People's Democracy

On the Nature and Tasks of Left-Led Governments

Sitaram Yechury

The following is the text of the presentation made by Sitaram Yechury, Polit Bureau member and Head of the International department of the CPI(M) at the concluding session of the International Congress on Kerala Studies on January 3, 2011.

IT is, indeed, appropriate that this discussion on transitional governments is taking place in Kerala which produced the first democratically-elected Communist state government in a country pursuing a capitalist path of development under the bourgeois-landlord class rule led by the big bourgeoisie.

The term `transitional governments’, in my opinion, is unscientific and, therefore, unsatisfactory. In the CPI(M) Programme, we describe the Left-led state governments as “governments of a transitional character”.  This is because there can be various types of transitions – there is a transition from capitalism to socialism, there is a transition in the nature of opposition to imperialism etc – as can be seen in Latin America today.  As we shall see, all such governments are products of class struggle that is taking place within the concrete conditions of individual countries.

Broadly speaking, we can identify, among others, four different types of transitions which have thrown up governments as a consequence of popular struggles:

a)      The  transition towards building socialism following a triumphant revolution like Russia in Lenin’s time, or, in a completely different context, Cuba today;

b)     Governments that have emerged through massive popular struggles against imperialism and its neo-liberal economic  offensive like in various countries in Latin America;

c)      A government that emerged after a heroic and a long-drawn national democratic revolution defeating the apartheid regime in South Africa; and

d)     Left-led state governments in India working within the constraints of a bourgeois-landlord constitution. 

Needless to say, the character, the functioning and the policies and programmes adopted by these different categories of governments would, naturally, be different.

The policies and programmes implemented by these governments, however to a large extent, determine their success in achieving the transition that they have set out to do. It must always be borne in mind that a period of transition is, by definition, a period of intense class struggle when those who seek to advance and those who seek to regress this transition come into sharp conflict. The success of achieving the declared objectives of such a transition by the Left progressive parties leading such  governments, in the final analysis, depends crucially on whether these governments succeed to keep politics in command, ie, the political objective determining the content of economic policy and not the other way around which is the neo-liberal  prescription that its economy needs (read maximising profits) that will determine its politics. 

II

Soon after the Russian revolution, Lenin advanced his new economic policy (NEP) as the basis for the transition towards building the socialist economic foundations in order to consolidate socialism. 

Lenin, himself, noted on the fourth anniversary of the October Revolution: "Borne along on the crest of the wave of enthusiasm, rousing first the political enthusiasm and then the military enthusiasm of the people, we expected to accomplish economic tasks just as great as the political and military tasks we had accomplished by relying directly on this  enthusiasm.  We expected -- or perhaps it would be truer to say that we presumed without having given it adequate  consideration -- to be able to organise the state production and the state distribution of products on communist lines in a small-peasant country directly as ordered by the proletarian state. Experience has proved that we were wrong. It appears that a number of transitional stages were necessary -- state capitalism and socialism -- in order to prepare -- to prepare by many years of effort -- for the transition to Communism. Not directly relying on enthusiasm, but aided by the enthusiasm engendered by the great revolution, and  on the basis of  personal interest, personal incentive and  business principles, we must first set to work in this small-peasant country to build solid gangways to socialism by way of state capitalism. Otherwise we shall never get to Communism, we shall never bring scores of  millions of people to Communism. That is what experience, the objective course of the development of the revolution, has taught us." (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp.58 emphasis added)

But, does this mean the restoration of capitalism?  To this Lenin answers quite candidly during the period of the NEP that: "It means that, to a certain extent, we are re-creating capitalism. We are doing this quite openly. It is state capitalism. But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts.  In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of fighting it.  It goes without saying that we must grant concessions to the foreign bourgeoisie, to foreign capital.  Without the slightest denationalisation, we shall lease mines, forests and oilfields to foreign capitalists, and receive in exchange manufactured goods, machinery etc., and thus restore our own industry." (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, pp. 491)

Characterising the process of building state capitalism as a war, Lenin says: "the issue in the present war is -- who will win, who will first take advantage of the situation: the capitalist, whom we are allowing to come in by the door, and even by several doors (and by many doors we are not aware of, and which open without us, and in spite of us) or proletarian State power?" (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp 65)   He proceeds further to state: "We must face this issue squarely -- who will come out on top?  Either the capitalists succeed in organising first -- in which case they will drive out the Communists and that will be the end of it. Or the proletarian state power, with the support of the peasantry, will prove capable of keeping a proper rein on those gentlemen, the capitalists, so as to direct capitalism along state channels and to create a capitalism that will be subordinate to the state and serve the state." (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp 66)

It is precisely this understanding that reflects the firmness of keeping politics in command. The subsequent developments, both international and domestic, however, did not permit the Soviet Union necessary time and space for the transition to take place in the circumstances outlined by Lenin.  Encirclement of the Soviet Union, the civil war, the preparations for the second world war by the fascist forces did not allow the Soviet Union a peaceful period necessary for a protracted period of transition towards the consolidation of socialist productive forces.  The pace of the socialisation of the means of production had to be hastened for the very survival of the socialism itself. The fact that it did succeed in socialising the means of production through `collectivisation', bore the brunt of fascist assaults during the Second World War and decisively defeated them will go down as one of the most remarkable and liberating experiences of the 20^th century.

