People's Democracy

  No Short Cut To A Third Front

B V Raghavulu

THE formulations in respect of a third alternative, made at the all-India congress of the CPI(M) held at Delhi, have attracted the attention of all, and it is being widely discussed in the media. Scores of interpretations are being offered. The CPI(M)’s resolution on a third alternative is nothing new. Earlier also, in various contexts, the CPI(M) has declared its intention to develop a third alternative. But this time the issue has become an item of so much discussion, which is something special. The reason for this is the role played by the Left parties in the country’s politics today and the UPA government’s continuing dependence on their support. As it is not possible, like in the past, to ignore the decisions of Left parties and to maintain a studied silence about them, this discussion had to take place perforce. But this debate, instead of focusing on the positive and negative aspects of the proposal, is giving more importance to creating confusion by distorting the proposal.

IMPROPER PROPOSITION

Resistance is coming to the third alternative idea from the ruling parties and the intellectuals standing by them, directly or indirectly. There is nothing surprising about this. In our country, ruling lasses want a two party system. If that is not possible, they want all other parties to join either the Congress or the BJP bandwagon and not remain as independent forces. In this matter the two party systems obtaining in the US and other advanced countries appear to them as an ideal. That means they want that only ruling class parties should be there in the government as well as in opposition and that the parties standing by the side of the people should not have an independent place. It is not surprising if those having such thinking cannot stomach the third alternative proposed by the Left parties. Whatever be the arguments, the essence of the interpretations of the BJP and Congress representatives or of intellectuals amounts to only this much.      

Pointing to the earlier failures, some people are now deriding the idea of a third alternative. Pointing out the failures of the National Front constituted during V P Singh’s prime ministership and United Front government constituted during Deve Gowda’s prime ministership, some people are now ridiculing the proposal of a third alternative. The earlier National Front or United Front was, however, no alternative front. They were cobbled together to form governments after elections. Though the United Front, after forming the government, had drawn up a common minimum programme, it was not a manifesto seeking the verdict of the people. These were the weaknesses, which placed a question mark on the survival of those fronts. Those fronts could not continue with stability. Taking into account the past failures, therefore, the CPI(M) wants a third alternative to evolve on the basis of an agreed programme. To forget this and to indulge in irrelevant comparisons between earlier fronts and the present proposition is not proper.

CONGRESS & BJP VISIONS

BJP leaders are emphasising that no front can come to power without the BJP or the Congress. BJP leaders are thinking that the only alternatives for the people of this country are either BJP or Congress. It is their wish. To see that such a situation is not there is the CPI(M)’s objective. The continuance of two party system will do great harm to a country of great diversity like India. Toilers, weaker sections, backward regions, various languages and communities will be harmed. That is why the CPI(M) wants a third alternative to safeguard the interests of the people and exploited classes and not the interests of the ruling classes.

Congress leaders too want to have only two fronts. Fearing that somebody may pull them up by asking whether they want the BJP front to be the alternative, they say there should be only two fronts --- of the Congress and the Left parties. They are going to the extent of branding the talk about the third alternative as only helping the communal forces. They are sermonising that today’s need is that the Left parties tie up with the Congress. Their interpretation is that the BJP got strengthened because of the Left parties’ past attempts for a third front. But the Congress cannot cover up its failure in opposing communalism and bringing forward soft communalism to compete with the BJP’s diehard communalism. It is becoming necessary to think about a third alternative because it is not possible for the Congress to consistently fight communalism and put a halt to the harmful economic policies of liberalisation.

Those accepting the need for a third alternative are also expressing doubts and reservations. They are raising such questions: whether the Left parties are proposing a third front or a third alternative? Who are the partners in this front? Whether those earlier in the United Front or National Front, like the Telugu Desam and others, will also be partners in it? Whether a third front will take shape immediately? Or whether it will evolve over time?

CPI(M)’S CLEAR POSITION

The following parts of the political resolution adopted by the 18th congress of the CPI(M) will help to clear all such doubts or clearly answer them.

“2.98 The party reiterates that it is not possible to have a united front or alliance with the Congress. This is what determined our decision not to join a Congress-led government but to support it from outside. In the coming days the party should have ties with all the secular parties within and outside the UPA who are not allied to the BJP. The party is not for the consolidation of two bourgeois formations headed by the Congress and the BJP. The party will work for the realisation of a third alternative as the political situation matures for it.

“2.99 As the 16th congress resolution pointed out, the formation of a third alternative as a stable formation can come about only when the Left gets further strengthened at the all-India level. Without this, such combinations are short-term measures. The 17th congress, summing up the experience of such third formations, also opined that it must be based on some common programme. The process of formation of such a third alternative, as distinct from electoral understandings for specific elections must begin by drawing the non-Congress secular bourgeois parties and other democratic forces into campaigns and struggles on common issues.

“2.100 The formation of a third alternative will materialise only when there is a change in the stand of the political parties which are today either with the Congress or the BJP. As far as economic policies are concerned, most of the regional parties adhere to liberalisation-privatisation. Without effecting change in the outlook of these political parties, it will not be possible to go towards the formation of an alternative political combination. This requires the intervention of the party and the Left. It is possible to bring about a change in these political parties and the current alignments only by building big movements and struggles that the masses following these parties will be influenced and a shift will take place. The key to bring about a change in the existing bourgeois-landlord combinations is for the party and the Left to build big movements and united platforms by rallying all democratic and fighting forces representing the working people.”

MAIN FEATURES OF A THIRD ALTERNATIVE

Anyone who analyses the above quoted parts will not think that CPI(M) is not having clarity about the third alternative. Answers to the questions raised by critics and well wishers will be found. The main features regarding the third alternative can be summarised as follows.

1. The third alternative will evolve based on an agreed programme.

2. The programme will have as its main features protection of secularism and economic policies, different from liberalisation reforms.

3. In the third alternative, along with the Left parties, there will be place for regional parties, democratic parties and forces that would be willing to work together on the basis of a common programme.

4. An understanding among parties during elections and the third alternative are not the same things.

5. The evolution of such an alternative will be possible only through movements and intensification of struggles.

6. It will be the duty of the Left parties to build movements and struggles based on widest mobilisation that will be helpful for evolving the third alternative.

In the third alternative, as desired by the Left parties, which parties may become partners will depend on the policies pursued by them and not the whims and fancies of the leaders of these parties. The same will apply to Telugu Desam and other regional parties also. Similarly, the CPI(M) is not in a hurry to cobble together a front with different non-Congress, non-BJP parties without reference to policies. Therefore, whether the constitution of a third alternative will be immediately possible or it will be a long-term goal will depend on the changes in the people’s movements in the days to come.

This is the time for all those who want an alternative to the Congress and BJP fronts to stand by the third alternative. This is the time to give support for widest mobilisation of forces and intensification of struggles. The forces desiring only two fronts will anyway try to create hurdles for the third alternative. The Left and democratic forces will have to strive for the third alternative by trying to resolve their difference of opinions through debate and forge a common understanding. This striving will be a step forward in the continuing journey to achieve a Left and democratic alternative.

(B V Raghavulu is a member of the CPI(M)’s Polit Bureau and secretary of its Andhra Pradesh state unit.)