Underground politics, clandestine political activity conducted beyond public visibility and state oversight remains one of the most complex and controversial phenomena in political science and history. It exists in the shadows, away from public scrutiny, raising a critical question: Does it serve as a force for liberation, or does it lead societies into chaos and disorder? There is no simple answer. Its impact depends largely on the nature of the state, the political environment, and the ideology and methods of the groups involved. It is a paradox capable of both empowering the oppressed and destabilising entire societies.
At its core, underground politics emerges from a combination of political exclusion and state repression. When a state systematically suppresses freedom of expression, restricts electoral participation, and shuts down avenues for peaceful dissent, opposition forces often find themselves with no option but to operate in secrecy. In such contexts, clandestine organisation becomes less a strategic choice and more a necessity for survival.
While Karl Marx emphasised the inevitability of class struggle, it was Vladimir Lenin who transformed revolutionary theory into an operational model. In What Is to Be Done?, Lenin introduced the concept of the ‘vanguard party,’ a disciplined group of professional revolutionaries working covertly to evade repression and eventually lead systemic change. In this framework, secrecy is not merely tactical; it is essential. In contrast, liberal democratic theorists view politics as an inherently public process. Hannah Arendt, for instance, argued that political action belongs to the ‘public space,’ where open dialogue, participation, and accountability define legitimacy. From this perspective, secrecy undermines the very foundation of politics by eroding trust and eliminating public oversight.
History, however, demonstrates that in times of extreme oppression, underground politics has often functioned as a powerful instrument of resistance. During World War II, the French Resistance operated as a covert network against Nazi occupation, engaging in espionage, sabotage, and intelligence-sharing that significantly aided Allied forces. Similarly, in the Indian subcontinent, revolutionary figures such as Surya Sen, Pritilata Waddedar, and Khudiram Bose carried out clandestine operations against British colonial rule, inspiring widespread resistance at a time when constitutional methods repeatedly failed.
Yet these heroic narratives tell only part of the story. Underground politics also carries a deeply troubling dimension, particularly within democratic or semi-democratic settings. In open systems, political leaders are subject to public scrutiny and accountability. Underground structures, by contrast, operate beyond such mechanisms, often leaving their leadership unaccountable and their decisions beyond public correction. Over time, the need for secrecy isolates these groups from the very people they claim to represent, trapping them in ideological echo chambers and distancing them from social realities.
This hidden sphere of politics is also marked by dangerous practices. One of the most destabilising is infiltration, the covert insertion of operatives into rival political organisations. Such tactics aim to gather intelligence, conduct sabotage, or create internal divisions. While strategically effective, infiltration erodes trust across the political landscape and weakens the foundations of democratic engagement. Equally concerning is the reliance on criminal networks for funding. Sustaining underground operations requires significant financial resources, and in the absence of legitimate channels, many groups turn to extortion, kidnapping, smuggling, or bank robbery. This creates a dangerous convergence between ideological movements and organised crime, blurring the line between political struggle and criminal enterprise.
Another grave consequence is the use of civilians as human shields. By embedding themselves within densely populated areas, underground groups expose ordinary people to immense risk. When state forces launch counter-operations, it is often innocent civilians who suffer the most through casualties, displacement, and harassment.
From a psychological perspective, prolonged engagement in clandestine activity often fosters a culture of suspicion and fear. Scholars describe this phenomenon as ‘paranoid politics,’ where constant anxiety about surveillance or betrayal leads to intolerance of dissent. This frequently results in internal purges, factional splits, and violent infighting, ultimately weakening the movement from within. Moreover, research suggests that societies emerging from underground or armed struggles often face significant challenges in building stable democratic institutions. Leaders shaped by secrecy and coercion may struggle to adapt to norms of transparency, pluralism, and open debate. As a result, post-conflict political systems frequently remain fragile, with lingering authoritarian tendencies.
In conclusion, underground politics is neither inherently virtuous nor inherently destructive; it is a context-dependent strategy. Under authoritarian regimes that suppress all forms of dissent, it may serve as a necessary instrument of resistance. However, in environments where even limited democratic space exists, it becomes not only unnecessary but potentially dangerous undermining institutions, distorting political culture, and endangering civilian life.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is an Executive member, Shahed Ziaur Rahman Hall, RUCSU. E-mail: habibullahbahar965@gmail