The success of the countries in the process of post-capitalist transition depends crucially on keeping such politics in command while determining the economic policies. 

III

The emergence of popular governments riding the wave of massive popular upsurge against imperialism and its neo-liberal offensive in Latin America has been popularly described as a “pink tide – turn to the Left”.  In 2005, the BBC reported that three out of every four people living in South America lived in countries ruled by “Left leading presidents”.  This, according to BBC, was both a reflection and a consequence of a clean break with the `Washington Consensus’.

Many countries in Latin America are ruled by either Left-wing governments or progressive governments. For the past few years, they have drastically reduced their economic dependence on the US and increased trade amongst the countries of the South.  This in a way limited the affects of the economic crisis on the continent and helped them recover fast.  Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia are nationalising various public assets that were placed under private control by the earlier regimes.  Many banks were nationalised by Venezuela, Ecuador has recently nationalised its energy resources like Bolivia had done earlier.  With their increased emphasis on social spending and state playing a major role in the alleviation of socio-economic inequalities, these countries are leading the way for the other governments.

Various forums are formed to encourage regional trade between the countries of the continent like the MERCOSUR, ALBA, OAS etc.  All these forums are being used not only to forge close bonds between these countries but also put up a united face in resisting the pressure of the US. US is trying hard to regain its lost hold in the continent, it once famously considered to be its backyard. It is increasing its military presence in the area. Seven new military bases have been set up in Colombia, one of the few countries that is still close to the US. Using the earthquake in Haiti as a pretext, US had virtually put the country under its military control. The role played by the US in the coup in Honduras and the subsequent sham elections is well known.  The progressive governments in the region and the Left-wing forces in the continent are deeply engaged in the fight against the US, exposing its nefarious designs and mobilising the people against the imperialist offensive. 

Take for the purpose of illustration, the experience of Venezuela during the last decade.  As can be seen from the following table, there has been substantial improvement in social indicators since 1998. Poverty and income inequality have declined sharply. Indicators of health and access to education have substantially improved as have access to water and sanitation. The number of students in higher education more than doubled from the 1999-2000 school year to the 2007-2008 school year.

 Note: The end year is the last year where data was available, in most cases 2007 or 2008.

However, today the economy of Venezuela is still a capitalist dominated economy although definitely not a neo-liberal one. There are three different types of production and social relations, the private, state and social economy sector. The largest is the private sector, meaning that it is primarily organised with the goal of maximising profits and that the capital--money structures, equipment and inventory--are privately owned. This capitalist sector comprises about 2/3 of the economy. It is integrally linked with transnational capital either through imports of their consumer and capital goods and/or with transnational corporations having subsidiaries in Venezuela.

The second major sector is the state sector—enterprises that are owned by the state and whose employees are public employees. This public sector includes PDVSA, the huge state owned oil company. Although much of the revenues of PDVSA now goes directly or indirectly to fund health and education programs, to build housing and infrastructure, it is run in a top down and hierarchical manner with large wage and salary differences among its employees. Wages are also much higher than the national average. There is little worker self-management in most of the state sector. This sector produces about 30 per cent of Venezuela's output, a proportion similar to its share in 1998.

The third sector is the social economy. This includes what are often called socialist enterprises such as farms that are publicly owned and self-managed. This sector includes cooperatives and firms that are jointly run and owned by the workers and the state.  This social economy is only about 2 per cent of the economy.

The “Bolivarian alternative for Latin America”, popularly known as ALBA, has emerged as a political project that is directly opposed to the imperialist design of a Free Trade Agreement for the Americas (FTAA).  Although it was born as an alternative proposal to the FTAA, the ALBA responds to an old and permanent confrontation between Latin American and Caribbean peoples and imperialism. Perhaps a better way of presenting the conflicting projects is by contrasting Monroism and Bolivarianism. Monroism, usually referred to as ‘America for the Americans’, is in reality ‘America for the North Americans’. This is the imperialist project, a project of looting and pillage. Bolivarianism is a proposal of unity between Latin American and Caribbean peoples, following the ideals of Simon Bolivar, who intended to create a Confederation of Republics. It was in sum, the opposition of an imperialist proposal by a proposal of liberation reflecting the contrast between the FTAA and the ALBA.

