The >elevation of Sitaram Yechury to the post of general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) is at a time when the party (and other forces of the Left) are in dire need of new direction and inspiration. The new leadership of the CPI(M) will be carrying a difficult burden to revive the prospects of a depleted Left and support from a largely sceptical electorate. The 21st Party Congress of the CPI(M) was held at a time when the party had registered new electoral lows — even in its strongholds — and is, perhaps, at its weakest political position since its inception in 1964. This is in stark contrast to the period when Mr. Yechury’s predecessor, Prakash Karat, took on the role of general secretary 10 years ago. Incidentally, both leaders cut their teeth in student politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University and are ex-presidents of the JNU Students Union.
Within a year after Mr. Karat became the first general secretary who wasn’t a founder-member in 2005, the party was at its strongest parliamentary position. The Left parties, combined, had more than 60 MPs in the Lok Sabha, in power in their strongholds and initially leveraged these positions adroitly to influence policy in welfarist directions, as they extended support to the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA). At the centre, the Left managed to punch above its weight and even steered a few landmark pieces of legislation such as the Forest Rights Act and the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. It is another matter that the party could not utilise these “achievements” to translate into support, bogged down as it was by events that had hampered it in its strongholds. It must also be said that tactical blunders — such as withdrawing support to the UPA over the nuclear deal at a wrong juncture — did not help it either.
Decline in strongholds
In the States where the Left was in power, especially West Bengal and Kerala, troubles of varying kinds began to brew only months after its coming to or retaining power. Buoyed by a strong mandate that was won on the slogan of industrialisation, the Left Front government sought to pursue “big ticket” projects in a hurry. The “reform zeal” of the then West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee was contrasted with the “obstructionist” emphasis of the CPI(M)’s central leadership. There seemed a disconnect between what the party was preaching at the Centre — the fight against “neoliberalism” — and what the West Bengal government was seeking to do in the State — fostering capitalist development through incentivisation. Much has been written about the land acquisition issue that hastened the government’s downfall in the State and this need not be repeated. But the victory in 2006 in West Bengal had also papered over serious issues with the Left Front and in particular the CPI(M)’s rule in the State. The party had, over its long tenure, turned into a machine that combined a set of progressive leaders with others who were willing to get their hands dirty in electoral mobilisation, issuing contracts, and “managing” support. Over time, a large set of self-seekers had found a place in the party — that seemingly was going to be in power for a long time — and it was this set of careerists at the middle and lower rungs of the party who defected to the opposition at the first instance of the Left Front losing power.
The image of the party, as a pro-poor force, had also taken a beating following the Nandigram and Singur incidents and a wholesale defection of the rural support base to the Trinamool ensued. Since 2009, the Left Front has only seen a cascading decline in vote shares at every level of elections. This was partially because the CPI(M) could not mobilise enough support as an oppositional force against the Trinamool Congress due to a moribund leadership that had little experience being out of power. And the latter had taken the strong-arm, violent tactics of voter and candidate intimidation to even greater heights. It will not be an exaggeration to say that the once mighty CPI(M) in West Bengal is in a shambles, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is emerging as a stronger opposition force to the Trinamool Congress. In Kerala, on the other hand, the CPI(M) and its allies have managed to retain a steady support base, but a long-standing saga of factionalism and reliance on an overly-militant leadership from North Kerala has contributed to dents in its image and restricted its prospective growth. All said, the CPI(M)’s journey to relevance as a major national force will depend on how it manages to overcome the hurdles it has posed for itself in its strongholds in Kerala and West Bengal.
The State units of the CPI(M) have been loath to admit these frailties, let alone work upon them. The party leadership in West Bengal has insisted that the break in relations with the Congress at the centre (over the nuclear deal) was the main reason for the drastic loss of support for the party. This lazy excuse had allowed it to imagine that mere electoral rearrangement — a joint coalition with the Congress against the Trinamool — would be enough for revival. Combined with the rise of the BJP and the party’s organisational tepidity, it is not a surprise as to why the CPI(M) continues to flounder in the State despite the Trinamool government’s unfavourable image.
Lack of a positive voice Yet, the decline in the fortunes of the CPI(M) and the Left as a whole since 2005 is not merely due to parochial factors. The Central leadership had emphasised the need to grow in other parts of the country particularly in North India. But the lack of an adequate organisation, or enough imagination to formulate specific strategies of mobilisation that are relevant to these areas, has resulted in the further enfeeblement of its presence.
The CPI(M) has been forever late in trying to innovate its political tactics to reach out to a changing India. The emphasis on “negation” — resistance, obstruction and dependence upon statism — has not helped fulfil its aims to set an alternative agenda. The Left parties will be better off seeking to promote an alternative agenda of comprehensive, welfare-driven growth, by emphasising universal health care, social security and state support and struggling for them rather than only offering resistance to the model of development espoused by the BJP and even the Congress. There are exceptions of course, in the manner in which the party has taken up issues of the marginalised in proactive ways — such as the Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front for example. But largely, despite espousing progressive and even Left-liberal values (for example, the CPI(M) is the first party to openly take a position against capital punishment and its legislators were at the forefront of the Section 66A annulment discourse), it is seen as a party that does not stand for something, but is only opposed to many things. This is especially so among the youth and the middle classes. The latter in particular and the CPI(M) seem to share a mutual derision, even if the party’s leadership mostly comprises leaders from the very same section.
Even the urban poor, a humongous category that should be the ideal constituency for the Left, seems to have been bypassed by it. The Left’s emphasis on mobilisational tactics being limited to the workplace — organising the poor as labourers, craftsmen, public sector employees, etc, rather than urban residents who lack amenities, access to essential supplies and who live precariously due to inflation and job insecurity — is another factor that has limited its reach. The urban poor prefer to be mobilised by sectional and patronage-dispensing parties because of the lack of an alternative. The electoral success of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Delhi — by reaching out to the urban poor as a mobilising category through the distinct lack of sectional appeals related to caste or region — perhaps holds some lessons for the Left parties. Of course, the AAP’s organisational failures are a reason why it has not matured as a progressive political party but that is not germane to the discussion here. India’s Left parties can also look up to the influences of the “new left forces” in Latin America and Europe, where the rise of radical Left parties has been aided by new strategies of mobilisation and organisational building.
Left unity
The easy claim made by critics for the weakness of the Left in India is that the goals that it espouses — socialism and comprehensive welfare driven economics — are passé. This is not true. While the Left parties have certainly declined, social movements have pushed for and achieved the implementation of welfare policies that do not flow from the neoliberal form of development. Left parties in Latin America have sought to rethink socialism as a process rather than a stage of development and have formed united fronts with social movements to bring about substantial changes in the economy, with large public support.
Mr. Yechury’s remarks after his promotion suggest that the CPI(M) will look to revive organisationally and is seeking to renew its support base, even while venturing to form programmatic (and even electoral) alliances with secular and like-minded parties to take on its primary enemy, the BJP. One hopes that the CPI(M) realises that without a stronger emphasis on Left unity and engagement with social movements to set a positive, progressive agenda, mere electoral alliances with regional parties and programmatic tie-ups with the Congress will prove to be a fruitless exercise for the party.
srinivasan.vr@thehindu.co.in
