alone, and parties work with each other to form coalition governments. This has been an emerging trend in the politics of the Republic of Ireland since the 1980s and is almost always the case in Germany on national and state level, and in most constituencies at the communal level. Furthermore since the forming of the Republic of Iceland there has never been a government not led by a coalition (usually of the Independence Party and one other often the Social Democratic Alliance. Political change is often easier with a coalition government than in one-party or two-party dominant systems.^{[dubious – discuss]}

Party funding[link]

Political parties are funded by contributions from

• party members and other individuals,

• organizations which share their political ideas or who stand to benefit from their activities or

• governmental public funding.^[7]

Political parties, still called factions by some, especially those in government, are lobbied vigorously by organizations, businesses and special interest groups such as trades unions. Money and gifts-in-kind to a party, or its leading members, may be offered as incentives. Such donations are the traditional source of funding for all right-of-centre cadre parties. Starting in the late 19th century these parties were opposed by the new founded left-of-centre workers' parties. They started a new party type, the mass membership party, and a new source of political fundraising, membership dues.

From the second half of the 20th century on parties which continued to rely on donations ran into mounting problems. Along with the increased scrutiny of donations there has been a long term contraction in party memberships in most western democracies which itself places more strains on funding. For example in the United Kingdom and Australia membership of the two main parties in 2006 is less than an 1/8 of what it was in 1950, despite significant increases in population over that period.

In some parties, such as the post-communist parties of France and Italy or the Sinn Féin party and the Socialist Party (Ireland), elected representatives of take only the average industrial wage from their salary as a representative or their entire earnings, while the rest goes into party coffers. Although these examples may be rare nowadays, "rent-seeking" continues to be a feature of many political parties around the world.^[8]

In the United Kingdom, it has been alleged that peerages have been awarded to contributors to party funds, the benefactors becoming members of the Upper House of Parliament and thus being in a position to participate in the legislative process. Famously, Lloyd George was found to have been selling peerages. To prevent such corruption in the future, Parliament passed the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 into law. Thus the outright sale of peerages and similar honours became a criminal act. However, some benefactors are alleged to have attempted to circumvent this by cloaking their contributions as loans, giving rise to the 'Cash for Peerages' scandal.

Such activities as well as assumed "influence peddling" have given rise to demands that the scale of donations should be capped. As the costs of electioneering escalate, so the demands made on party funds increase. In the UK some politicians are advocating that parties should be funded by the state; a proposition that promises to give rise to interesting debate in a country that was the first to regulate campaign expenses (in 1883)..

In many other democracies such subsidies for party activity (in general or just for campaign purposes) have been introduced decades ago. Public financing for parties and candidates (during election timess and beyond) has several permutations and is increasingly common. Germany, Sweden, Israel, Canada, Austria and Spain are cases in point, although Canada has removed its public funding for political parties as of 2010. More recently among others France, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland have followed suit.^[9]

There are two broad categories of funding, direct, which entails a montetary transfer to a party, and indirect, which includes broadcast time on state media, use of the mail service or supplies. According to the Comparative Data from the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, out of a sample of over 180 nations, 25% of nations provide no direct or indirect public funding, 58% provide direct public funding and 60% of nations provide indirect public funding.^[10] Some countries provide both direct and indirect public funding to political parties. Funding may be equal for all parties or depend on the results of previous campaigns or the number of candidates participating in an election.^[11] Frequently parties rely on a mix of private and public funding and are required to disclose their finances to the Election management body.^[12]

Funding can also be provided by foreign aid. International donors provide financing to political parties in developing countries as a means to promote democracy and good governance.^[8] Support can be purely financial or otherwise frequently is provided as capacity development activities including the development of party manifestos, party constitutions and campaigning skills.^[8] Developing links between ideologically linked parties is another common feature of international support for a party.^[8] Sometimes this can be perceived as directly supporting the political aims of political party, such as the support of the US government to the Georgian party behind the Rose Revolution. Other donors work on a more neutral basis, where multiple donors provide grants in countries accessible by all parties for various aims defined by the recipients.^[8] There have been calls by leading development think-tanks, such as the Overseas Development Institute, to increase support to political parties as part of developing the capacity to deal with the demands of donors to improve governance.^[8]

Colours and emblems for parties[link]

Main article: see Political colour and List of political party symbols

Generally speaking, over the world, political parties associate themselves with colors, primarily for identification, especially for voter recognition during elections. Conservative parties generally use blue or black.^{[citation needed]} Pink sometimes signifies moderate socialist. Yellow is often used for libertarianism or classical liberalism, due to yellow being the color of gold, which signifies the gold standard. Red usually signifies communist or socialist parties^{[citation needed]}, except for the conservative Republican Party in the United States and the "Partido Colorado" (red party) in Uruguay. In these cases, the use of the color red comes from the origins of the party. Green is the color for green parties, Islamist parties and Irish republican parties. Orange is sometimes a color of nationalism, such as in the Netherlands, in Israel with the Orange Camp or with Ulster Loyalists in Northern Ireland; it is also a color of reform such as in Ukraine. In the past, Purple was considered the color of royalty (like white), but today it is sometimes used for feminist parties. White also is associated with nationalism. "Purple Party" is also used as an academic hypothetical of an undefined party, as a centralist party in the United States (because purple is created from mixing the main parties' colours of red and blue) and as a highly idealistic "peace and love" party [1]-- in a similar vein to a Green Party, perhaps. Black is generally associated with fascist parties, going back to Benito Mussolini's blackshirts, but also with Anarchism. Similarly, brown is sometimes associated with Nazism, going back to the Nazi Party's tan-uniformed storm troopers.

Color associations are useful for mnemonics when voter illiteracy is significant.^{[citation needed]} Another case where they are used is when it is not desirable to make rigorous links to parties, particularly when coalitions and alliances are formed between political parties and other organizations, for example: Red Tory, "Purple" (Red-Blue) alliances, Red-green alliances, Blue-green alliances, Traffic light coalitions, Pan-green coalitions, and Pan-blue coalitions.

Political color schemes in the United States diverge from international norms. Since 2000, red has become associated with the right-wing Republican Party and blue with the left-wing Democratic Party. However, unlike political color schemes of other countries, the parties did not choose those colors; they were used in news coverage of 2000 election results and ensuing legal battle and caught on in popular usage. Prior to the 2000 election the media typically alternated which color represented which party each presidential election cycle. The color scheme happened to get inordinate attention that year, so the cycle was stopped lest it cause confusion the following election.^{[citation needed]}

The emblem of socialist parties is often a red rose held in a fist. Communist parties often use a hammer to represent the worker, a sickle to represent the farmer, or both a hammer and a sickle to refer to both at the same time.

The emblem of Nazism, the swastika or "hakenkreuz", has been adopted as a near-universal symbol for almost any organized white supremacist group, even though it dates from more ancient times.

Symbols can be very important when the overall electorate is illiterate. In the Kenyan constitutional referendum, 2005, supporters of the constitution used the banana as their symbol, while the "no" used an orange.

International organizations of political parties[link]

During the 19th and 20th century, many national political parties organized themselves into international organizations along similar policy lines. Notable examples are the International Workingmen's Association (also called the First International), the Socialist International (also called the Second International), the Communist International (also called the Third International), and the Fourth International, as organizations of working class parties, or the Liberal International (yellow), Hizb ut-Tahrir, Christian Democratic International and the International Democrat Union (blue). Organized in Italy in 1945, the International Communist Party, since 1974 headquartered in Florence and with sections in six countries, is an expanding global party. Worldwide green parties have recently established the Global Greens. The Socialist International, the Liberal International, and the International Democrat Union are all based in London. Some administrations (e.g. Hong Kong) outlaw formal linkages between local and foreign political organizations, effectively outlawing international political parties.

Types of political parties[link]

The French political scientist Maurice Duverger drew a distinction between cadre parties and mass parties. Cadre parties were political elites that were concerned with contesting elections and restricted the influence of outsiders, who were only required to assist in election campaigns. Mass parties tried to recruit new members who were a source of party income and were often expected to spread party ideology as well as assist in elections. Socialist parties are examples of mass parties, while the British Conservative Party and the German Christian Democratic Union are examples of hybrid parties. In the United States, where both major parties were cadre parties, the introduction of primaries and other reforms has transformed them so that power is held by activists who compete over influence and nomination of candidates.^[13]

Klaus von Beyme categorized European parties into nine families, which described most parties. He was able to arrange seven of them from left to right: communist, socialist, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative and libertarian. The position of two other types, agrarian and regional/ethnic parties varied.^[14] Another category he failed to mention are Islamic political parties, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir.

