The Future of Socialism By Ajit Roy (to the fond memory of Ajit Roy)

THE FUTURE OF SOCIALISM

-Ajit Roy

The entire world is today discussing the future of socialism in the light of the contemporary developments in the Soviet Union, Poland, the countries in Eastern Europe and, above all, China. There is no dearth of prophets of doom, who are forecasting the demise of socialism and unfortunately there are trends within the socialist countries themselves who seem to be subscribing to this pessimistic view. I, for one, however, have no hesitation in making the statement with the fullest conviction that the future of socialism has become much brighter today than it ever was. I do not make this statement in a light hearted manner or to score merely a debating point, nor do I for a moment underestimate the gravity and depth of the crises that have enveloped all these socialist countries today and the deep roots the crises spring from.

The features and expressions of the ongoing crises in the socialist countries today are quite well known and every day some new symptoms intrude upon the world people.

To take the USSR first, the largest country within the socialist world and with the longest history of socialist reconstruction which was initiated by V. I, Lenin himself. The features of the crises in Soviet Union are well known. There is a deep crisis within the day-to-day life of the Soviet people a tremendous shortage of many essential goods including food, the run-down conditions of the health services, inadequate housing facilities and so on. Recently the Soviet leadership had to decide to import consumer goods and other necessities worth 10,000 million roubles to meet the critical situation facing the Soviet people. Another striking feature of the Soviet scene is the outbreak of industrial unrest including mass strikes by segments of the working class. Then, the growing tensions among different nationalities and ethnic communities of the USSR, sometimes taking very violent forms and leading to mass casualties and large scale destruction of property which have poisoned the internal relationship in this multi-nation union of socialist republics. Many of the constituent nationalities in the Soviet Union are today raising the demand for the severing of ties with the USSR. Mikhail Gorbachev has characterised the present situation as one full of `painful, contradictory and intractable problems'.

Coming to the Soviet Union's next-door neighbour Poland the situation is even more critical, because the leadership of the Polish communist party, the Polish United Workers' Party, is today not only ousted from power; but it has been humiliated and politically marginalised. The ranks of the party are demoralised and they are deserting the party on a large scale. The governmental power has passed into Solidarity's hands, Only two communist members have been taken into the government and given the portfolios of defence and interior. They are in the cabinet on the sufferance and by the grace of Solidarity. At the end of four decades of power the communist leadership of Poland has saddled the country with a huge debt of 39 billion U.S Dollars owed to the US Government and other Western agencies, besides another 10 billion US Dollars worth of indebtedness to the Soviet Union. Galloping inflation, growing shortage of essential goods and services and flourishing black markets have come to dominate the Polish economic scene, while many factories are coming to a grinding halt for want of raw materials and essential spares.

In addition to the economic dislocation exposures of many historical crimes have added to the bitterness and hostility of the mass of the Polish people. The recent confirmation by the Soviet official agencies about the secret protocols under the Molotov A Ribentrop agreement, the massacre of thousands of officers and ours ranks of the Polish army in the Katyn forest- the rigging of the referendum which gave the' legal sanction to the coming of the Polish communists to power - all this has fundamentally alienated the majority of the Polish people from she communist regime and the PUWP.

The situation in the three Baltic states, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, within the USSR is also taking an explosive form. The exposure of the historical fact that the incorporation of these three states in the Soviet Union was conditioned by a secret protocol signed by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany has shaken the legitimacy of their inclusion in the socialist comity of nations. The internal scene in these states has been marked by ethnic violence from both sides. During the Stalin period there were large scale repression and liquidation, besides mass deportation of the people of these three states, followed by occasional massacres of the Russian prisoners of war in the Nazi Concentration camps in the territories of some of these states. The indigenous people of these states are angered and embittered by fairly large scale immigration of ethnic Russians into their territories. Besides these, there have been many grievances relating to economic and cultural relationship with the Russian Federation.

Without going into the details, one should refer to the critical situation that prevails in the other socialist countries of Eastern Europe-acute economic crises, lack of democratic and human rights, inter-ethnic and inter-state conflicts and so on.

The situation in China has now been revealed to be quite critical. The recent incident at the Tiananmen Square in Beijing is too recent to need any elaboration. The millions who paraded the streets and the squares in the Chinese Capital bore testimony to the deep discontent at least among the urban intelligentsia in the country. There was some evidence of working class disaffection in the somewhat limited participation of the workers in the Beijing demonstrations. There are not only allegations but also official confirmation of corruption in high places. The brutal massacre of the youthful demonstrators in the Tiananmen Square on June 3-4, 1989 is a characteristic expression of the deep going crises of the Chinese polity today

All these disastrous developments naturally enough bring grist to the mills of those who hear the death-knell of socialism, and indeed Marxism, reverberating all through the socialist world. They gleefully shout to the communists and socialists ‘the bells toll for thee’.

Blinded by the hatred for socialism and human emancipation as they are, they cannot see that behind all these dark clouds the sun of socialism grows brighter and brighter.

Humanity the world over today gratefully thanks the Soviet Union and Mikhail Gorbachev for their long persistent efforts for bringing peace and disarmament to a world for decades under a death sentence hanging over its head because of the ever growing threat of a nuclear holocaust. Tony Benn, the British M. P and Labour Leader, recently told a Calcutta meeting about the steady advance towards dissolution of the rival military blocs that the Soviet moves promise the world today. He says that Gorbachev is more popular in Britain today than the British Prime Minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, whom he could beat in Parliament election from any constituency in Britain.

As a result of the changes taking place in the Soviet Union today the barriers between the communists on the one hand and the other socialists and progressives of all shades are breaking down. Stalin's crimes and dogmatic sectarian policies had helped the rightwing politicians in the capitalist countries to erect a wall of suspicion between the socialist countries and the Marxists in general on the one hand and large segments of the working class and progressives in the capitalist countries on the other. The new wind that is sweeping the Soviet Union is leading to the crumbling of this wall of suspicion and distrust.

The biggest and the most powerful agent of change today is -the twin programme of ruthless self -`criticism and undiluted regard for truth (glasnost) and the advance towards the extension of consistent democracy within the U S S R (Perestroika).

By exposing all the skeletons in the historical cupboard in the Soviet Union, they are taking steps that a 'murder' becomes impossible in the future. By extending democracy they are ensuring that the entire people stand guard over the future development of the Soviet society.

