Two Faces Of The New Left

There are perhaps as many Marxisms as there are Marxists. Exigencies of the historical and social context have inevitably marked the development of left politics in each country. It is therefore patently incorrect to speak of the demise of communism with the fall of the Soviet Union. Left politics of various shades have survived, nay thrived, in a variety of locales even in the post-Soviet era, from Castro’s Cuba to Chavez’s Venezuela, to our own backyard in Nepal. Yet over the last decade and a half or so a new threat has emerged, which threatens to corrode left politics from the inside. On one distant island this threat is known as Tony Blair and NewLabour, while back in West Bengal the same endemic passes by the name of Buddhadeb Bhattacharya and the CPI (M).

The similarities between the two leaders are indeed astounding. Both started their political careers in the premier educational institutions of the country. Blair attended Oxford and Bhattacharya went toPresidency College, Kolkata (which incidentally used to be described as the ‘Oxford of the East’ in the days of yore). Both were seen as an antidote to the ideological stagnation of the grey-hairs within the left echelons. Both came to power astride massive electoral victories and promised an era of change. Memorably, Blair said in his accession speech:‘Just as power without principles is barren, principles without power is futile.’ Bhattacharya recited the IT mantra, snuggled up to industrialists and promised to re-awaken the almost forgotten work-culture in West Bengal.

Initially, all went well. Both leaders repeatedly stressed that socialist ideals had to be made more amenable to changed and globalised realities. One of Blair’s first moves as the leader of New Labour was to amend the Labour Party constitution to drop the final abolition of private property (Clause IV) as one of itsaims, while Bhattacharya said, ‘It’s a new situation. Old Ideas won’t do.’

Trade Unions, long seen as the bane of industry in West Bengal and the ultimate ideological white elephant for the Communists, were vigorouslyreined in. That the CPM’s trade union, CITU, was ultimately always controlled by the parent party had been proved episodically in the past as well. During the Kanoria Jute Mill agitation in 1993-94 or during the so-called Operation Sunshine to evict hawkers and street-peddlers on the streets of Kolkata in 1996, the CITU was only too willing to tow the official party-line to the detriment of its members. Some unions, though, left the party fold as a consequence and rebel outfits such as Sangrami SramikUnion—whose nucleus consisted of those who had forcibly occupied the locked-out Kanoria Jute Mill and tried to re-start production through a worker’sco-operative—have over the years increased their influence. The mine worker’s unions, which had formed the solid base of the Labour Party too had left Blairite New Labour in the mid 1990s under the leadership of Arthur Scargill to form the Socialist Labour Party.

Things soon changed. The image of being dynamic and compassionateleaders, ready for progress without the dead-weight of ideological intransigency yet possessing a social conscience, now began to give way to an authoritarian, egotistical and ruthlessreality. What made the change in both cases more poignant was the changed support-base for the parties from the end of the90s.

In the British case, Margaret Thatcher, should get the credit for this change. It was in hertime that British citizens living on Social Benefit in government housing were given the option of buying their houses through government loans. By a single master-stroke thus, Thatcher had created a property-owning class from amongst Labour’s most strident supporters. The move had principally affected the south of England, which is traditionally more urbanised and its urban poor more radical in their politics, rather than the relatively more settled rural work force of the Scottish mines.

In the case of the CPM too, a similar shift in the economic conditions of its urban support base can be discerned. East Bengali refugees who had come to Calcutta in waves since 1947 and had settled forcibly on land to the south of the city, had formed a strong bulwark of support for theparty. As their right to these forcibly occupied lands were slowly legalised and their economic conditions improved, their politics lost much of the early radicalism.

On the other hand, the extremist or radical fringes that were isolated by the increasingly pro-capital stand of the left parties in bothplaces came to be lapped up and recruited by a host of right wing movements.

Those who had left Labour with Scargill, now increasingly gravitated towards the Scottish Labour Party which apart from a radical left agenda also espoused a chauvinistic Scottish nationalism. Others followed George Galloway into Respect. Galloway was always a demagogue, but the Iraq war was his biggest opportunity. His street-fighting antics soon earned him the support of the coloured Britons, especially in the south, comprising the now significantly large Brown and Black British groups which had traditionally voted Labour. Some amongst these coloured Britons also found common cause with radical Islamic groups. As Dhiren Bhanot’s much publicised trial last year proved, Radical Islam was not only attracting Muslims, but was becoming a political alternative for coloured Britons who felt strongly against the racism of the British establishment.