See also[link]

Politics portal

• Elite party
• List of political parties
• List of political parties by country
• List of political party symbols
• List of politics-related topics
• Particracy (a political regime dominated by one or more parties)
• Political colour
• Political faction (both pre- and within a modern party)
• Political finance
• Party class
• Party line (politics)
• The Party (politics)

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

• Abizadeh, Arash, 2005. MCgill.ca, "Democratic Elections without Campaigns? Normative Foundations of National Baha'i Elections." World Order Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 7–49.
• Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties. London: Methuen.
• Gunther, Richard and Larry Diamond. 2003. "Species of Political Parties: A New Typology," Party Politics, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 167–199.
• McDonnell, Duncan and James Newell. 2011. 'Outsider Parties', Special edition of Party Politics, Vol. 17, No. 4.
• Neumann, Sigmund (ed.). 1956. Modern Political Parties. IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Redding, Robert. 2004. Hired Hatred. RCI.
• Smith, Steven S. 2007. Party Influence in Congress. Cambridge University Press.
• Sutherland, Keith. 2004. The Party's Over. Imprint Academic. ISBN 0-907845-51-7
• Ware, Alan. 1987. Citizens, Parties and the State: A Reappraisal. Princeton University Press.
• Ware, Alan. Political Parties and Party Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 0-19-878076-1

External links[link]

• U.S. Party Platforms from 1840-2004 at The American Presidency Project: UC Santa Barbara
• Political resources on the net
• Liberals Vs Conservatives Non partisan community where both sides of the fence may enter into debate.
• Do political parties do more harm than good? Theotalks.net

Arvind Kejriwal
Arvind Kejriwal
Born	(1968-06-16) 16 June 1968 (age 44) Hissar, Haryana
Education	B.Tech in Mechanical Engineering
Alma mater	IIT Kharagpur
Organization	Parivartan (परिवर्तन) Public Cause Research Foundation India Against Corruption
Political movement	2012 Indian anti-corruption movement 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement Right to Information Jan Lokpal Bill
Religion	Hinduism
Children	3
Website
http://www.pcrf.in/

Arvind Kumar Kejriwal (born 16 June 1968) is a retired Indian Revenue Service officer and an Indian social activist fighting for greater transparency in Government.^[1] He was awarded Ramon Magsaysay Award for Emergent Leadership in 2006, for activating India's Right to Information movement at grassroots and social activities to empower the poorest citizens to fight corruption by holding the government answerable to the people.^[2][3][2][2] Kejriwal is also a Saathi (fellow) of the Association for India's Development,^[4] a Global Impact award winning NGO.^[5]

Early life[link]

Arvind Kejriwal was born in a Marwari family in Hissar, Haryana in 1968.^[1] His father was an engineer and he spent most of his childhood living in small northern Indian towns like Sonepat, Mathura and Hissar. He did his schooling from Campus School.^[6] Kejriwal graduated from IIT Kharagpur as a Mechanical engineer in 1989.^[7][8]

Career[link]

Kejriwal joined Tata Steel right after his graduation from IIT Kharagpur. Kejriwal quit his job with Tata Steel in 1992^{[citation needed]} and spent some time working with Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity in Kolkata, the Ramakrishna Mission in the North-East India and Nehru Yuva Kendra.^[9][10]

Kejriwal joined the Indian Revenue Service in 1995 after qualifying the highly competitive IAS examination.^[10] In February 2006, he voluntarily resigned from the IRS as Joint Commissioner in IT Department.^[11] After voluntary resignation from job, he founded Parivartan, a Delhi based citizens’ movement which works on ensuring a just, transparent and accountable governance. In December 2006, Kejriwal along with Manish Sisodia and Abhinandan Sekhri started Public Cause Research Foundation, which works for promoting better local self governance and RTI related campaigns^[12]

Right to Information[link]

He along with Aruna Roy and others, campaigned for the Right to Information Act (RTI), which soon became a silent social movement, Delhi Right to Information Act was passed in 2001^[7] and eventually at national level Indian Parliament passed the RTI in 2005. Thereafter, in July 2006, he spearheaded an awareness campaign for RTI across India.^[13] To motivate others Arvind has now instituted an RTI Award through his organisation.^[14] Kejriwal has been using RTI in corruption cases in many government departments including the Income Tax department, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Public Distribution System (PDS), the Delhi Electricity Board and others.^[9][15]

Jan Lokpal Bill[link]