The Soviet leadership is taking steps to accomplish this task by drawing the public at large into the solution of the problems that concern the whole state. The Soviet Communist Party is voluntarily transferring power to the Soviets and putting itself under the public control through the elections of its members into the Supreme Soviet and local bodies. Gorbachev has declared that in a democratic society the party itself should be the epitome of the highest and the most consistent form of democratisation.

Most important, the Soviet working class, the, most fundamental base of socialism and the champion of human emancipation, is coming into its own as was witnessed in the recent mass strikes of coal miners in Ukraine, and Siberia. It is extremely heartening that Gorbachev recognises the true significance of the recent miners’ strikes.

However difficult the situation may appear to be in Poland right now, there are grounds to be quite hopeful about its prospects. In this country it is the determined and long-drawn struggles of the working class organised in Solidarity which have brought about the recent political changes. There is no reason to apprehend that the wheels of history will turn back towards capitalism in Poland. Through difficult trials and errors the Polish working class will surely move forward to a brighter future based on the collective ownership of the means of production and cooperative commonwealth of emancipated men and women in the coming days. 

“Socialism must win - has to win - in the interest of human survival and progress”. We all must realise that the alternative is the total destruction of life and civilisation.  We must understand the extremely sinister nature of capitalism today in the last decade of this century. Today about 500 MNCs have come to dominate the non - socialist part of the world. -The old conception of the two super powers has become obsolete-the main super power today is represented by the small number of MNCs who work within a framework of broad agreement. The national states all over the capitalist world and international agencies like the World Bank, IMF, The Asian Development Bank and so on have become faithful servants of these multinationals. In their quest for ever- increasing profits they are polluting the earth, water and air and fast wasting the irreplaceable resources of the globe. With their increasing recourse to robotisation and automatisation of the production processes they are threatening humanity with disastrous consequences - in the coming days.  If the multinationals are permitted to follow their course of development the vast majority of the world people would be deprived of opportunities of productive labour and would be made dependent on state doles for their subsistence; they will be controlled through mass media and turn into unthinking docile prisoners. In the mean time the economic and social policies pursued by the MNCs are gradually dividing the whole world into small islands of prosperity and abundance, of luxury and indulgence, on the one hand and oceans of human misery on the other. It is symptomatic of the future that hundreds of thousands of people in affluent west are gradually being pushed down into inhuman and degraded situation. Thousands of destitute are today floating around on the streets of New York, Paris and London.

All this has created pre-conditions for really global united actions, embracing the developed and the underdeveloped parts of the capitalist world. The alternatives that face humanity today is either socialism or barbarism and destruction. The most fundamental message that Karl Marx proclaimed 150 years ago that capitalism will historically develop the productive forces of society to such a high level -that it will be incompatible with a private ownership and control over the means of production has become too glaring today to be ignored by humanity except at the peril of total degradation of humanity, to a subhuman level.

So, socialism must win-socialism has to win.

But this victory of socialism cannot and will not come through any mystical decree of destiny. There is no question of pre-determined certainty. The victory of socialism has to be won by global struggle of conscious human beings through an enlightened human praxis.

Against this background the theoretical ballons now being floated by certain academic circles both in the Soviet Union and China about the so called ‘Public capitalism’ and ‘Social Capitalism’ are really dangerous. They embellish the sinister character of capitalism today, dominated as it is by a handful of powerful MNCs and all its sinister implication; instead of rousing the vigilance of the world people these false theories lull them into complacence and acquiescence. A very important task that faces the Marxist revolutionary socialist the world over is to expose and demolish these harmful theories. (Based on a lecture on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary celebrations of the Tamilnadu Theological Seminary, Madurai on September 10, 1989).

My Memories of Ajit Roy

MY MEMORIES OF AJIT ROY

I was very happy to read Gabriel’s brief obituary of Ajit Roy.  Along with Gariel and Bass there are many many people who will remember Ajit Roy for his deep friendship and warm heartedness.  Ajit Roy came to us not only as a Marxist but as a deeply human and honourable person.  He earned a great respect and appreciation for his qualities as a person, intellectual and a Marxist.  He lived a very simple life.  In spite of moving all over the world and being recognized as a great intellectual who inspired scores of people, big and small, he lived a very simple of life with bare necessities.  I had visited him along with our mutual Dutch friend in Koltkata before he moved into his Salt Lake city flat.  This Dutch friend was totally bowled over after seeing the house and the life style of Ajit.  He did not expect Ajit to live in such simplicity.  “Could he not earn some advantage of his friendship with so many people, his intellectual position and his work to acquire a better place to live in?” he remarked.    This visit has made an indelible mark on both of us as we were able to penetrate into the person of Ajit Roy beyond his intellectual acumen and his position among the international intelligentsia.   In his very simple life style there was a great luxury of books and magazines in his house.  His store of books was slowly edging the members of the family to a cramp accommodation.  When he moved to the simple flat at the Salt Lake City his books had to be given one of the only two bed rooms there were in the flat. 

I met Ajit Roy for the first time in 1976, soon after the declaration of Emergency in India.  This was a very critical phase in Indian politics and for the left in particular.  We were very eager to listen to his analysis of the situation of emergency.  While many felt Indira Gandhi had turned fascist, he tried to warn us of a wrong characterization of emergency as a fascist phase.  His view was if we equate Indira Gandhi’s emergency with emergence of fascism then we may mistake the fascist forces to be democratic and get misled into supporting the real fascist forces.  He drew a clear distinction between authoritarian rule and a fascist rule.  While he tried to show us the pitfalls of the Indian economic and political situation he always showed us the brighter signs of emergence of people’s movements in different social sectors.  He was confident that people’s power would defeat the emergency of Indira Gandhi.

After the collapsed of the Soviet Union we had invited Ajit Roy for a workshop in Penukonda, Andhra Pradesh.  There were other Marxists friends who participated in the workshop.  Many of the Marxists believed that it was the end of the dream for socialism.  They felt that Socialism is a utopia and capitalism is here to stay.  They held that we should make best of capitalism to improve the lives of the poor within this system.  Ajit Roy relying on the methodology of dialectics tried to convince people that “the history does not end with capitalism and the socialist path is not identical with the path that the Soviet Union had followed”.  It was a historical necessity for the Soviet era to end so that a search for new path for socialism would begin.

Ajit Roy was born on 14 November 1920.  He did his high school and college education in Dhaka district of the erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). He was a student of the Dhaka University from where he did his graduation and post-graduation in Economics. However, he did not appear for the final MA exams.