As the organisational secretary of the Bolivarian People’s Congress said: “The ALBA must be a political tool for liberation. Like any other tool, it must be efficient and flexible in the face of changing circumstances. Why do we mention this? We believe that the ALBA will have to act as a retaining wall against the new tactics that imperialism will use to dominate us. For example, we have seen how many ‘little FTAAs’ appeared once the attempt to impose the FTAA failed, indirectly forcing the region to accept this commercial proposition.

“The United States government hopes to take advantage of the slightest weakness shown by Latin Americans and Caribbeans. If they sense dissension, they will try to put us against each other to later defeat us.

We, the peoples of the ALBA, the peoples of the Americas, supported by our progressive governments and popular organisations, will refuse to accept the neo colonialist imposition -one or many ‘little FTAAs’. On the contrary, they will be faced with our ALBA and ‘little ALBAs’. Every one of the agreements signed within the framework of the ALBA will be like a solid brick that will help construct a Confederation of Latin American and Caribbean Republics. This is the current responsibility of the popular forces of integration.”

The success of such governments of transitional character in Latin America, therefore, depends on how firmly they exercise and maintain `politics in command’.

IV

Following the historic and heroic victory over apartheid  and the victory of the National  Democratic Revolution in South Africa, the ANC government based on a tripartite alliance – ANC, South African Communist Party (SACP), Confederation of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) – was seriously engaged in  transforming the highly exploitative and discriminatory aparthied structures and to provide the predominantly Black population with economic empowerment.  Initially, it had tried this through a policy known as GEAR – growth, employment and redistribution – adopted in 1996. However, it was later realised that the workers’ share in the GDP which stood at 51 per cent in 1994 declined to 42 per cent in 2008 and the share of profits as a percentage of GDP went up from 25 to 33 per cent in the same period.  South Africa is now in the midst of affecting a serious course correction. 

The following extracts from the resolution of the SACP will clarify the nature of the ongoing struggle:

“The economic policies pursued were characterised by rapid opening up and liberalisation through drastic tariff reductions and the dropping of exchange controls. Impressing foreign investors became more important than developing a national industrial policy. In spite of terming the economic policies as Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy, formal employment continued to decline and the country's wealth remained unevenly distributed along racial lines. Although economic growth has improved, GEAR, with its focus on stringent monetary and fiscal targets, failed in the goal of growth based on job creation, meeting people's needs, poverty reduction and a more equitable distribution of wealth.

Market, rather than popular mobilisation and engagement, became the new motive forces of change. It was believed that the 'invisible hand of millions of willing-sellers and willing-buyers' would drive change. The SACP calls these disastrous economic policies that fundamentally differ from the 'freedom charter' as the '1996 Project'. They have termed this as a result of 'class alliance between sections of global and domestic capital, a certain cadre in the state, together with the emergent sections of the black bourgeoisie'. A new technocratic elite that 'managed' the capitalist economy, rather than grass-roots activists, became the new leading cadre of the ANC. And the key alliance, was no longer the Tripartite (ANC, SACP COSATU), but the compact between established white capital and an emerging, ANC-aligned black capitalist stratum. This project was highly dependent on the control of the ANC and the state in order to achieve its objectives. To achieve its aim, the 1996 project had also sought to marginalise allies, and often the ANC itself from key strategic policy decisions by government. This was an attempt by the capitalist class to stamp their authority on the post-colonial state and pursue policies suited to their interest.

To carry out this project substantial changes are necessary in the functioning of the government and the ANC. It required an aloof, behind-close-doors style as opposed to the democratic traditions of the ANC. ANC has to be converted into a 'ruling party' from a broad platform providing space to all the sections committed to the 'freedom charter'. So also is the need to blunt its capacity to mobilise and conduct movements on peoples causes. All this led to the demobilisation of the ANC, a dysfunctional alliance, serious divisions within organisations and a movement enmeshed in corruption, scandals and factionalism based not on ideology, but on spats over tenders and deals.

This project pursued by a section of the leadership of ANC and the government created discontent among the people and the members of ANC not to speak about its trusted allies-SACP and COSATU. They began to register their dissent and resist these attempts that were regarded as a blow to the National Democratic Revolution (NDR). The working class took its ideological and mass offensive to where it mattered most, in the local and mass structures of the alliance, while not abandoning its independence and its own campaigns. All these resulted in the 'eruption' of dissatisfaction at the ANC's 2005 National General Council, and subsequently in its Congress in Polokwane.  Polokwane marked a significant revolt by the ANC grassroots membership against the 1996 class project. 

