Chapter I STATE INTERVENTION AND LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. The idea of peaceful transition to socialism has influenced Marxist discourse

Transcription

1 Chapter I STATE INTERVENTION AND LIBERAL DEMOCRACY The idea of peaceful transition to socialism has influenced Marxist discourse to a large extent, especially in the 20th century. Experiments with parliamentary politics has been common amongst Communists and Social Democratic parties in West Europe. Kerala's experience with the same was carefully obseived by political Parties internationally. To be able to comprehend the nature of the relationship between Communist Parties and parliamentary democracy, itt would be useful to look briefly at the evolution of this relationship vis-a-vis classical Marxism to the contemporary debate. Marxist Perceptions of Parliamentary Democracy Marx and Engels were not at all taken with bourgeois democracy, and denounced it as a fom1 of class domination. But they saw considerable virtues in bourgeois democratic regimes as compared with other forms of class domination. About universal suffrage, Marx held the view that in so far as it helped to sharpen the contradictions of bourgeois society and provided a school of 7

2 development of the working class, it offered definite but limited possibilities to the revolutionary movement. The question of suffrage and its uses is also connected with that of the 'transition to socialism'; and Marx was willing to allow that there might be some stray cases where that transition would be achieved by non- violent means and, therefore, presumably through electoral means. 1 For Marx, to exp~ct that universalization of the franchise could become a 'transformative principle' and to characterise 'parliamentary victories as real victories'- positions which Marx associated with the emerging social democratic patties - was to lapse into 'parliamentary cretinism'. 2 For Marx then, universal suffrage was ambiguous and his attitude to it remained ambivalent. For Lenin, there was a sharp difference between bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy, but he also said, "We are in favour of democratic republic as the best form of state for the proletariat under capitalism, though we have no right to forget that \-Vage slavery is the lot of the people even in the most democratic bourgeois republic. 3 After Marx, amongst the 'revisionists', Bernstein was of the: view that democracy was not the means by which the working class could mor,e effectively subject society to its own rule; it was rather, the 'absence of class government'. 8

3 With respect to socialism, he insisted that democracy was 'not only the means but also the substance'. 4 Universal franchise is, he insisted," the alternative to violent revolution". 5 He felt that where democratisation had made the legal method possible, this was much preferred to the uncertainties of revolutionary action. While Kautsky's e.arly writings indicate support for what was subsequently to become the 'Leftist' position on parliamentarism (its use solely for organizational and tactical purposes), by the early 1890s, he had adopted the 'parliamentary road to socialism'. He argued in 1892, that once 'the proletariat engages in parliamentary activity as a self conscious class, parliamentarism begins to change its character'. 6 He argued that "in a great modern state, the proletariat, like the bourgeoisie, could acquire influence on the administration of the state only through the vehicle of an elected parliament". 7 For Rosa Luxemburg, parliamentary democracy was an essentially bourgeois fom1. She felt tl1at parliamentarism does indeed express the interests of the whole society- but those of 'a society in which capitalist interests predominate'. But she also emphasised that 11 parliamentarism is for the rising working class one of the most powerful and indispensable means of carrying on the class struggle. To save bourgeois parliamentarism from the bourgeoisie and to use it against the bourgeoisie is one of Social Democracy's most urgent political tasks". 8 However, 9

4 she rejected any abandonment of the extra- parliamentary class struggle."the real way is not to conceal and abandon the proletarian class struggle, but the very reverse: to emphasise s'trongly and develop this struggle both within and without parliament. " 9 Due to the considerable differences that exist in classical Marxist thinking on the state, democracy and the transition to socialism, its inheritors felt that it did not prove adequate to understand political practice in advanced capitalist societies of the West European kind. The advances of the French, Spanish and Italian Communist Parties during the mid-70s aroused much interest, and was considered by some as a 'third road to socialism.' Gramsci, considered the father of Italian Communism, felt that the state in Western societies was 'more complex and massive' and the bourgeois rule was largely mediated through the exercise of hegemony in civil society. The ruling class could not be unseated through a frontal attack To ensure proletarian rule it was first necessary to displace bourgeois hegemony within civil society by proletarian hegemony and this was possible through a period of sustained and protracted mass struggle. The revolutionary Party in the West had to dedicate itself to the arduous and gradual task of raising the proletariat to the role of hegemony class for,' in politics, war of position is hegemoily' saw the introduction of the strategy of popular front. Its aim was to mobilise as broad as possible a bloc of 'popular', anh-fascist 10

