Re: [Marxism] The 2009 Indian Elections

["Politicus E." <epoliticus@xxxxxxxxx>]

The following editorial was published in the 23 May 2009 issue of
Economic and Political Weekly (i.e., E.P.W.) and is entitled "Logical
Defeat for the Left."  It pertains to the substantial losses of the
CPI(M)-led coalition in the 2009 Indian general election.  The reader
can find the entire article at the journal's website
http://epw.in/epw/user/userindexHome.jsp.

On a somewhat different note, Mritiunjoy Mohanty sent to the list the
URL of an article published on the website MacroScan.  I have no
comment about the article, but in the interest of transparency I shall
point out that many of the writers that publish at MacroScan are
persons with an affinity with the politics of the CPI(M).  This should
be borne in mind by the reader.

epoliticus

***

Can the Left learn the proper lessons from its electoral rout?

There is a certain irony in the defeat of the Left, in parti­cular of
the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI(M), in the recent
general elections. It was among the handful of communist parties in
the world that survived the fall of the then existing socialism in
1989­-91 and it actually grew in size in the following years. Today
when capitalism is in crisis the world over, the CPI(M)­-led Left in
India faces its worst defeat ever.

Predictably, the Left Front (LF) and CPI(M) will bring forth
contingent and immediate exigencies to explain the electoral rout. One
view blames state-­level mistakes like Singur and Nandigram in West
Bengal and factionalism and cyclical voter swing in Kerala for the
debacle. Other factors like the neglect of education, public health
and transport and the stepmotherly treatment of minorities in West
Bengal (where fewer Muslims are in government service than in Gujarat)
are also being held responsible for the loss. After more than three
decades in power it is not possible to blame a lack of funds from the
centre for the inadequate coverage and level of social services in at
least Ben­gal. Moreover, the double­speak between CPI(M) positions in
Delhi and Kolkata, e specially on economic policies, also turned
voters away. Lastly, there are clear indications of complacency and
arrogance, not to mention an arbitrary and even illegal
ex­ercise of power at the local level, in the behaviour of the Left in
Bengal ...

The CPI(M) saw a fall in vote share in 15 out of the 22 states in
which it contested. Even in those states where its vote share has
gone up, it is largely because the party contested more seats.
Overall, despite contesting 13 more seats (a total of 82 nationally),
the CPI(M)’s vote share declined and the LF’s tally fell from 61 in
the 14th Lok Sabha to just 24 in the new Parliament. In fact, five
seats in West Bengal could even be seen as a gift from the Bharatiya
Janata Party [i.e., B.J.P.], whose candidates divided the anti­left
votes in these constituencies and helped the LF candidate win. Yet,
despite these reverses, it is undeniable that the core of the LF’s
support still remains loyal in Bengal and Kerala.

There is a large element of truth to be found in each of these
explanations and still they remain, in their sum total, empirical
and empiricist apologies for the loss suffered by the Left. Such a
rout cannot be explained only in terms of momentary exigencies.
Regrettably, the first steps at self­-assessment and review of the
results indicate that rather than confront these stark realities and
encourage a thorough self-­criticism from the rank and file, the left
parties are either trying to find short­-term, localised, answers
to the defeat or are indulging in an internal blame game being aired
publicly and with much rancour.

It was in the 15th Congress of the CPI(M) in Chandigarh in the mid­
1990s that a startling fact came to light. More than half the
members of the party came from non­working class and non­-peasant
backgrounds, or what is loosely called, the middle class.
This was primarily due to the inability of the CPI(M) to mobilise
working people in mass movements while retaining its attraction
towards young educated radical sections of society. This member­ship
skew, unaddressed as it has remained since then, has led to a
situation where today the students, youth and women’s fronts of the
party supply almost all the top leaders of the politburo and
Parliament and there is perhaps not a single young leader who has
emerged from trade union, peasant or other mass struggles.
Harkishan Singh Surjeet and Jyoti Basu had emerged from peasant and
working class movements, while Prakash Karat and
Buddhadeb Bhattacharya emerged from the classrooms of elite
universities. This dominance of members from the educated
prop­ertied classes has resulted in what can only be called “a
politics of logical principles”.

The scholars and wordsmiths who lead the CPI(M) today, draft its
documents and lay down the line are no doubt masters at drawing
logical conclusions from first principles. Textual criti­cism and
deconstruction of reality seem to have replaced actual mass
mobilisation and movements. Even on the nuclear deal issue, hundreds
of thousands of words were produced while only one hurried bus ride
along India’s eastern coast filled in for mass mobilisation on this
issue. Today the Left, led by its largest mem­ber the CPI(M), has made
erudite critiques of government acts, policy lobbying and
administration into its prime political work. It seems at a loss when
confronted by mass action. The Left re­mains on the sidelines of most
popular mass movements being waged by peasants, tribals and workers in
India today and, wor­ryingly, sometimes it is ranged against them. The
few mass move­ments which it initiated, as in Rajasthan or Andhra
Pradesh, re­mained localised, not only in the geographical sense which
they had to, but crucially in terms of political import because the
party
did not know what to do with them.

The Left theoreticians have been found wanting even in the theoretical
task of building a new praxis of radical mass move­ments. Lurching
from one issue to another, on agendas set by others, the CPI(M)
leadership often appears to be, what Ashok Mitra termed recently,
“philosophers of the short term”.

Beyond the fortunes of this particular election, the world today is
passing through one of the greatest crisis of capitalism. Neoliberal
dogmas, which till recently seemed unshakeable, are facing
unprecedented opposition from people at large while gigantic
corporations are teetering on collapse. It is at moments like these
that ideas and solutions that lead to radical egalitarian
transformation of society can become popular and can be rooted in
social institutions and state structures. In India, democracy has
struck deep roots and is empowering millions to demand a better life
and greater dignity for themselves. By denying the CPI(M) and the LF
any major parliamentary stake, the people of India have,
inadvertently, thrown them out of parliamentary politics too. The
question, unfortunately, remains whether any­ thing is left in the
Left to take advantage of this opportunity. There is no logical answer
to this question, only the possibility of returning to its natural
politics.

***

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu