DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION
T.G. Jacob
[On February 17, 1991, a section of the former members and fellow travellers of various Marxist-Leninist parties held a one-day convention in Kozhikode, Kerala, to discuss issues relating to democratisation of the communist movement]
WHY THIS CONVENTION?
This convention proposes to address the question of Democracy internal to the Communist Movement, more specifically, in the Marxist-Leninist Movement in Kerala. The question is viewed with utmost gravity and the basic premise is that democratic functioning of the proletarian party is a necessary precondition for the real victory of Socialism and Revolution.
The experiences of the last seventy years of post-revolutionary societies are by no means complimentary to the theory and practice of democracy, whether proletarian or otherwise. The handling of dissent by the post-revolutionary states was done in such a way which led to widespread popular uprisings, and it is a continuing process. Socialism, considered by the leading theoreticians and practitioners as the transitional stage to the ultimate in democracy – Communism – degenerated into the worst forms of fascism under the label of dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. No amount of justifications and apologies are currently in a position to mask this ugly reality.
Is it an inevitability that post-revolutionary societies are by nature compelled to be governed by centralised bureaucratic regimes? Or is it possible that large-scale butcherings like the Romanian and Chinese ones are very much catalysed over a fairly long period of time by the negation of democracy both within and outside the new ruling parties? Is it a problem originating in the post-revolutionary situation, or is it that the consolidation of bureaucratic centralism operated as the core of the pyramidal power structure that came into existence in the post-revolutionary societies as a specific and devastating product of the internal organisation practice in the erstwhile fighting parties but now ruling parties. The smoothness with which the fighting organisation turned itself into an authoritarian state power shows clearly that the fascist character attained by the fighting turning ruling parties is not organically divorced from its own past.
To put it in our own context we have parties that consider the changes in Eastern Europe as positive and historically warranted. At the same time, they maintain within themselves a highly bureaucratic set up and centralised organisational structure. They don’t seem to be seeing any continuity between the pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary phases of the fighting turned ruling party. On the one hand, they say that the developments in the Eastern bloc are inevitable historical results of centralisation and bureaucracy on all levels in society, but on the other do not see the phenomenon in its historical perspective. Degeneration of a fighting party into a fascist one cannot be explained through some sort of mechanistic interpretations like revisionist coups. It has developed over a period of time, and the internal dynamics of the ruling politics has played a highly significant role in the whole exercise of fossilisation.
The apologies for maintaining a tightly built, centralised command structure within the Communist parties and groups during the pre-revolutionary period mainly hinge upon the superior strength and organisation of the state. During the post-revolutionary period this apology is developed into one of strengthening the very same command structure as a panacea for beating back counter-revolutionary and reactionary onslaughts aimed at subverting the revolution. During both these periods the Communist party is supposed to be the sole force which stands for the liberation of all the people, and this monopoly right, which is very often self-awarded, is maintained as the moral sanction for everything that it does, whether democratic or anti-democratic, whether within or outside the party.
In a context where there are dozens upon dozens of parties and groups claiming the same monopoly it assumes the dimensions of each group or party trying every possible means to mould the cadres to its own dogmatic set-up, which is more often a question of loyalty to the leadership concerned. Invariably what results is a direct rejection of “let hundred flowers bloom.” Differing viewpoints are sought to be suppressed rather than debated. Even if they are debated unprincipled techniques to assure majority for the leadership is plentifully employed. This means nothing but stage-managed acceptance of the political line as well as politics of organisation. To cite one recent illustration the group in Kerala now talking about “proletarian democracy” did not debate the very same document among its cadres before it was released by the leadership to the whole society.
Why do we wail so much about the splintering of the M-L movement in the sub-continent? Among the various groups, especially among those operating in the same area, there exists a great deal of very acrimonious contention. Each one, in its attempt to cling on, performs mud-slinging on the others abundantly, and what can be termed as a perverse group mentality is sought to be created in the minds of the cadres. Our own experience in Kerala shows that splits occur much before the actual split, though the “theoretical” reasons are brought forth as and when it is necessary. The “theoretical” reasons are dutifully brought forth in the shape of documents having quotations from the classics galore (more often quoted in mutilated or convenient forms), endless repetition of worn-out clichés, and accusations and counter-accusations (sometimes difficult to distinguish from slander) – all this to prove to its cadre that theirs is the one and only group upholding the ‘true’ principles of Marxism-Leninism.