Ajit Roy’s ancestors were landlords in Dhaka district for several generations. However, due to prolonged litigation between two sections of the family, by the time Ajit Roy’s father had reached his adolescence, most of the property was gone. His father had to fend for himself all the way. He became a school teacher and was widely admired and respected. Ajit Roy’s parents were unusually modern in their outlook and extremely secular.  Ajit Roy and his siblings (two elder sisters and one younger brother) grew up in a very liberal family atmosphere.

Ajit Roy joined the Communist Party in 1940 and became its full-fledged member in 1941. He was Vice-President of the Provincial Students’ Federation during 1945. He became a party journalist in 1946, first as a reporter and then as a member of the editorial board of the party’s Bengali organ, Swadhinata. In 1946, under the direction of the late P C Joshi, the then General Secretary of CPI, along with another comrade, he was sent to Pune to meet Gandhiji and take his interview.

In 1949 he was expelled from the party as he opposed the Left sectarian line adopted by the party under the leadership of B T Ranadive. He was readmitted to the party after a couple of years as the political line of the party changed under a new leadership. Ajit Roy was elected as a member of the Calcutta District Committee of the CPI in 1955.

In November 1962 there were sharp differences within the Communist Party.  In July 1964 the break away faction of the Party formed themselves into a new Party, The Communist Party of India (Marxist) in a meeting in Tenali, Andhra Pradesh.  Ajit Roy was the saddest person when the Communist Party India was split.  He did not believe in two communist parties working for socialism.  He strongly argued within the CPI against the split and emphasised the need to remain united. He believed in the inner party democracy and open discussion within the party.  He held that all difference among the members could be addressed.  He even went to the extent to assert that the health of the party would be proved by living with differences of opinion within its members.  Though occupying a good position in the party he chose to remain outside the communist party rather than join any faction of the party and become party to the split in the party.

Immediately after the split in the party with a small group of comrades he started a monthly review under the name “The Marxist Review” and argued his position against the split. The Marxist Review was an independent political venture – that continued till 2004. 

Ajit Roy used his independent position to interact with all Marxists within the party and outside the party.  He had great hopes from the left oriented action groups in India and constantly interacted with them.  He worked incessantly for a non sectarian politics. 

In the fifties he was also associated with the Indian Statistical Institute. In the early eighties, Ajit Roy joined the Rome-based Permanent People’s Tribunal, a successor to Bertrand Russel Tribunal, as a jury. He also came in touch with the Communist Parties of Italy, France, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.

Ajit Roy considered himself a true Leninist but he did not consider Leninism as a dogma.  Lenin evolved politics from the specific economic and political situation in Russia.  He believed that the Marxist needed to have flexibility to evolve politics from the situation in India in the context of International politics.  He understood that Lenin had an advantage of success of Russian revolution through which Bolshevik came to power.  But later revolutionaries had to face defeats and repression.  Antonio Gramsci was one such revolutionary who had come out with insights relevant to the situation of defeat of revolutionary struggle in Italy.  Inspired by Gramsci’s experience and insights, Ajit Roy believed that the civil society has a greater role in the transformation of the society than just the so called vanguard revolutionary party.  He analysed different civil society members’ movement across the world and drew lessons of the relevance of civil society.  Unless there is consensus among the civil society revolution will be a dictatorship.  Unless the party is deeply rooted in the society and involved in the task of building such consensus among the civil society it will be a sterile party that will produce only violence and bloodshed.  His great appreciation of Gramsci’s ideas resulted in he writing a book on Gramsci in Bengali.

Long before the Soviet Union had moved away from Stalin Ajit Roy had exposed Stalin and his dictatorial policies.  He was very critical of the succesive presidents of the Soviet Union but was hoping that someone would emerge in Soviet Union who would bring it to the right path.  He welcomed very enthusiastically Gorbachev’s attempt at Glasnost and Perestroika.  He had given lectures to several gatherings on the essence of Gorbachev’ policies and he thought it would open up the Soviet society and bring about political freedom so that the civil society will go along with the development of the Soviet Union.  Ajit Roy did not consider Gorbachev at fault for the breakup of the Soviet Union.  He was convinced that Mr. Boris Yeltsin brought about the ruin of Soviet Union.

Ajit Roy vehemently campaigned for disarmament and against nuclear weapons.  To put an end to the arms race he wanted the Soviet Union to unilaterally disarm itself.  He had faith that if Soviet Union disarmed itself of nuclear arms there would be no attack on Soviet Union from America and the Capitalist block and the Soviet Union would become stronger.   Disarmament by Soviet Union would take the sting out of the American arms.  His analysis went further.  He believed that America used USSR as an excuse to go for massive production of arms.  But the real purpose of  American arms production was to solve the crisis within the American Capitalism.

Ajit Roy has authored around 10 books in English and a few in Bengali. He also used to contribute to the Economic and Political Weekly.   

“The Management Accountant”, Calcutta has this to say about Ajit Roy’s writing.  “Ajit is among those rare breed of Indian Intellectuals who would form their conclusion on the basis of a serious study of the facts of the Indian situation and not try to fit the facts into their pre-conceived notions.”

I would like to mention a few of his books.

“ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA SINCE INDEPENDENCE” (1961)

“PLANNIN IN INDIA – ACHIEVEMENTS AND PROBLEMS” (1965).

“ECONOMICS AND POLITICS OF US FOREIGN AID” (1966).

“A MARXIST COMMENTARY  ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN INDIAN – 1951-1965” (19670)

“THE MONOPOLY CAPITAL IN INDIA” (1976).  Monopolistic developments at the apex of the so called organized sector of the Indian economy attracted attention of Indian economists decades ago.  But invariably the commentators noted one aspect of the phenomenon only – centralization – and generally considered the whole thing as some sort of an abnormality.    Ajit Roy’s “Indian Monopoly Capital – a Brief Outline, published in 1953 was the first analytical work on this phenomenon based on a comprehensive Marxist methodology.  He revealed that Indian monopoly capital, as well as its somewhat abnormal features, were the normal outgrowth of capitalist development in the specific historical conditions.  For the last quarter century Roy has continued his investigations into the phenomenon and has published the results periodically in the form of papers, articles, and even chapters in his various works.  In this volume, he has brought together the more important results of his continuous study.”

“ECONOMICS AND POLITICS OF GARIBI HATAO” (1973).   The Sunday Hindusthan Standard, Calcutta comments on this book “... the mass of factual data presented and the sharp and penetrating analysis of the effects of many of the current policies of the government will prove of great value.”  Economic Times, Bombay comments, “The author quotes extensively from published reports to show the appalling dimensions of mass poverty...”

