This article discusses mainly Indian politics, but it makes some important general points. One of the most interesting to me is the following: "De-ideologization appears to be inherent in the electoral process. This is the first grave, unavoidable assault on a doctrinal party. Once a party aspires - and opts - for a ruling role, it submits itself to the rules of the electoral game, seeking to outdo others in a bid to get political power. The winning desire overtakes all other considerations. Populism becomes its creed and longterm national interests and problems are thrown to the wind, or at least subdued." If this is true, and I think it is, is it not perhaps a good argument for a pluralistic system where governments can only be formed by coalitions of parties representing many viewpoints? Or perhaps by a "caucus" of all parties. I know that many will scream that nothing will get done. Maybe so. The alternative seems to be government by "patronage of office" parties, which are largely controlled by powerful interests which support both (or all) parties which have any chance of forming a government, and thus set much of the agenda regardless of who wins. I am just thinking aloud, and perhaps in circles, but it seems to me that this all points to funding reform (no corporate "donations", low limits (maybe $100), and full and timely (before the election) disclosure as the most important reform. This is all pretty muddled, partly because my respect for principle is offset by my fear of ideology. If anyone has clearer thoughts, I'd like to hear them. Caspar *****FORWARDED MESSAGE***** Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:34:26 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Hammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: >pNa< Pragmatism and Ideology A People's News Agency (PNA) Dispatch Pragmatism and Ideology "Pragmatism" is the death of ideology but the price of becoming a governing party. S.R. Maheshwari looks at what this means in the context of current Indian politics By S.R. Maheshwari Political parties are usually based on one of two fundamental principles. Max Weber (1864-1920), the founder of modern social science, called them the ěsubstantive political idealsî and ěpatronage of officeî principles. In other words, political parties are either doctrine-based or non-doctrinal. In India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is viewed as the classic example of an ideology-based political party even if its ideology is perceived by some to be communal. Other parties in this category are the communist parties, including its socialist versions; the Shiva Sena; the Akali Dal; and the Indian Union Muslim League. Parties like Congress and Janata Dal are nondoctrinal. This term does not appear to be very endearing, however, and so these parties are called ěpragmaticî. A doctrinal party functions largely in the realm of principles and moral argumentation. It is formed on the basis of substantive political ideas. The "patronage of office" parties, exist in their classic form in the USA. Their dominant aim is to get their leader elected to the top post of President of the United States so that he can distribute state patronage to his friends, followers and electioneering and organizational personnel. These parties lack coherent inner convictions, which they make up by compiling their election agendas from issues and demands that they think will appeal to the voters. They thus compete with each other by packing their election manifestos with as many demands as are politically profitable. In practice, ěpolitical partyî is a misnomer for both categories: both are power categories. Handmaid of Electoral Process A political party is a handmaid of elections. It is an inevitability of elections, especially when elections are held on a broad-based franchise. Parties thus came into existence with the growth and development of representative institutions and the expansion of suffrage. Thus viewed, a party is essentially a product of the nineteenth century. Ideology, however, runs counter to the logic of elections, particularly in societies which are plural and heterogeneous. Today, no party is content to sit eternally as an opposition party and play only a corrective and balancing role. It fights election with the aim of winning and getting into political power. This determines its electoral strategy and political behavior. What is more, the closer it gets to power, the greater becomes its instinct to woo new groups of voters to further broaden its support base and obtain or retain power. One must further note that elections, which are the oxygen of democracy, are autonomous of political parties. The electoral process can go on independently, under its own logic and steam. As such, political parties discover themselves under an obligation to fit into the electoral framework. Elections dictate party strategy and behavior, even when a party is consciously doctrinaire. It is precisely this which has embarrassed the Bharatiya Janata Party, at least since the eleventh Lok Sabha [parliament - eds.]