*I* *Notes on **The Battle of Democracy* The term ‘democracy’ is a detestable word and an alien concept within the dominant communist milieu, not only in this country, but throughout the world. For them, it is a bourgeois deception to mask the bourgeois dictatorship and dupe the masses of the people. As the communists have nothing to hide, they openly advocate ‘dictatorship’ (of course, proletarian) during the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism and refrain from using the deceptive term “democracy’. This paper will examine the validity of this theory and practice of the strict dichotomy of ‘democracy’ and ‘dictatorship’, reserved for the bourgeoisie and the proletariat respectively.
1. Following the above renunciation, they decline to qualify a democratic revolution as a democratic one; they never forget to add the prefix ‘bourgeois’ to label it as ‘bourgeois democratic revolution’. Historically speaking, a democratic revolution which aims to overthrow any form of anti-democratic autocratic set-up (be it feudal, fascist or Bonapartist regime) only, in itself does not go beyond the limits of capital and so may correctly be termed as bourgeois democratic. But our friends do not stop here. According to them, there is no democratic content in these revolutions; and the communists and the working class have nothing to gain from them. They continue: the democratic revolution is a conspiracy on behalf of the bourgeois and the term ‘democratic’ attached to it is a fraud only. [Let us examine this postulate through the experiences of the French revolution of 1793 and 1848, the National Democratic Revolution of Vietnam, the Democratic Revolution in India. More: Is the recent revolution in Nepal or anti-apartheid revolution in South Africa democratic? More examples may be cited for examination.] 2. It is true that the democracy practiced (howsoever broad and widespread it might be) in a capitalist society is a bourgeois democracy. Our daily experiences avowedly demonstrate that the existing democracy always tilts towards the capitalists and ‘haves’, always remains pro-active to smoothen the wheels of capital. Not only that, the existing democratic state is tooth and nail equipped with police-military-prison; and in each and every basic class issue, this very democratic state never hesitates to take repressive measures against the oppressed and exploited. Therefore, it is legitimate to term this ‘bourgeois democracy’ as ‘dictatorship of the bourgeoisie’. [Yet it is erroneous to emphasise on the bourgeois aspect of it to such an extent that the concurrent aspect of democracy is denied, as our friends often do.] 3. The following observations and queries must not be skipped by any serious reader of the state and revolution: A) In contrast to feudal state, there is no visible seat in a modern state where the bourgeoisie sit and rule; B) There is no elitist criteria for joining the army and bureaucracy, two most pivotal pillars of the democratic state-power; C) A democratic state is a democratic state because there is no direct safeguard guaranteed (even for the bourgeois) to protect the class rule. We have to examine and unmask the mystery how, in spite of all these; i) capital and the bourgeoisie dominate and rule the society with certainty, though indirectly; ii) each and every democratic institution (be it administration, judiciary or parliament) or rights (viz.: right to form association, freedom of expression including media) becomes deception for the poor and paradise for the rich. 4. Indeed, we, the proletarian party will have to seriously study the strength and weakness, the beauty and ugliness of the bourgeois democracy. At a certain stage in the course of economic advancement, especially in the development of capitalist production relations, there had been urges to abolish the social estate and establish democracy in all spheres of life. This became the demand of the oppressed society as a whole. The intrinsic character of capital is such that it does not, would not and should not recognize any creed, caste religion as the bearer of capital, rather it is ever-moving and recognizes only ‘accumulation for the sake of accumulation’ as its mantra. As a natural consequence bourgeoisie had a historical interest to accomplish the democratic revolution, though for various reasons, they had rarely been an enthusiastic participant or thoroughgoing actor in each and every case. Conversely, it has to be noted that though there had been a relation between development of capitalism and aspiration for ‘democracy’, the democratic revolution cannot be seen as a brainchild or conspiracy of the bourgeoisie. If we look from different angle, both in the short- and long-term perspective, it serves the interests of the working class too. It is true for both internal and national democratic revolution, as it paves the widest and broadest arena of class struggle. 5. How far the democratic revolution would become thoroughgoing and consistent and how far the working class would prepare itself to develop the democratic revolution into socialist revolution depend on the independent role taken by the working class during the democratic revolution. In this context, it may further be noted that when the immediate task remains the accomplishment of democratic revolution, there always develops a section of the bourgeois, not necessarily industrial one, who eagerly participates in the revolution (whom we may safely term ‘democratic’ bourgeois).The working class, who is also interested in accomplishing the tasks of the democratic revolution, has no option but to make an alliance with that section of bourgeois. In that case, the working class should not forget for a moment that i) this alliance is temporary and conditional; ii) the democratic revolution would not emancipate the workers; it would provide, at the most, the suitable space to fight out the rule of capital. 