In Bhattacharya’s opposition too, we see an increasing affiliation of religious movements with radical politics. In Nandigram, the peasants told TV crews recently that when thepolice attacked, they were performing Puja, not to mention the increasing communalisation of the main opposition party the Trinamool Congress and its association with the BJP. Amongst the Muslim peasantry, the sudden rise of Dr Siddiqulla Choudhury and the Jamait-i-Ulema-i-Hind proves the growing acceptability of religious politics as a vent for the radicalism of the marginalised.

The greatest similarity between Bhattacharya and Blair, though comes througha new brand of politics itself. It is not so much their wooing of big capital that is problematic. It is rather the curious hybrid that has resulted through their own formations in socialist parties and their present capitalist agendas. Socialist and left parties have been notorious throughout the world for not encouraging democratic opposition. Putting theparty before the individual and the very existence of a strong and centrallyhierarchised party at the helm of affairs, along with very little transparency about inner-party matters are legacies of an age when the left parties still aspired to bring about a revolution. Both Bhattacharya and Blair have used these to the hilt.Having dispensed with the ideological moorings of the party, they have retained the legacy of a highlyhierarchised party structure which can be used to quell dissent effectively both within andoutside the party. In the hands of egotistical tyrants these can be potent weapons indeed. It is in this aspect thatliberal democratic parties, even while espousing the same pro-capital policies,are perhaps better. Not in their ability, but rather in the incapacity: their incapacity to ever completely quell dissent and opposition.

Both have also repeatedly mentioned that modern government is more akin to ‘management’. They seem to distrust political solutions,and seem to instead prefer executive solutions, while they talk increasingly of ridding the decision making process of ‘politics’. Blair did it on the NHS privatisation issue andBhattacharya has practised it through the complete absence of a political process in the allocation and acquisition of land for the SEZs. What they seem toexhibit is an increasing lack of either transparency or democratic negotiation. However imperfect our democratic set-ups, they are crucial channels of exchange and negotiation between the governed andgovernment. The preference for executive solutions, which are taken by a handful of ‘experts’ or civil servants, by refusing to engage in this exchange, is a tombstone for democracy.

Blair’s lies in misleading the nation about the existence of WMDs in Iraq came to light during Lord Hutton’s enquiry following the suicide of David Kelly, the Scientific Adviser to the government. Moreover David Clark, one of Blair ex-Political Advisers, felt that it was Blair’s own ego that kept him from acknowledging the blunder in Iraq and withdrawing troops. The CBI enquiry into the events of Nandigram on the 14th of March are also bringing to light a comparable tale of lies and misinformation by Bhattacharya’s government, regarding the killing of hapless farmers protesting the forcible acquisition of their land for the setting up of a ‘Chemical Hub’. Both men have also been singularly recalcitrant to apologise for what has increasingly become a public relations nightmare for their respective parties. The logic of these actions goes beyond the scope of political wisdom.It is clearly the delusions of tyrannical power that inspire such hubris.

Interestingly, they also use similar language to speak of their respective missions. Both tend to frame their actions as those of a missionary—preaching toa heathen flock who do not know what they are refusing. While Blair sanctimoniouslywaxes eloquent on ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’, which apparently the Iraqis do not quite seem tounderstand, Bhattacharya laments how the peasants of Nandigram and Singur do not understand that industrialisation is in their best interests. While Blair chooses to call Iraqis fighting against colonial British and USArmies—who have no other right to be present in Iraq than by right of arms—‘terrorists’,Bhattacharya sees unarmed women and children fighting to save their puny homesteads as trouble-makers and ‘law and order problems’.

Yet, despite all efforts, it is doubtful that Bhattacharya will succeed in becoming a Blair. The difference is not in their personal style or agendas, but rather in the possibilities that their very different histories and contexts allow them. Blair after all rules over one of thebest examples of a Welfare state in the developed world. Despite all of Blair’s efforts to cut social expenses by privatising services such as the National Health Service, the average British citizen is still much better off than hiscounterpart in Nandigram. He gets an Unemployment Benefit, he gets Social Security money when in dire straits, he even gets a small increment in his Benefit cheque if he wants to keep a pet dog! In short, he has way too much to loose if he goes all out and decides to take to arms to protest against his Prime Minister. His Nandigramcounterpart, however, has not much else but the tiny piece of land he owns, or toils on, and his family. When Bhattacharya threatens to take these away from him, he simply has very little choice than to take to all possible means to resist it.