“POLITICAL POWER IN INDIA – NATURE AND TRENDs”, (1975)  Commenting on this book, Iapan, Canada says, “In contrast to what passes in the name of social science in India today, Ajit Roy’s timely study is both welcome and stimulating.”  The Economic Times, New Delhi states, “Ajit Roy rightly argues that emergency and administrative measures cannot solve economic problems which demand structural change and hence political action.  In this context, his prognostication would seem to have some relevance.”

“INDIA IN THE ‘SEVENTIES’” (1978).

“EURO-COMMUNISM”,

“ASPECTS OF WORLD POLITICS”.

“On Marxists Theory and Practice, from Stalin and Mao to Gorbachev and Deng” (1992)  “The collapse of the mighty Soviet power, enjoying the loyalty of vast masses the world over with dedicated communist at the van, has deep roots going back to the Bolshevik Revolution.  The predicaments of China today is reflected in her professions of loyalty to Marxism apparently contradicted by the subjection of the Chinese people to growing exploitation by international capital and budding bourgeoisie, accompanied by the even like the Tiennmen tragedy of June 1989.  Many differences not withstanding, there is a profound identity at the roots of the crisis in the Soviet Union and China – in the absence of an adequate base of a self acting working class.  This runs through the selected analytical studies made between 1976 and 1989 and presented here by the well Marxist writer and editor of the Marxist Review.  Concurrently there emerges from these analyses a robust faith in an early regrouping of socialist forces the world over based on a renewed understanding of Marxism.

Ajir Roy was a regular visitor to Bangalore and gave innumerable lectures to the activists who used to come to the Indian Social Institute, Bangalore for training.

Ajit Roy was a very close friend and a mentor for me and my family.  We will treasure the memory of the moments he spent with us in our place.

Anna Hazare and Campaign against Corruption

Corruption, Capitalism and Civil Society:

(DRAFT)

                                                                                                                                                Alex Tuscano

Anna Hazare has made a history.  He will be remembered by many for many years to come for his grand success in his fast against corruption. 

To use his own words he initially thought that he would sit under a moderate pendal (shamiyana) with a few supports sitting with him for the hunger strike.  But against all his expectation there was a huge following across the country in all cities and town.  All young and old joined in his fast and campaign against corruption demanding legislation of jan lok pal. 

Anna had his mind clear on what he wanted.  For over forty years the lokpal bill has been lying in cold storage and governments after government have been shirking the responsibility for passing this law.   What was lying in the archives of pending bills was a watered down version and teethless piece of legislation that had not seen the light of the day.  Anna knew that the politicians and political parties who are guilty of corruption would never pass a law that will mussels them.  He and the top leaders of the movement wanted members of civil society to have say in drafting the bill.  They demanded that there should be 50% persons from the civil society to draft the bill.

The movement was so massive that it not only surprised Anna himself but also the government.  Initially the ruling UPA was trying to scuttle the efforts of the people by hiding behind formalities and constitutional intricacies.

What is significant of the movement launched by Anna Hazare is that it did not involve any of the opportunist politicians.  The opposition parties were not able to take advantage of the movement to get mileage from the movement.  Two politicians, Uma Bharati and one more, were booed out from the gathering.  The opposition could not take advantage of the movement to politicize it and use it against the ruling UPA as they were themselves responsible for not bringing out the law and they too have their share in the corruption scenario.

One important truth comes out of this movement is the role of the civil society in bringing about change in the society.  Gramsci has been advocating the role of civil society in bringing out change in the society.  In Anna Hazare’s movement the people from all ranks had participated and the movement had spread across the country.  The role of the youth and the urban middle class was at the peak.  The rural masses were not involved in the same extent.  But non participation or low level participation of the rural masses does not rob away the importance of the movement.  Jayaprakash Narayan’s movement too was predominantly of the urban middle class.  The farmers, daliths and adivasies were not emphatic by their presence.   The issue of corruption has greater appeal with the urban middle class rather than other section of the people.  Corruption issue does not often affect election trend.  This could be the reason for the absence of the rural masses, adivasies and the daliths from the movement.  But the fact that the civil society arose in this manner totally non violently is a sign of maturity of the civil society and the democracy.

There have been some who have different views of the movement.  They claim that not all who were part of the movement were very clear about the objective of it.  This claim does not discredit the movement.  Maxim Gorky’s mother did not understand fully all the elements of the Russian Revolution as Lenin had understood.  But the mother of Gorkhy understood good enough to accept that the revolution would bring about change that will go a long way in meeting the aspiration of people like her.  Any movement will have a situation where the level of clarity among the participants and members will be uneven depending on the role these different people play in the movement.  If there were different levels of clarity among the participant of Anna Hazare it is not something that will discredit the movement.  It is clear that all who were enthusiastically part of the movement and even those millions who would not come to the streets would not like to tolerate corruption that will adversely affect their lives.

The official position of the government was that Anna Hazare was asking something that was unconstitutional.  It is only the Members of the Parliament and the Parliament which can draft and pass a law.  The political class argued that involving the members of the civil society is not only unconstitutional but it will set a precedent that will erode the power and the sanctity of the Parliament.  There were also another apprehensions expressed.  Some fascist forces from the civil society would emerge and by sheer power of their number would demand something that would harm democracy and the interest of the people.

This is a tricky question.  There have been some in the movement who accuse that the Parliamentarians are claiming that the democracy is of the politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians.  Once the parliamentarians have been elected the people have no role in politics and in democracy.  While we uphold the constitution there is something missing in the constitution which needs to be brought in to ensure that in democracy the citizens are supreme.  While it is claimed that the civil society members can become fascist and therefore the Parliament can protect the nation and the democracy form this.  On the other hand it is also possible that the Parliamentarians can become authoritarian and corrupt and they could destroy democracy.  There is a need to arrive at some clarity on the issue of civil society, democracy, Parliament and the Constitution.

The way to end corruption:

There is a serious reservation among many about ending corruption through legislation.   In the year 1975 Jayaprakash Narayan launched a nation wide movement for total revolution to end corruption and authoritarianism.  From his time till today corruption has not gone away. Even if Anna Hazare had expanded the concept of corruption to include election process the notion of corruption expressed in the movement of Anna Hazare is very shallow.  It is understood only in terms of financial irregularities or money misappropriated by the politicians or political class and state bureaucracy directly or indirectly.  There is no analysis of corruption nor is the corruption seen as linked to the overall economic and political system of our society.  Therefore it is easily believed that a piece of legislation can put an end to the corruption.