6. One has to realize the strength and beauty of the democratic republic while pointing out to its limitations and one-sidedness. First of all, a democratic republic along with parliamentary democracy (whatsoever truncated and partial it might be) is far better than any form of autocratic state. The understanding that—in a capitalist society, both the autocratic state and democratic state serve the interest of the capital and both are nothing but the rule of capital—is not sufficient. No autocratic regime is equivalent to bourgeoisie class power, though it signifies rule of capital. Conversely, a democratic state in a capitalist society cannot be anything other than bourgeois class power; it cannot be termed as a state power of any sectional bourgeoisie. If we look at the matter from the angle of rights and privileges enjoyed by the people, scope to protect and elevate their life and livelihood; and of course, development of class struggle, we will find a qualitative difference. When the autocratic rule prevails, the workers do not find the bourgeois class at the helm of affair, they recognize autocracy as the villain for their plight. At the same time, a section of bourgeoisie feel suffocated and expresses their dissatisfaction about the autocratic regime. They want a liberal set-up so that any particular section of the bourgeoisie or some alien elements over the bourgeoisie cannot decide the course of political and economic actions. They want a ‘free for all’ platform, a level playing field. As soon as the autocratic rule ends, the veil comes down. The workers get triple advantage—i) they confront their historical enemy, their real enemy directly; their enemy’s enemy no longer confronts them; ii) the democratic rights ushered by the democratic revolution provide scope to unite and unleash class struggle to the maximum extent, which is precondition for the preparation of socialist revolution; iii) the working class gets rid of the compulsion of forging unity with the (democratic) bourgeois, which can only be achieved on a bourgeois plane and unabatedly arrive in a position of making unity with the toiling masses within the workers’ camp on a proletarian plane. ………. Only after scrutinizing the positive and negative aspects of the existing democracy, one can search and strive for alternative democracy—higher democracy, both in form and content, proletarian democracy—which not only negates the negative features of the existing democracy, but affirms the prerequisites to accomplish socialist revolution. If we look at the salient steps taken by the Paris Commune (the first historical endeavour to surpass the bourgeois democracy), we witness how the communards attacked those very basis of a democratic state, which make it bourgeois and how they fought to institute some ingredient elements of revolutionary democracy which would turn it to proletarian. In other words, the Paris Commune expressed the essence and form of proletarian democracy-cum-proletarian dictatorship. It is still thrilling to go through the uniqueness of the proletarian revolutionary consciousness of the communards to establish a higher form of democracy. [Each and every bold step taken by the Commune may be discussed and highlighted as the act-consciousness of the ‘class-for-itself’]. Now let us discuss why and how the discourse and practice of democracy is an integral part of the dictatorship of the proletariat during the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism. First of all, let us reiterate the basic lesson—communism is not a doctrine to introduce from above; communism is a practical movement developed through the thick and thin of class struggle. The urge for smashing capitalism, establishing social control over means of production arises from contradictions and crises of capitalism. As a corollary to carry out the socialist revolution, in particular the socialist transformation, ‘the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class’. The socialist revolution, in reality, begins with this political act. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is the unique characteristic of the socialist revolution. Socialist urges may grow within capitalism; some socialist elements may intrude on capitalism; but no socialist production relation could develop within it. Neither there is any blue print of socialist transformation to be implemented. Actually, the steps for socialist transformation lie in the mist of future. One may indicate some signposts, one may project some vision into it, but the real breakthrough will take place amidst ifs and buts, by trial and errors. This needs socialist creativity, which in turn needs democracy of a new nature. Here we may reinvent and reassert the historical lesson: Workers’ emancipation is the act of workers themselves. There is no scope of substitutionism or proxy in the praxis of socialist revolution. No wise leadership, no great helmsman can do this. The history of the failures of so- called successful socialist transformations in the last century has amply proved it. The democracy must be in-built in the notion and practice of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Finally, the working class has to win the battle of democracy, not only within capitalism, but also during the transition period; and the moment it is finally won, the democracy as a state concept and practice will become redundant. Having set the agenda of the battle of democracy, let us examine the case of India. *II.* *Further Notes* *On Indian State and Democracy and the Tasks of the Communists* 1. The Communists, by and large achieved grand success either in colonial countries or in countries with autocratic regimes. Conversely, they achieved little success under a democratic set up. The victorious communists have written and disseminated a plethora of their successful theories and practices in former cases. However there has been relatively little discourse on how to deal with bourgeois democracy. In most cases either they succumbed to parliamentarism and reformism or shunned the path of movement for reform or fight within democratic platforms including parliament. 2. India attained independence in 1947 and through this the task of the National Democratic Revolution has, in essence, been completed. One cannot simply deny the achievement of national independence by pointing to the absence or negligible presence of armed struggle in colonial India or the presence of round-table conference preceding independence, One may have right (!) to undermine this attainment of independence with derogatory remark of ‘transfer of power’, forgetting to acknowledge the basic lesson of state and revolution, i.e., any change of state power is also a revolution, whatsoever restricted sense it might be. The subsequent role played by the Indian state as a junior partner of world imperialism or to toe the footsteps of this or that super power or to follow the dictum of IMF or WTO in no way derecognize the NDR accomplished. 