. The party was caught between its explicit ideology of ěnationalismî and its implicit ambition to win the election and get into political power, with which, naturally, is attached the unbounded patronage of a modern state. In the ensuing electoral struggle, ideology was left with no option but to take a back seat, and electoral compulsions inevitably triumphed. When the party got close to winning a majority, it felt compelled to attract new sections of voters. In the process, its ideology became impregnated with pragmatism. De-ideologization In short, the electoral battle itself demands a certain dilution of ideology. De-ideologization appears to be inherent in the electoral process. This is the first grave, unavoidable assault on a doctrinal party. Once a party aspires - and opts - for a ruling role, it submits itself to the rules of the electoral game, seeking to outdo others in a bid to get political power. The winning desire overtakes all other considerations. Populism becomes its creed and longterm national interests and problems are thrown to the wind, or at least subdued. The BJP emerged as the single largest party in the Lok Sabha but was short of a clear majority, prompting it to woo new allies who were not formally associated with it during the election. Moral Deterioration Indian society is presently in the midst of a grave moral deterioration, and perhaps most afflicted is the countryís politics. This is most excruciating when viewed against the background of political traditions set by Mahatma Gandhi. The image of the Indian politician is that of model citizen. Politics is a profession and the politician, like Caesarís wife, must be above suspicion. The ěpureî type of politician in India is dyed in the Gandhian image. The country's politics today, however, is so degraded that an average politician has become a salable commodity bereft of morals. He bays for a pound of flesh whenever an opportunity presents itself. And a wholesaler finds his price catapulted to the sky! Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee made contemporary politics look naked during his effort at forming a government. Ministry-making, for example, could not escape opportunistic pinpricks, which went so far as to threaten to sabotage the whole effort. Supporting political parties extracted plum portfolios to the maximum. The post-election and pre-oath taking period laid bare the ugly face of the politician and his nearly total moral collapse. BJPís journey from a region-specific doctrinaire party to a multilingual ruling party has cost it its ideological homogeneity, rigor and sharpness. Today it appears to be hardly different from other parties. This erosion, one must note, is not fortuitous but inevitable and not unique to this party alone. This process has been fast and without inner pangs because of the adverse national ecology. The entire Indian society is under deep moral anesthesia, and its behavior is characterized by normlessness of an extreme magnitude. The politics of the country, of course, is in worse shape, with political recruitment for some time being from extremely shady sources. As such, most politicians are low in morals and thus look broadly alike. One may stretch this point a bit further and say the Indian politician is himself a part of the larger social malaise. Yet, ironically, he is sitting in judgement over reforms that might remedy this deterioration, which makes the problem doubly tragic. The Bureaucratic Tugboat Another pressure also operates on the political party. When it assumes office, it joins an ongoing, deeply entrenched ěsystemî, or establishment if you like. What bureaucrats call system we call ěred tapeî. When a new party takes office, the bureaucracy begins to tow parties in power in its own direction, disarming them of their initial drive and initiative, and socializing them in its own values and orientation. Bureaucracy tames all parties. When, at the end of his long career, Jawaharlal Nehru was asked about his single greatest failure, he is reported to have said, ěI have not been able to reform the inherited administrative systemî. In short, once in power, the BJP is perceived to be little different from other parties of the land. It is too much to expect a loose, incoherent coalition to reform the present complex system, moreso when those who are sitting in the opposition are not reconciled to their novel role and are bent upon engineering trouble to dethrone it. Whatever be the past of doctrinal parties, their future is not bright and their ideological sharpness is bound to fade. We are living in an age whose dominant ideology is that of non-ideology. The reasons are not difficult to understand. Professor Maheshwari is a National Fellow, Indian Council of Social Science Research. Reprinted with permission from PROUT, New Delhi. =========================================================== (c) 1998 People's News Agency (unless otherwise noted). All rights reserved. Material provided by PNA may be reprinted or distributed if the author is mentioned and if the following information is included: "Reprinted/distributed with permission of People's News Agency, Platanvej 30, 1810 Frederiksberg C, Denmark, [EMAIL PROTECTED]". Clippings or Internet web addresses should be sent to PNA as a condition of use. PNA is sponsored by Proutist Universal, http://www.prout.org. To SUBSCRIBE to PNA-NEWS write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "subscribe pna-news" (without the quote marks) in message body. To UNSUBSCRIBE use "unsubscribe pna-news". ============================================================