The western advanced capitalist countries believed and propagated this belief that corruption was characteristic of the non west countries where the states are weak and underdeveloped.  They used this argument to justify the Washington consensus.  But this myth was exploded by 2007-2009 global financial and economic crises.

“There is an imaginary world where corruption does not exist, which is nowhere realized in a pure form, and there are ‘real world’ economies where extant corruption is inevitable.  It is the very impossibility of realizing corruption free economy which produces its disciplinary power, for its realization would dissolve traction.”

De Sardan in his article “A Moral Economy of Corruption in Africa” (Journal of Modern African Studies) states “corruption should be understood as a ‘moral economy’ underpinned by value systems and cultural codes”.

In this context I am reminded of the statement the BJP chief, Nithin Gatkari made while defending Yeduarappa’s corruption and nepotism in allotting public land to his son and son in law.  He said Yedurappa is legally right but morally wrong.  By this he adds a dimension to the concept of corruption.  If he is legally wrong then he is corrupt.  If he is morally wrong that does not make him corrupt.  Yedurappa’s action of allotting public land to his son is legally right hence he is not corrupt.  But this action is morally wrong and this does not make him corrupt.  Hence corruption means actions which are legally wrong.  Similarly the  Reddy brothers too are not corrupt because they have licence to exploit the mineral resource than belongs to public; sell it and pocket the money and give fraction of his income as lease money to the government.  Bothe Reddy brothers and Yeduriappa are not corrupt as they are not involved in illegal action.  When we speak about corruption we are speaking about what is legal and what is illegal.  Does corruption stop at this legality of action?  In that case we will have to ask a question, on what does legality rest? 

The land that Yedurappa gave to his son was acquired from the farmers with the money paid was of the tax collectors.  The land from which the iron ore is extracted by the Reddi brothers belongs to the people, the common land or forest land.  Just because Yedurappa has a discretionary power or the Reddi brothers pay a puny amount of money as lease amount does not make them the owners of the land or the iron ore.  According to pre reformed India the mineral resource was supposed to be national resource and the revenue from that was supposed to belong to the nation and its people.

When we speak of corruption we do not speak about what is legally right only.  It should also be morally right.  What is morally wrong cannot and should not become legally right.  We need to go one step further and consider that what is legally right should also be socially just.  Justice and equity are high moral values and legal system cannot over rule these values and declare some acts as legally right though socially unjust and morally wrong.

Legal system is creation of human institution to uphold justice, equity and morally in the functioning of the society and governance.   Legal system should converge with social justice and morality.

The Positive Philosophy: Philosophy of Social Change: Need of an Indian Model

The Positive Philosophy: Philosophy of Social Change: Need of an Indian Model

What lesson does Egypt has for us

EGYPT

Alex Tuscano

Egypt had a special place in the modern international political history.  Under its second president Gamal Abdel Nasser it was a leading country in the non alignment movement.  (The organization was founded in Belgrade in 1961, and was largely the brainchild of Yugoslavia's President, Josip Broz Tito, India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, Egypt's second President, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Indonesia's first President, Sukarno. All four leaders were prominent advocates of a middle course for states in the Developing World between the Western and Eastern blocs in the Cold War.) From this point of view Indian should remember those days of the initial nonalignment movement in a very special way.  Nehru and President Nasser used to find themselves together as the pillars of the nonalignment movement. 

We have moved very far away from that historical time.  In spite of some efforts to keep the nonalignment movement alive it has died a natural death finding no relevance in the unipolar or multipolar world of today.  India has moved into a position where it finds itself into a very close proximity with US.  Hosni Mubarak had gone to the extent that he was labelled as an agent of United States of America.  Here lies the folly of Egypt.  Being a Muslim country, what we remember of Egypt from the time of President Gamal Abdel Nasser is that it was not only a secular country but also anti imperialist and anti feudal.  This is what made Egypt to hold a leading position in the non aligned nations.

While we have moved away from the past and Mobarak is considered sitting in the laps of US, we still have to give a great honour to the people of Egypt.  After tolerating President Mubarak for long thirty years they have finally called it a day.  The unseating of President Mubarak is a success of a spectacular nature.  It was not a bloody or non bloody coup by some military general or some fundamentalist leader.  During the movement there was an apprehension from different corners that Egypt could go by Iran way.  That it did not happen is definitely due to the greatness of the civil society of Egypt.  The Muslim brothers who are supposed to have wide social network could not bid for the hot seat.  The military stood as silent spectator with its tanks and guns very close to the people who were protesting in the square and across the country. Even after Mubarak left the seat and the army took over as an interim arrangement the civil society set a stuff warning to the military that if the democratic process is not put in place at the earliest they will be back to the square again.

There were basically three lessons I would like to draw from the experience of Egypt’s political revolution that has taken place.

1.     

          Whenever a country and its leaders go closer to the laps of United States of America that country degenerates into an undemocratic dictatorial state.  America finds it very easy to work with countries that are ruled by dictators than with the truly democratic states.  The outcome in the Middle East Muslim countries is that because of this interference by the US these countries have gone the most fundamentalist way and terrorism come to its peak.

a.       We have an example of Iran.  There was a democratically elected prime minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh (1951) who was a pro socialist leader.  When he nationalised the British owned Petroleum companies, the Capitalist block lead by US liquidated that government and imposed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran through operation Ajax (1953).  Shah ruled Iran in an autocratic manner with his strings in the hands of US.  There was a massive opposition over a period of time.  The left remnants were still there but badly mutilated by Shah.  Their bid to power was unsuccessful and what came in the place of Shah of Iran is the most fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini.  This gives rise to a tremendous tension between US and Iran and it lead to the long war between Iraq and Iran US doing a back seat driving.

b.      Another example we have is famous Afghanistan.  It was always used as a buffer state between the soviet Union and the western block.  Afghanistan was ruled by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan which was very pro Soviet Union and implementing socialist agenda, carrying out land reform and equal status for women.   But America wanted to destroy the link between USSR and Afghanistan.  They started using Muslim militants to dislodge the government.  Finally Brezhnev sent his troops and imposed what is called socialism from above in seventies.  American did not accept this invasion by the Soviet Union.  It created Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Pakistan to defeat the Soviet Union backed Dr. Mohammad Najibullah’s government.  The Taliban with active support of the US managed to stage a coup and hanged Dr. Mohammad Najibullah and destroyed all the cultural heritages of Afghanistan.  This was followed by 9/11 and war on terror in Afghanistan.  It has become clear that this war will not end.  There will be no winners and the losers will be the common people who live in tremendous insecurity and violence with no hope of peace and livelihood at the end.

c.       The third example is Iraq about which less is said is better.  We have too many questions and no answers.  We do not know whether it was a war to unearth the weapon of mass destruction or capture the oil fields of Iraq.  Here too we have an unprecedented violence, terrorism and insecurity. We knew Iraq to be a secular state under the rule of the dictator Saddam Husain who was not aligned to US.