3. The notion of democratic republic was in-built within the Indian independence movement and democratic republic was established in due course after independence. To that extent the (internal) democratic revolution was accomplished in India. Initial compromise with the princely states or the remnants of feudalism does in no way repudiate this reality. The built-in provisions in the Indian democratic constitution of invoking anti- democratic measures at any time proves its self-contradiction to the core of it, and points to the bourgeois content of the democracy, not the absence of democracy. If the features of democracy and provisions of constitution and its actual practices are compared, it may easily be concluded that India is democratic to the extent U.K or France or USA democratic. Similarly those countries are as much undemocratic as India is and vice versa. 4. Following the general observation and conclusion drawn in the 1st part of this abstract, one can convincingly conclude that Indian state is a democratic state and as such it is ruled by the bourgeois class as a whole. There is no special authoritarian mechanism or ingredient within the Indian state to designate it as a big bourgeois-big landlord state or a comprador bourgeois-feudal state or a semi-feudal, semi-colonial state. Not only that, Indian parliamentary democracy through its long existence for about six decades have shown enough maturity to provide level playing field for each and every section of the bourgeoisie, to provide a platform to hold the fierce competition and ugly in- fighting among themselves. We may repeat: if a state is to be ruled by a section of the bourgeoisie, it has to be an authoritarian one, which no democratic state could accommodate. 5. That in India the Democratic Republic was established through independence and it has retained the tradition and practice of democracy, of course with strains and deficiencies— is neither a grace nor a conspiracy on behalf of the bourgeoisie. It is a product of different factors: i) When Indian masses of the people fought for independence, aspiration for a democratic republic was inherent within the movement; ii) Indian ruling bourgeoisie class knows very well that this democratic republic is the ideal form where no particular section can rule the country; rather each and every section can rule it. [It is the dynamism and strength of the Indian democracy that be it rural bourgeois, or regional bourgeois, or trading bourgeois… each and every section enjoys the scope to influence the government policy, even though the big bourgeoisie enjoys the maximum scope to dominate the scene. Not the absence, but the presence of democracy provides the basis, where capital gets the opportunity to rule, oust the have-nots from the arena of power; and for obvious reasons, the big gets the larger share of cake.] They also know that if they want to throw out the masses of the people from the orbit of democracy, they themselves would be thrown out from this grand mechanism; iii) As long as India sustains this democracy, it is attaining its own strength and dynamics. After passing six decades of democratic tradition, it would be very difficult to impose any sort of autocratic rule in India. How even the ‘emergency’ imposed by Indira Gandhi in ’70s was rejected and rebuffed is a bright example to justify this proposition. 6. While pointing to the democratic content of the existing democratic state, one should never undermine the other side of coin. In India, there have been draconian laws to curb the movement for life and livelihood; there have been indiscriminant killing by the armed forces of the state; there have been constant distortions of democratic rights and institutions. The irony is: each and every step mentioned has been sanctioned by the democratic (!) constitution and the so-called democratic sovereign institutions of power i.e., parliament, whose members have been elected through universal suffrage. The question obviously arises: how democratic is this democracy! 7. Finally, the moot question: what is to be done with this democracy? First of all, we can deal this question only after examining the true nature of this democracy. To look dialectically is the most appropriate guide to deal with ‘democracy’. It is advantageous for the communists here that they do not have to fight for a democratic republic. The working class and masses of the people do not face an autocratic regime; they don’t suffer for lack of democracy, per se. In general and in each and every particular case, they find a situation where there is a lack of democracy within a democratic set up. People experience daily how each and every democratic institution and right is truncated and distorted. The realization of all the democratic rights is possible only if capital and moneybags are stripped off from the right of playing freely, only if the existing democratic institutions are replaced by alternative institutions where capital would be suppressed so that it becomes unable to interfere and dominate. And that is the socialist agenda. In other words, as the democracy is the obvious rallying cry where there is no democracy; here in the countries like India, freeing democracy from the clutches of capital would be the obvious watchword. The battle for democracy is continuing, the question remains: how to win the battle. And the task of the communists is to facilitate the process. 7. Therefore, in each and every aspect of the democratic rights’ movement, in each and every aspect of political, social and economic front, in each and every democratic institution, the working class has to invade with the socialist element, has to raise the question of ‘democracy for whom’ and ‘how the democracy to be implemented’ and also search for alternative democracy. The class struggle must take on its agenda for ‘winning the battle of democracy’. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