As a member of India Against Corruption (IAC) Kejriwal is an active participant in the movement for the enactment of Jan Lokpal Bill. He is considered a key figure along with social activist Anna Hazare.^[16] On August 16, 2011, Key members of the India Against Corruption including Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, and Manish Sisodia were arrested four hours before the planned indefinite hunger strike by Hazare.^[17] Rajan Bhagat, spokesman for Delhi Police, said police arrested Hazare under a legal provision that bans public gatherings and protests at the park in Delhi where Hazare was planning to begin his hunger strike. Activists were later released same day although they spent two more days in the Tihar jail negotiating conditions put on protest.^[18] Kejriwal left the jail on August 18 and the protests started the following day from Ramlila Maidan in Delhi.^[19] After twelve days of protests and many discussions between the government and the activists, Parliament passed a resolution to consider three points in drafting of Lokpal bill.^[20]

Controversies[link]

Swami Agnivesh a former colleague of Kejriwal in Team Anna accused Arvind Kejriwal of diverting money from India Against Corruption (IAC) fund to his (Kejriwal's) own NGO. Kejriwal allegedly deposited Rs 70-80 lakh from IAC fund in his own NGO. The money was raised as the donation to IAC.^[21] Mr. Kejriwal responded to the allegation that the IAC was a "movement" not an institution and that PCRF was working as a secretariat for IAC.^[22]

In an article published in the Hindu newspaper in 22 August 2011, Booker prize winning author and civil rights activist Arundhati Roy alleged that an NGO run by Kejriwal received a donation of USD 400,000 from the Ford Foundation in the past 3 years.^[23] Arvind Kejriwal has since admitted that the NGO Kabir he runs along with Manish Sisodia, did receive funds from the New York-based Ford Foundation, but pointed out that it had stopped about two years ago. Kejriwal dismissed the view held by some which suggested that Ford Foundation has historically been linked to CIA, the US intelligence agency that used it for channeling funds to its recipients in foreign countries.^[24][25]

Personal life[link]

Kejriwal is married to Sunita, who is an IRS officer his batchmate from National Academy of Administration in Mussoorie.^[8] They live just outside Delhi with their two children.^[10] and presently Additional Director in Serious Fraud Investigation Office.

Awards[link]

• 2004: Ashoka Fellow, Civic Engagement.^[9]
• 2005: 'Satyendra K. Dubey Memorial Award', IIT Kanpur for his campaign for bringing transparency in Government.^[7]
• 2006: Ramon Magsaysay Award for Eminent Leadership.^[2][3]
• 2006: CNN-IBN, 'Indian of the Year' in Public Service^[26]
• 2009: Distinguished Alumnus Award, IIT Kharagpur for Eminent Leadership.^[1]
• 2010: Policy Change Agent of the Year, The Economic Times Awards for Corporate Excellence along with Aruna Roy.^[27]
• 2011: NDTV Indian of the Year along with Anna Hazare^[28]

Arvind Kejariwal has also won an IIM Gold Medal.

Books[link]

The Right to Information : Vyawharik Margdarshika - Co-Author - Vishnu Rajgadia, Published by Rajkamal Prakashan, New Delhi. in the year 2008.^{[citation needed]}

Slipper Attack on Kejriwal[link]

Team Anna member Arvind Kejriwal was attacked by a youth with a slipper during attending a program in Jhulelal Park Lucknow, India under India Against Corruption (IAC) anti-graft campaign.^[29]

After the incident, the accused was caught by the IAC volunteers and handed over to the police. Later, Mr. Kejriwal asked that the accused be released and did not file any FIR against him.^[30]

The accused was identified as Jitendra Pathak of Uttar Pradesh’s Jalaun district, who worked for the Indian National Congress from 2006-2009 and is a former member of Congress Sewa Dal.^[31] He was not a mere party worker but was responsible for key areas in Jhansi. As per the accused acceptance, he considers Rahul Gandhi as his role model.^[32][33]

Kejriwal's attacker Jitendra Pathak has been sacked from his job. He is working in a private construction company Ansh Project Service, Lucknow.^[34] On the other hand, Arvind Kejriwal has written a letter to the chairman of the company to take back their decision and to retain the accused. As per Kejriwal's ideology, violence can be stopped by non-violence only and taking Jitendra's job is violence against the accused and his family.^[35]

In a Sting operation done by India TV in Lucknow, the slipper threatened a bomb attack during Anna Hazare's anti-graft movement in Uttar Pradesh .^[36]

See also[link]

• Right to Information Act
• Jan Lokpal Bill
• India Against Corruption
• 2012 Indian anti-corruption movement
• 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Arvind Kejriwal