5 forces which were to be rallied around the 'intermediate' goal of the overthrow of fascism and restoration of a more or less bourgeois democracy.. So post-war European Communist practice saw a'two-stage' strategy-first, restoration of democracy; then, transition to socialism. Togliatti's neo- Gramscian approach rejected insurrectionary tactics in favour of a recognition of the revolution in the West as a gradual process. He believed that within the prevailing institutional structure it would be possible to advance beyond an 'illusory' bourgeois democracy to an 'advanced' or 'progressive' democracy which would be able to instigate measures that would take Italian society beyond capitalism towards the threshold of socialism. 11 Some critics of this Italian path who identify it with social democratisation of the Party, have sought to take a path between Leninism and Eurocommunism. PouJantzas, while critical of both Leninist and Eurocommunist s~ategies, feels that the democratic road to socialism must be through exploitation of the internal contradictions of the state. For this a sweeping transformation ' combining the transformation of representative democracy within the development of forms of direct, rank-and-file democracy' is necessary.u Amongst more recent writings, Barry Hindess' 'Parliamentary Democracy and Socialist Politics', advocates disconnecting the concept of democracy from any notion of sovereigntyp Such an approach, he feels, affords the possibility of 11

6 - pr9moting democratic reforms both within legitimacy of extra-parliarnentary as well as parliamentary struggle. State Intervention in Parliamentary Democracy: The Marxist View There is a varied understanding of democracy and parliamentary institutions in Marxist theory, which has determined the nature of state intervention by national and sub- national Communist regimes for reform. At this juncture, it is important to understand how the concept of state intervention in a liberal democracy is understood by Marxists. For Marx and Engels, as well as for later Marxist thinking, the notion of state intervention in the capitalist process is an intrinsic part.of the analysis of that process of production ~tself. Without going into the analysis of the production process it is necessary to see the strategy the state follows, in terms of inte1vention, when the Left parties are in power. What is the 'space' in which such regimes function and to what effect? An important strategy followed is that of reformism, i.e., pursuit of economic, social and political reforms within the framework of capitalism as part of the long term strategy of overthrowing capitalism. This is a politics of conflict envisaged 12

7 as being conducted within the limits of constitutionalism defined by bourgeois democracy, with a strong emphasis on electoral success at municipal, regional and national levels. Theol etically and practically, this is comparable with forms of struggle which, though carried on within the given constitutional framework, are not related to elections and representation- for instance strikes, sit-ins, and demonstrations, etc., to advance specific demands, and oppose government. But what needs to be kept in mind is that bourgeois democracy and constitutionalism generate considerable constraints for revolutionary movements and lead them towards what might be termed as reciprocal constitutionalism. As a result of this, if these Parties become serious about electoral ambitions, however genuine their ultimate aim to transform capitalist structures, they get tempted to try and widen their support base by moderating their ideological appeal and aims. Further, pressures of office are bound to enhance the move towards social democratisation of these parties. Historically, we have seen that if a Left-wing and Communist- led government backed by an electoral and parliamentary majority did try to carry through far-reaching anti-capitalist measures, as in Peru under Allende, it is bound to arouse the conservative forces, who also have the support of the bureaucracy, judiciary and other state organs. The opposition is bound to use all constitutional and unconstitutional means to subvert the reformist move. The 13

8 reformist leadership knows well that Marx was right when he said 1hat universal suffrage may give one the right to govern but does not give the power to rule. On the whole, the reformist strategy through state intervention acknowledges the truth of Marx and Engels' proposition that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purpose.' What is important to note is that the reformist strategy of Left regimes may produce a combination of direction and democracy sufficiently effective to keep the conservative forces in check and to provide the conditions under which the process of transition may proceed: Bourgeois democracy is crippled by its class limitations, and under constant threat of further and drastic impairment by conservative forces. But it is the responsibility of reformist Left-regimes to intervene to maintain the civic freedoms won after long struggles and make possible their extension. Here, it would be useful to also look briefly at the two major positions concerning the relationship of European social democracies to radical change. One approach emphasizes the progressive dynamic of social democracy. Esping-Andersen and Stephens argue that, under certain conditions, the dynamics of electoral competition may impel social democratic governments to widen their policy agenda from political to social to economic democracy. 15 The cumulative character of these changes clashes with the structural limits of capitalism and 14

9 makes socialist transition possible. Another approach is that of Przeworski and Offe who find that liberal democratic forms exert conservatising pressures. They point to the electoral necessity to produce pluralities and thereby downplay class appeals, the tendency for bureaucratic and representative forms to supplant direct participation, and the need for Leftist parties to appear "responsible" as well as capable of delivering immediate material benefits} 6 So, Marxists see the possibilities for state intervention by Left regimes in a liberal democratic framework to be limited. A reform-oriented Left regime can bring about limited change, but faces the constant risk of de-radicalisation of its ideology and policies and getting sucked into full-time electoral politics. But what needs to be recognised is that liberal democracy, despite its class limitations, does provide the Left-regimes some amount of space for manoeuver. The question is how best to use this space, and exploit the parliamentary institutions and freedom granted for their use, to bring about reform. State Intervention in the Indian Perspective In the above discussed background we can now look at the nature of state intervention that has taken place in the Indian context, especially with reference to sub-national Leftist regimes. India has undergone four decades of politically 15

10 guided development. But still this democratically planned economy, committed to 'socialism', has failed to improve the living conditions of the lower classes. Indian studies on state intervention have basically looked at this from the perspective of the state, e.g. bourgeois government at the Centre, being unable to intervene due to certain constraints. Pranab Bardhan 17 feels that the state elite that inherited the power at the time of independence enjoyeo enormous prestige and a sufficiently unified sense of ideological purpose about the the desirability of using state intetvention to promote national economic development. But the plurality of constraints. working on a heterogeneou~ dominant coalition has seriously interfered with the functions of the public economy. As a consequence, the autonomy of the Indian state is reflected more often in its regulatory than developmental role. Ashok Mitra, 18 while taking a classical Marxist position, feels that the rules of the game which the industrial bourgeoisie and the rural oligarchy have established in relation to terms of trade for furthering their duopolistic coalition, is corrosive of growth, apart from being wholly detrimental to the interests of the working classes. 16

11 Sanjay Baru 19 ob~erves that the state has played a crucial role in India's post-independence economic development by providing protection to Indian industry, financial support to it, creating the necessary infrastructure, and in protecting and expanding the home market for the private sector (resulting in a model of 'State Capitalist' development). But, state intervention in the economy while ostensibly aiming to 'regulate' and 'control' private enterprise in fact 'promoted' and 'protected' its growth. And, the state having provided the initial stimulus for growth in the economy, has been rendered incapable, at one level, and superfluous, at another, in continuing to play this role. The state, quite obviously, is in retreat. A factor common to the studies, of Bardhan, Mitra and Baru is that they are concentrating on state intervention at the national (macro) level and looking at it merely from the perspective of state autonomy. As a result, the micro levels of our political economy, the dynamics of intervention by the S'4b- national regimes, functioning in the limited 'space' they have in a bourgeois democracy, is neglected. Two important studies on state intervention by (Left-led) sub-national governments for radical refoqn, are those by Ronald Herring 20 and Atul Kohli. 21 Both of them assume the persistence of a liberal democratic polity and ~apitalist 17

12 political economy in India, and in that context explore the extent to which statesponsored redistributive reform is possible at the regional level. Kohli's analysis is based on a comparison of the CPI(M)- dominated government in W.Bengal ( ), Congress(!) under Devraj Ursin Karnataka ( ), and Janata Party rule in U.P.( ), in government performance in three policy areas: land reform, wage and employment schemes for the landless, and development assistance to small and marginal farmers. Kohli suggests that a regime which has a coherent leadership, comn1itment to exclude propertied interests from governance, pragmatic attitude towards entrepreneurial classes, and an organizational arrangement which is simultaneously centralised and decentralised, is capable of enacting redistributive reform. He finds the CPI(M) government in W. Bengal close to being such a regime, and elaborates on the sucess of this regime in the three policy areas. Herring's work focuses exclusively on land reforms. Besides India, he includes Pakistan and Sri Lanka in his analysis. He compares tenurial reform in Sri Lanka, ceiling- redistributive reform in Pakistan and the closest approximation yet to "land to the tiller" reform in Kerala. Herring analyses the possibilities of achieving effective land reform within a liberal democratic, capitalist framework. While recognizing the manner in which political structure detem1ines outcome, he identifies the subtle and complex ways in which class and regime interests ultimately block successful reform. 18

13 While both Herring and Kohli provide insights into the dynamics of state autonomy by analysing the sub-national level, they differ in their assessment of the prospects for radical reform. Herring emphasizes the lesser autonomy of the local than the national state and the federal constraints on state governments. Kohli emphasizes the potential for state autonomy at the regional level when opposition governments have excluded propertied groups from political representation. Reviewing these two studies, Amrita Basu 22 feels that Kohli unde1restimates the economic and political constraints on the state in W. Bengal. The CPI(M)' s preoccupation with electoral success, combined with its attempt to facilitate capitalist development, have severely curtailed its ability to empower the poor. Further, she feels Kohli has exaggerated the extent to which the state has achieved redistributive reform in W. Bengal. Unlike Kohli who emphasizes state autonomy, Herring rejects characterizations of the state and focuses instead on the opportunities for purposive state action within a structure of constraints. She states that Herring's failure is methodological: while he discusses the formulation of state policy in great detail, he neglects the rich tradition of agrarian radicalism in Kerala. On the whole, her major reseivation against both Kohli's and Herring's studies is that they neglect political currents at the grass-roots level 19

14 Notwithstanding the significance of the studies of Kohli and Herring, what also seems to be lacking in their focus on W.Bengal and Kerala, is a understanding of various factors specific to these states, in terms of conditions existing in their society, polity, economy and culture. Various studies have tended to emphasize a dominant factor, like peasant struggles from below or Communist parties being in power, and in the proces neglected the dynamic interaction between factors at two levels - the national and state level, and the state and grass-roots level. It is such an understanding of successful state intervention by Leftist regimes in Kerala, that is being attempted by this study

15 Notes 1 Christopher Pierson, Marxist Theory and Democratic Politics, (Cambddge, 1986), p V.I. Lenin, 'The State and Revolution', in Selected Works (London, 1969), p Karl Marx, 'The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte', in Surveys from Exile, (London, 1973) p E. Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism (London, 1909) p Ibid, p.146-7, K. Kautsky, The Class Struggle (New York, 1910), p Pierson, Op. cit., p R. Looker (ed.) Rosa Luxemburg, Selected Political Writings. (London, 1972) p.llo. 9 Ibid, p.ll3. 10 A. Gramsci, The Prison Note Books, (London, 1971), p P. Togliatti, On Gramsci and Other Writings (London, 1979), p N. Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism (London, 1978), p B. Hindess, Parliamentary Democracy and Socialist Politics (London, 1983), p R. Miliband, Marxism and Politics (Oxford, 1977), p \~ \)) 1.14\:L ~~ok~5"7 ~3

16 15 John Stephens, The Transition From Capitalism to Socialism (Urbana, 1986); G.E. Andersen, Politics Against Markets (Princeton, 1985). 16 Adam Przeworski, "Social Democracy as a Historical Phenomenon," New Left Review, Vol.122, 1980, p.28-58; Claus Offe, Contradictions of the Welfare State (Cambridge, 1984). 17 Pranab Bardhan, The Political Economy of Development in India, (Delhi, 1984), p Ashok Mitra, Terms of Trade and Class Relations, (London, 1977), p Sanjay Baru, "The State in Retreat?", EPW, Vol.XX, n.16, April 20, 1985, p R. Herring, Land to the Tiller : The Political Economy of Agrarian Reform in South Asia (New Haven, 1983). 21 Atul Kohli, State and Poverty in India : The Politics of Reform (Cambridge, 1987). 22 See review article by Amrita Basu, 'State Autonomy and Agrarian Transformation in India'; Comparative Politics, July