Coming to Egypt, the civil society appears to be very strong and has succeeded in preventing the disasters the above mentioned states have faced.  We do hope the transition to democracy without the fundamentalists Muslim Brothers will happen under the pressure of civil society.

2.       

      The second most important lesson that we need to learn is from the non violent nature of the protest of the people of Egypt which has succeeded.  Sparing a few skirmishes here and there, which were not started by the people though, the entire movement against Mubarak was non violent.  Those who died were done to death by the state sponsored terrorism.  But this kind of terrorism was defeated by the non violent movement of the civil society.  The army remained silent and police force was brought to silence.  The violent arm of the state was reduced to silent watch dog with its tail down.

We need to draw an important lesson from Egypt.  In most cases if the people confront violence of the state then they are forced to retaliate.  The violence of the state exists in the form of not only the police and the arm forces but most particularly in the form of capitalist expansion at the cost of people’s right to life, right to dwelling places, their habitat, right to land, livelihood and employment.  This dual state violence gives rise to the violence of the extremists.  We will have to acknowledge that the maoist violence was on the rise when the state was vehemently going right and left to exploit the forests and the mineral wealth at the cost of the adivasies in the recent past.

Egypt’s experience should drive home a strong lesson to the ruling elite and the state that violence emanates from the state.  It should also drive home a strong lesson to the civil society that we can win and change the world in a non violent way of politics.

3.       We seem to see a kind of (I should term it as) Gramscian political development taking place where the role of the civil society and the civil society organizations seem to take a centre stage. 

The Neo liberal ideology removed from the state the power to regulate markets and economy, a process started way back in September 1973 by putting an end to the left government and the life of Salvador Allende.  This necessarily led to the civil society organizations taking a role of regulation (Geoffrey Pleyers).  To give an example, Seattle failure of WTO attempt to introduce trade liberalization.  There are innumerable examples where civil society organizations are playing a role of checkmating the neoliberal policies.

The left in our country should learn a lesson from this and instead of messing up in Kerala, West Bengal, Tripura and in the Parliament come to the streets and join the civil society to bring about a change that will effectively oppose all evils in our political and economic development.  The civil society should be more focused and also bring the Maoist out of the ‘jubgles’ to join the politics of the civil society.  There is no civilized politics than the politics of the civil society to bring about a change.  We gained our freedom from the British rule by the civil society’s united civil disobedience.  We gained our second freedom from the emergency rule of Indira Gandhi also through the civil society’s civil disobedience.    

Gramsci: Civil Society and Hegemony

The Socialist Challenge:

Ever since Soviet Union got disintegrated people, all over began to lose their faith in the idea of socialism.  The more and more skeletons started coming out of Stalin’s cupboard people realized that if socialism means this then capitalism is far better.  Many Marxist washed their faces and began to reconcile with capitalism with green colour.  They began to believe that capitalism is here to stay. The left parties never sat on a chintan baithak to review the events that led to the fall of Soviet Union.  They did not issue any statement on their understanding the changes that took place in the Soviet Union.  The left parties in India have transformed themselves into mere opposition parties “left of the centre”.  Not long ago Budhdeb Bhatacharia and Jyoti Bosu made statements that Capitalism has a role.  They were trying to bat for capitalist industrialization of West Bengal with out any success, of course.

But in spite of the faith of many in the permanency of capitalism, capitalism has begun to shake more than ever.

The left parties in India might have gone on the line of the Second International.  The second international and its spokes persons, Kautsy and Bernstine had drawn reductionist conclusions from Marx’s philosophy of historical materialism and the analysis of the development of capitalism.  

When capitalism develops it will develop productive forces and it will also develop the proletariat.  More proletarianization will happen.  With the trade union struggle of the working class for improving their economic conditions and through the intellectual activity of the intellectuals the bourgeoisie will bring about reforms, such as higher form of democracy.  When the contradiction within capitalism matures capitalism will catapult in to socialism.

They did not visualize any role for politics or for ideological struggle or any intervention to bring about socialism.  Nor did they see the need to dislodge the bourgeois rule as it would collapse under its own weight when the contradiction within capitalism would mature.  The democratic reforms of the bourgeois rulers will result in socialism.  The rise of socialism will be spontaneous result of the trade union struggle and democratic reform given the maturing of capitalism and the contradictions within.

This is the essence of what is called “economism”.  This is also called economic reductionism. 

This position of the second international poses problem.  We have seen over the years, almost 100 year from the creation of second international that capitalism has reached a stage of dead end.  The recent massive global economic crisis has exposed the contradiction of capitalism as never before.  There is high level of democracy in America, Europe and in many other developing countries like India.  We have the worst crisis of global warming which has been acknowledged by all and the efforts to contain this have been taking place globally. The limits of capitalism have not been set by the recent crisis the global warming and planet being in crisis.  This is enough to ring the bells telling us that we have come to a dead end.  If on the surface the bourgeoisies have managed the crisis, they have done so through the means that will brew probably a bigger crisis which we will not have to wait too long to see.  But the global warming is the real crisis which is threatening the very existence of the earth.  It has proved that capitalism is not a sustainable path of development. 

The Copenhagen has revealed that the most industrialized capitalist countries are not willing to see the reason and give their cancerous growth mania.  They are not willing to budge from their position.  They want to bribe the poor countries to find space to proceed towards a full blown cancer. 

Democracy and civil liberty at its height has not produced any conditon that will make the capitalism collapse.  The full blown contradictions have not brought down bourgeois rule or capitalism resulting in socialism.

There is a need for political intervention.  What is evident now is that the working class is starved of ideological clarity.  Marxism is in crisis not because it has no message for our world today.  Marxism was never as relevant as it is today.  The working class has not developed its revolutionary consciousness suo generic (by itself).  It has given up any struggle even for economic struggle.