• 'Parivartan' Official website
• 'Arvind Kejriwal' website
• 'Public Cause Research Foundation' Official website
• 'The Insurgent' by MEHBOOB JEELANI, The Caravan
• Arvind Kejriwal Interview BBC Hindi
• Arvind Kejriwal Interview BBC Hindi - Audio
• Jaago Re! "Usse kuchh farak padega kya?": Arvind Kejriwal on fighting corruption in India
• An Interview with Arvind Kejriwal
• 'Lokraj Andolan'
• 'India Against Corruption'
• 'Valmik Thapar Interviews Arvind Kejriwal'
• Follow Jan Lokpal Bill Movement

Ramphele was born in Kranspoort, near Pietersburg (now Polokwane), in what is now Limpopo province.^[1] She completed her schooling at Setotolwane High School in 1966 and subsequently enrolled for pre-medical courses at the University of the North.

In 1968 Ramphele was accepted into the University of Natal’s Medical School (then the only medical university that allowed black students to enroll without prior permission from the government), where she qualified as a medical doctor in 1972.

While at university she had became increasingly involved in student politics and anti-apartheid activism and was one of the founders of the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), along with Steve Biko. As a member of the BCM, she was especially involved in organizing and working with community development programmes. She and Biko had a long, passionate relationship. Though Biko was married at the time, he and Ramphele had two children, the first, a girl, Lerato Biko (1974), died of pneumonia at two months.^[2] Their son, Hlumelo Biko, was born in 1978, after Biko's death.^[3]

Due to her political activities, she was internally banished by the apartheid government to the town of Tzaneen from 1977 to 1984.

Continuing her academic studies, Ramphele received a Ph.D. in Social Anthropology from the University of Cape Town, a Bachelor of Commerce degree in Administration from the University of South Africa as well as diplomas in Tropical Health & Hygiene and Public Health from the University of the Witwatersrand. Ramphele has also authored and edited a number of books.

Ramphele joined the University of Cape Town as a research fellow in 1986 and was appointed as one of its Deputy Vice-Chancellors in 1991. She was appointed to the post of Vice-Chancellor of the university in September 1996, thereby becoming the first black woman to hold such a position at a South African university.

In 2000, Ramphele became one of the four Managing Directors of the World Bank. She was tasked with overseeing the strategic positioning and operations of the World Bank Institute as well as the Vice-Presidency of External Affairs. She is the first South African to hold this position.

Ramphele has served as a trustee of the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, as the director of the Institute for a Democratic Alternative for South Africa (IDASA) and as a board member of the Anglo-American Corporation and Transnet.

Ramphele also serves as a trustee for The Link SA fund, a charitable organization that raises money to subsidise the tertiary education of South Africa's brightest underprivileged students. She also sits on the Board of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, an organisation which supports good governance and great leadership in Africa.

She was voted 55th in the Top 100 Great South Africans in 2004, a survey portrayed as mired in controversy.

Honorary degrees and awards[link]

Ramphele has received eighteen honorary degrees and numerous awards, including:

• An Honorary Doctor of Law from the University of Cambridge in 2001.
• An Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters from Hunter College of the City University of New York in 1984.
• An Honorary Doctor of Science degree from Tufts University in May 1991.
• An Honorary Doctorate in Medicine from the University of Natal.
• The Medal of Distinction from Barnard College in the United States.
• Ramphele is also a former fellow of the Bunting Institute and was elected as an honorary member of the Alpha and Iota chapters of Phi Beta Kappa at Radcliffe and Harvard Colleges.
• An Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters degree from New York University in May 2007
• Ramphele was made officer of the Legion of Honour, the highest decoration in France.

References[link]

Publications[link]

• Uprooting Poverty: The South African Challenge, 1989, Co-author. This book draws together research conducted by the second Carnegie inquiry into poverty and development in South Africa and received the 1990 Noma Award, an annual prize given to African writers and scholars whose work is published in Africa.
• Bounds of Possibility: The Legacy of Steve Biko, 1991, Co-editor.
• Restoring the Land, 1992, Editor This publication deals with the ecological challenges facing post-apartheid South Africa.
• A Bed called Home, 1993, Author. This book was based on Ramphele's PhD thesis in Social Anthropology, The Politics of Space, and deals with life in the migrant labour hostels of Cape Town.
• Mamphela Ramphele - A Life, 1995, Author.
• Across Boundaries: The Journey of a South African Woman Leader, 1996, Author.
• Laying Ghosts to Rest: Dilemmas of the transformation in South Africa, 2008, Author.