In December 2007, the African National Congress (ANC) had their 52^nd conference - the Polokwane Conference where the incumbent president Thabo Mbeki was defeated in their organisational polls by Jacob Zuma. This conference was in many ways a truly historic conference. Apart from demonstrating the best of the ANC`s democratic traditions in practice, it was also marked by a radical change in its leadership and adopted many progressive policies recommended by its mid-2007 policy conference. Polokwane marked the severe dislodging, albeit not total defeat, of the 1996 project inside the ANC.  It also marks another failed attempt of the capitalist class to break the alliance between the ANC, SACP and COSATU and wean away ANC from the path of NDR and the promises made in the 'freedom charter'. In fact it had been commented that the ANC needed a Polokwane to consolidate and deepen a radical national democratic revolution.”  

Once again, the success of the transition of South Africa to consolidate the national democratic revolution crucially depends on its ability to keep politics in command. The SACP has come to the conclusion that this success can only come under working class hegemony.  It says: “The struggle for working class hegemony is not an alternative to the multi- class character of our national democratic struggle – on the contrary, it is the precondition for its successful advance, consolidation and defence.”

V

The Left Front governments in India belong to an entirely different character as noted above.  On the basis of our strategic understanding, the success of people’s democratic revolution requires the forging and strengthening of the people’s democratic front (PDF). This is a front of classes and not political parties. In order to achieve the PDF, there may be various intermediate stages, including the formation of Left Democratic Fronts with other political parties.  This process may bring into existence the possibilities of forming governments in some states.  The CPI(M) Programme in 1964 had stated that : “The Party will utilise all the opportunities that present themselves of bringing into existence  governments pledged to carry out a modest programme of giving relief to the people. The formation of such governments will give more fillip to the revolutionary movement ….”  While tendering our bonafides to the people and sharing the differences with bourgeois parties, these governments should serve as instruments of struggle “to win more and more people and more and more allies for the cause of people’s democracy and at a later stage, socialism”.

The updated Programme (2000), in the light of the experience of the governments in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, stated that such governments must “carry out a programme of providing relief to the people and strive to project and implement alternative policies within the existing limitations”. 

On the basis of this understanding, at our 18^th Congress in 2005, the Party adopted a document on “Certain Policy Matters” that defined the LF governments’ approach to certain crucial issues thrown up by globalisation and neo-liberal economic policies. It clarified many policy matters connected with the objective “to project and implement alternative policies within the existing limitations”. The 19^th Congress has further expanded this in its Political-Organisational report, “On the Role and Functioning of the LF Governments”. Since these are all well known and discussed in Kerala, I am not repeating them.

Without going into the details of the functioning of these governments, much of which has already been covered during these days, it must be noted that with reference to the four foundational pillars of the Indian constitution, the performance and contribution of these governments have been distinct from other bourgeois governments.  The implementation of land reforms meant the economic empowerment of crores of people – the worst exploited and oppressed people. The establishment of grassroot democratic institutions and structures (panchayati raj began in West Bengal a full eleven years before Rajiv Gandhi amended the constitution to this effect) and the Kerala experience of decentralisation through the people’s plan has pioneered ways to deepen democracy and decision making at the grassroots. 

The role of these Left-led governments have been exemplary and serve as a beacon in upholding and strengthening secularism in our country and meeting the  onslaught of communal forces.  It is not a matter of coincidence that the BJP cannot muster to win a single MP or an MLA on its own in any of these three states.

Likewise, these governments had played and continue to play a pivotal role in safeguarding the federal principles of the Indian Union by seeking the strengthening of centre-state relations when the autonomy of the state governments is constantly sought to be eroded through efforts to impose a unitary structure by the centre. 

Thus, on all these counts – economic empowerment of people; strengthening and deepening democracy; safeguarding and strengthening secular democracy; upholding federalism and advancing social justice – these Left-led governments have become both instruments of struggle and implementers of alternative policies that provide greater relief to the people. 

It is precisely for this reason that there is a concerted attack against the Left by the rainbow coalition of all reactionary forces.  The Left’s hallmark in contemporary politics is its firm anti-imperialist positions. It is this concerted onslaught against the Left principally targeting the Left-led governments in Bengal and Kerala that constitutes the current neo-liberal reactionary onslaught on the Left.  These challenges have been met in the past and will continue to be met today by keeping our  politics in command.

During this period of the global crisis, people would be looking for alternatives to the neo-liberal onslaught’s attacks on their livelihoods and rights. As Lenin pointed out, crisis provides with the possibility for a revolutionary situation but he also cautioned that not all revolutionary situations can lead to a revolution unless the subjective factors develop the necessary strength to properly utilise this situation. It is in this background that the role of these governments that we have discussed until now, assumes greater significance.

Let me conclude by repeating what I have stated earlier: In the final analysis, the success of these governments in advancing the specific transition that they are engaged with will crucially depend on how successfully they are able to meet and defeat the imperialist-backed reactionary offensive against them.  From our part, we can only wish them success and assure them of our continued solidarity.