In 1905 and subsequently by Russian Revolution Lenin had effectively fought against the economic reductionism and economism of the Second International.  Bolsheviks had succeed in over throwing the Tsarists autocracy and Russian bourgeoisies.

The second person after Lenin to expose the second international was Gramsci.  While Lenin developed his political theories in the process of successful over throw of the bourgeoisies Gramsci developed his idea through the reflections on the defeat of the Italian revolution.  His thoughts go far beyond Lenin on the kind of political intervention we need to do. 

Now is the time to turn to Gramsci to draw inspirations from him to review our situation today.  What message has Gramsci for us today?  He is even more relevant for us today than he was during his own times.

His thoughts have exposed economism not only of the second international but of the entire left of today, if there is any left is left.  His idea of hegemony is most relevant today for a political intervention.

Gramsci’s concept of civil society and hegemony shows a way for us work for a transformation of society.  His theory of hegemony is far excellent even in comparison to the theory of Lenin. 

The Russian revolution was successful only in the sense that the Bolshevik party captured state power.  But gradually the working class and the masses got alienated from the party.  In order to build socialist industrialization and agriculture Stalin used force rather than consensus and hegemony.  Bolshevik’s and later CPSU’ continuation in power was not backed by the hegemony of the masses.  Both the masses and the Bolsheviks wers replaced by bureaucracy and they began to behave like babus and even like Hilter’s military officers. Bolsheviks did not build hegemony that could keep them in power on the basis of this hegemony, much less the industrialization and collectivization of agriculture.

In present day society where there is functioning democracy and regular elections to the Parliament and state assemblies the bourgeois parties rely on a kind of hegemony over the civil society.  This hegemony is a forced hegemony, en though the force is operated through electoral promises and cash for vote.  The communist parties ruling in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura have not succeeded in creating hegemony that Gramsci speaks of.  The so called mass base is built on the basis of false hopes and populist development programes that never touch the long term interest of the masses.  One important lessons we need to draw from this is that there cannot be any change without building hegemony. 

Gramsci proposes creating a system of alliances which allows it to mobilize the majority of the working population against capitalism and the bourgeois state – to the extent that it succees in gaining consent of the board masses of peasants, daliths, adivasies and the excluded people.

Lenin had spelt out hegemony in terms of class alliance. Gramsci goes miles further.  He proposes indissoluble union of political leadership and intellectual and the masses.  The moral leadership of the political leaders clearly goes beyond the idea of a simple class alliance.

Gramsci compares the need for hegemony of the working masses to the Jacobins of the French Revolution.  He says, “this was how the Jacobins did in French Revolution.  Not only did they organized a bourgeois government, i.e., made the bourgeoisie the dominant class – they did more.  They created the bourgeois state, made the bourgeoisie into the leading, hegemonic class of the nation.  In other words gave the new state a permanent basis and created the compact modern French nation.”

Bourgeoisie over came their corporate nature and made hegemonic class. They infact force it to widen its class interests and to discover those interests which it had in common with popular sectors.  It was on this basis they were able to put themselves in command and to lead those sectors into the struggle.

This way political moment is situated and is characterized by ideological struggle which attempts to forge unity between economic, political and intellectual objective, placing all questions around which the struggle rages on ‘universal’, not on corporate level there by creating the hegemony of a fundamental social group over the series of subordinate ones.

Hegemony is not simple political alliance but of a complete fusion of economic, political, intellectual and moral objective which will be brought about by one fundamental group and groups allied to it through the intermediary of ideology when ideology manages to spread through out the whole society determining not only united economic and political objective but also intellectual and moral unity.

Hegemonic Class, Gramsci explains is a class which is been able to articulate the interests of other social groups to its own by means of ideological struggle.  This is only possible if this class renounces a strictly corporatist conception.  In order to exercise leadership it must genuinely concern itself with the interests of those social groups over which it wishes to exercise hegemony.  Obviously the fact of hegemony presupposes that one takes into account the interests and the tendencies of the groups over which hegemony will be exercised and it also presupposes a certain equilibrium, that is to say the hegemonic groups will make some sacrifices of a corporate nature.

Hegemony understood as a motor force of a universal expansion of development of all the national energies, general interest of the subordinate groups, enlargement of state – integral state, consisted of hegemony and rule of the oppressed people.  Hegemony involves the enlarging of social base of the state and establishes relation between the state, hegemonic class and its mass base.  It also involves enlargement of the states’s functioning, since the notion of integral state means incorporation of the apparatuses of hegemony of civil society to the state.

Gramsci reject the concept of Hegemony by transformism and expansive hegemony:

By transformation is meant gradual and continuous absorption achieved through cooption of the subordinate classes, social groups and even antagonistic groups for the function of the power of the hegemonic class.

For Gramsci successful Hegemony is “expansive hegemony”, i.e., creation of active direct consensus and genuine national “popular will” by adoption of the interests of the popular classes by the hegemonic class.

 It is a question of to articulating their interests to neutralize them but to promote their full development leading to final resolution of the contradictions which they express.

Originality of Gramsci’s concept of Hegemony is not to be found in purely instrumental alliance between classes through which the class demands of the allied classes are articulated to those of the fundamental class, with each group maintaining its own individuality within the alliance as well as its own ideology. 

Hegemony involves creation of a higher synthesis, so that all its elements “fuse in a collective will” which becomes a new protagonist of political action which will unftion as the protagonist of political action during that hegemony’s entire duration.

Civil Society and the Political System

CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE POLITICAL SYSTEM:

Alex Tuscano

The situation prevailing in the Indian politics deserves a serious reflection on the part of the civil society.  Many journalists say that the ills in the governance at the centre and at the state assemblies affect the civil society who elects these governments.

The description of the present political situation in Karnataka:  

Karnataka has seen governments formed by different political parties.  After the long spell of Congress rule Ramkrishna Hegde formed the first non congress government.  From then on Janatha Dal and Congress have shared different innings.  One peculiar situation about Karnataka is that when there was a congress government at the centre Karnataka had a Janatha Dal government.  And when there was a non congress government at the centre Karnataka had a congress government.  This time also Karnataka has BJP government while at the centre there is Congress led UPA government.

After the term of S.M. Krishna’s government there has been instability in Karnataka.  When there was a hung assembly with BPJ coming number one, followed by congress and Janatha Dal being third,  the Congress and the JDS formed an unholy alliance to keep BJP out.  After a while the power hungry Kumarswamy broke this alliance and joined BJP to become a chief minister. There was an agreement that while Kumarswami would be a chief minister for the first twenty months Yeduarappa would be sworn in as the next chief minister for the remaining 20 months.  But when Kumarswami’s term got over the sabotaged the chance of BJP to form the government under the leadership of Yeduarappa.  In the subsequent election the Karnataka voters taught the JDS a lesson and pushed JDS to the third position with a much reduced number of MLAs.  BJP got sympathy vote but not good enough to form a government.

BJP was forced to pay heavy price to win the independent MLAs to their side to form a government.  But that did not provide enough number of seats to ensure a stable BJP government.  Yeduarappa resorted to Operation Lotus.  He got eight congress MLAs and six JDS MLAs to resign the assembly seats and get elected under BJP banner.  The parties whose MLAs were poached were waiting for their chance to teach BJP a lesson.  When Yedurappa went in for second reshuffle of the cabinet it gave rise to discontent among the BJP MLAs.  There was a prolong political crisis in Karnataka which led to a very ugly situation with dirty politics played by JDS as well as Congress!  After winging the second vote of confidence BJP is back in power.  But to save the government BJP again planned to resort to operation lotus.  BJP (the state president) shamelessly and boldly stated that they had no other option.  Politics going to the lowest ebb! 

The outcome of the Taluk and Jilha panchayat again has made the BJP to apply operation lotus to gobble majority at the local level governments.  While the BJP has absolutely no respect for democracy and elections, the elected members see themselves as commodities that could be sold and purchase like what we see at the red light area.

Then there was another scam, the land scam.  The scam ridden minister Katta had to resign.  But the matter did not stop there.  The chief minister Yeduarappa himself was in the thick of the land scam.  He denotified prime lands in and around Bangalore and allotted to his son and his son in law.  What is amazing is that in spite the general demand for his resignation, even in the BJP circle he managed to convince his bosses and continue in office.

The Situation at the Centre: 

The situation at the Centre is not very different, if not worse.  The absurdity of the high growth mode of our economy is being exposed day by day and in bits and pieces.  The economists do not seem to be humoured. The apparent situation does indicate very serious problems at the political and economic front.  The prices are rising to an extent that the common man (aam aadmi) finds it very difficult to live from day to day.  The government seems to have no clue on the cause of the problem and is unable to control prices.  The agricultural minister, Sharat Pawar has gone old and is incapable of raising himself to cease the problem.

There are scams all over.  The Common Wealth Games, the Adarsh scam, the 2G spectrum scam, the appointment of CVC and to add to all this, the Bofors scam has risen its head once again.  The latest trouble for the government has been from the black money stacked in the Swiss Banks.  The German government has given the names of 26 persons who have secret bank accounts in a very small country.  But the UPA is not willing to reveal the names for some reason.

The opposition parties are united in making the life of the ruling coalition even harder.  They have been demanding JPC inquiry in 2G scam.  Congress party in particular and the UPA in general has been stubbornly opposing this idea.  The result was that the opposition party completely washing out the winter session of the Parliament.  All the MPs and the parliament session ate up the huge sum of public money for not doing any business.  This too is not such a small scam.

The opposition is waiting for the fall of this government.  It is not that they have any solution to the rising prices or they are any way beyond scams, scandals and corruption. Except for opportunism the opposition has no other programme to offer to solve the ills of the nation.

There are economists like C P Chandrashekhar who interpret these corruption as the necessary side of the “primitive accumulation”.  After all primitive accumulation for the inception of capitalism was also large scale loots of the wealth of the common people. He has a point but it should be dealt in a separate article.

There has been a view that the people get the government they deserve.  If the people elect corrupt politicians then they will get corrupt government. 

This is only a half truth.  In the present election system and the representative democratic system the civil society has no option.  The same discredited parties will be in the fray and the same corrupt politicians will stand for elections.  The people have to choose the least corrupt among the most corrupt politicians. 

In order to overcome this situation we have to find a way out so that gradually we can eliminate the corrupt politicians and bring sanity to the political system.  There should be no horse trading.  If there is horse trading then the parties that indulge in horse trading should be punished.  The civil society should have a way to do that.

To my mind there are two ways we can adopt to put an end to this present criminal situation.

The first one is “The Right to Reject”.  This means just as we vote for candidates and the parties we feel should be elected (an acceptance vote) we can exercise an option to reject all the candidates and the parties fighting elections (a rejection vote).  Here people can exercise their voting power to reject the criminal and corrupt candidates who stand for election.  This makes it possible for the people (voters) not to elect even the least corrupt among the most corrupt.  If the rejection vote is sizeable enough then the parties should be asked to field candidates with impeccable integrity who would be acceptable to the people.  It will be up to the parties to find good candidates.  This could lead to a process of thinking among the parties to ensure that they field good candidates and provide good governance to the people.  In the process the criminal politicians and corruption will be eliminated.

The second option   is “Right to Recall”.  This means that after a period of time the voters can move a motion to demand withdrawal of the candidates they have elected on the ground of their corrupt practices, bad governance or lack of performance.  The electorate can call for a process to register their lack of confidence in such MPs and MLAs and force them to resign and hold another election to replace such politicians.

In order to exercise these two options a lot of ground work needs to be done.  Here the civil society organizations which have political independence have to play a major role.  This role will be political but not party political.  The electorate need to be educated and there needs to be a regular forum to express people’s opinions and grievances.  We have an institution of Gram Sabha in the rural panchayat context.  This can be an effective forum which will help people to decide on the process of recalling the elected members of the parliament or assemblies.  Similar forums should be created in the urban and semi urban areas where there are Municipal corporations.

This will result in emergence of enlightened electorate.  People will develop confidence in their ability and power to reform the political system and purify the institutions.  Money will not play ultimate role in making and unmaking a government.  The political parties will not be able to fool the people.  The elected members will not change their colour or forget their people after election.  We will not only weed out corruption but institute efficient, responsive and responsible government.

The issue before us is who will enlighten the civil society?  Often people get wedded to one or the other political party and fail to look at all the parties in an objective way.  Most often they are used by these parties as vote banks.  There has to be an end to the vote bank politics.  

We cannot expect present political parties to undertake this task of enlightening the civil society.  One should rightfully look at the left parties to perform this role.  The left parties were born for this purpose.  But they are so concerned about gaining power or retaining political power just as the other parties are that they have forgotten their mission.  We have to look at the civil society organisations which stand for secular, democratic, just society to take up the task of awakening the people to new spirit of citizenship.