The practice of the leadership to glue the cadres to its own mode of thinking involves a process of standardisation. This standardisation is very much in tune with, say, industrial production. But it is obviously not so in the case of human beings. Anyone protesting against such anti-democratic and anti-dialectical standardisation can have charges of right or left deviation, moral degeneration, or mental illness, levelled against him or her. And this levelling of accusations is done in a surreptitious manner, in a cowardly manner through whisper campaigns and conspiratorial slandering. Physical attacks by the “party police” are also not rare. Again, all this is done with the inherent conception that the group concerned is out to liberate the people and these dissenting elements are obstacles to such a self-undertaken, noble mission. Slanders can even go to such a ridiculous extent as denouncing a comrade of longstanding active cooperation and transforming him/her overnight into a police agent, CIA agent, KGB agent, etc.
The mental blocks generated by perverse group mentality are geared to preventing any outward thrust; it creates a closed mind instead of an open mind and strives to perfect the model of a fanatic, narrow, claustrophobic approach. Rebellion against such moves can easily result in allegations of mental instability. We have to keep in mind that the conditions existing within such organisations are very much conducive to creating psychological problems for individuals. We have enough examples in our own history and suicides are also not uncommon.
Up to this time these questions were not being raised publicly in our place. This was again related to the logic that such groups are fighting for the liberation of the people and raising such questions will make them more vulnerable to attacks; hence it is in the broader interests of the people that such questions should lie buried. Those who try to raise such basic democratic rights questions are immediately dubbed as enemy agents, splittists, existentialists, idealists, etc. the curious aspect of the situation is that sticking such a label is considered by the group leaders as enough to dismiss the questions involved as irrelevant!
REPORT ON THE CONVENTION
Communists are those who strive for people’s democracy and socialism, which can function only if democratic norms become a way of life with themselves in the first place. Tragically enough, the internal practice of the communist parties, particularly in the M-L parties/groups, is far from being democratic. The organisational politics of the M-L parties/groups is based on bureaucratic centralism with disastrous consequences for the progress of the revolutionary movement in general. This was the central and recurring theme in the one-day convention on the issue of democratisation in the communist movement held at Kozhikode on 17 February, 1991.
This democratic convention was organised by revolutionaries, who were at one time or other related to the M-L movement in active roles, with a few of them being active right from the beginning of the Naxalite movement. It opened with an introduction on behalf of the reception committee by PT. Thomas explaining the concepts, evolution and main issues of the convention. The reference point were the main M-L groups in Kerala – the CRC, CPI(ML) and the CPI(ML) Red Flag – in the sense that practice of democratic values within these groups very much belonged to the personal experience of the participants.
It was stated at the outset that probably for the first time in the history of the communist movement in India such a process has been launched. Individual leaders, e.g., K. Damodaran and B.T. Ranadive, had raised the question of democracy within the Communist Party of India only in their personal capacity towards the fag end of their lives. In the opinion of the organisers of the convention, such admissions amounted only to confessions which did not have any serious political impact on the rank and file or on the people. Such passive confessions are far from enough; the enormity of the problem demands sustained and principled ideological and political struggle against bureaucratic functioning within the communist movement. The fact that this convention came up from below makes a significant difference.
Explaining the genesis of such a unique convention, the anti-democratic practices rampant in the two main M-L groups in Kerala came in for bitter mentioning. Their official approach to the convention itself threw into sharp focus this anti-democratic attitude. Their official organs (Comrade and Desiya Vimochanam) denounced the organisers and supporters of the convention as “police agents”, “petty bourgeois anarchists”, “splittists”, etc. etc. even before the convention. This is in spite of the fact that right at the beginning stage of the planning of the convention the leaderships of these groups had been repeatedly appraised of the objectives and necessity of the convention, and as the date of the convention approached the cadres of these groups were actively discussing the issues involved. When the cooperation of these groups’ leaderships was sought the response was to level abuses and veiled threats in public.
A series of “expulsions” occurred in the CRC, CPI(ML). These expelled comrades had been for quite some time raising the question of democracy within the organisation and subsequently found it difficult to continue within, subjected to the arbitrary and conspiratorial behaviour of the leadership. Instead of unleashing a democratic process of discussions within the organisation on the serious issues raised, the leadership hardened its bureaucratic approach, thereby making it impossible for dissent to be expressed within. Such an approach is contrary to communist principles and obviously anachronistic for parties and groups calling themselves Maoist and Marxist-Leninist. This sentiment was widely shared in the convention.
The introductory speaker mentioned a few prominent incidents. One was the disappearance of a delegate from the first all India Conference of the CRC, CPI(ML), up to that time known as Reorganising Committee, in 1982. The delegate, A. Mathialagan, was former research scholar in JNU and represented Tamil Nadu. He became mentally destabilised at the conference site and was alleged to have been handled in a rough manner and his disappearance was deliberately concealed from the conference participants. Later it became known that the victim, contrary to the leadership’s claims, is no more.
Yet another incident cited was related to a popular and long drawn out struggle by the workers of the Gwalior Rayons factory in Mavoor. The leader of the union (GROW) that led the struggle, Vasuettan, was an active participant in the convention. In his account, as well as those of other speakers, the two M-L groups tried to seize the initiative in the struggle, and ended up in revelling in their own group rivalry at the expense of the workers and their leadership. Any independent initiative was labelled an attempt to break the hold of these groups. The CRC, CPI (ML) leadership went to the extent of using their “party police” to kidnap, interrogate, strip and beat up comrades suspected of not toeing the leadership’s line. The full-blooded manner in which the leaderships of these groups involved themselves in petty party politicking to establish their own hegemony over a struggle, which had evoked widespread supportive actions all over the State, beats even the practices of the bourgeois parties. In the words of Vasuettan, the basic malady of these organisations is that they are resorting to “short-cuts”, instead of struggles with correct political orientation, to emerge powerful.
The incidents quoted above served only as pointers and were not treated as subjects for discussion on their own. They were examples throwing light on the basic issues involved. The convention was basically centred on trying to identify these basic issues behind the anti-democratic practices plentifully present in the M-L movement, and some of their results having general applicability.
One recurring point was the relationship between splits in the M-L movement and the nature of the party organisation. Individualised power centres at the helm of the whole organisation operate through overt and covert means to suppress discussion and dissent by a variety of anti-democratic means. These can range from manipulating majority support for the leadership’s line to slanders and silencing of the dissenters. Why splits become more rampant in the CPI (ML) than, say, in the CPI or CPI (M), can be at least partially explained by the secretist nature of party organisation which facilitates arbitrariness from the leadership. In the opinion of several participants, secrecy is not a necessary and ever present condition for a party’s existence and growth. Open or secret functioning is determined by external circumstances , and not by any sort of dogmatic conceptions. More importantly, the existing dogma of secretism is clearly sham; instead of protecting the party from the enemies, what is intended and done is to protect the leadership from the comrades! This is done by concealing the truth; inflating the organisation’s stamina and capability thereby creating illusions in the minds of the less experienced; keeping comrades divided, sometimes on very petty issues; segregation of comrades working in different areas, thus denying freedom of communication and a holistic understanding of the actuality; “unofficial” slanders directed against any actual or potential political dissent and advancement; and incessant attempts to keep the cadres bogged down to irrelevant debates on irrelevant documents from above.
The numerous splits that have occurred (this process of fission is a continuing affair) did not lead to any process of democratisation within the movement. On the other hand, splits have resulted in a larger number of smaller groups with an even more tightly knit, centralised organisational structure. The paranoia about losing “one’s” cadres to other groups makes the leadership ever jittery and “vigilant”. With each one claiming to be the only genuine communist grouping possessing the genuine Bolshevik party organisation the amount of deception practised within their respective organisations becomes monstrous. This sentiment and understanding came to the fore in the convention.
The absence of human values is often manifested in the crass manner in which individuals are utilised by the leadership of these organisations. A broad grin for those who can be utilised, and indifference after utilisation is over. As revolutionary poet in Malayalam, A. Ayyappan, put it some time back: “... these political parties take you to a cross junction and leave you bewildered. The first bill board that meets you is the country liquor shop and you walk into it.” This is a reality in the present day Kerala.
The youth who are attracted to the Naxalite movement are not cold calculators, but are driven by a zeal to do good to their fellow human beings even at the cost of their own lives and are imbued with a strong sense of revolutionary idealism. It is in the course of revolutionary work that this spirit of revolutionary idealism gets transformed into powerful material energy. Anger at injustice, passionate love of equality and real democracy are more than anything human values. Disillusionment that results when faced with the grey rock of bureaucratism and cold calculations within their own organisations generates a painful state of mind which in extremely sensitised individuals can lead to mental destabilisation and even suicides. This too is a current reality in Kerala. The convention voiced serious concern over such tendencies.
The widening gulf between the leadership practising intellectualism, and the cadres compelled to swallow the handed down hair-splitting logic without questioning has resulted in growing intellectual servility of the working class, Dalit and peasant members. The leaderships are almost entirely petty bourgeois intellectuals, though the credibility of the organisations is based on working class and peasant struggles. Often, even draft party documents are not debated within before being made public as the party line. Political and ideological line is imposed and serious mistakes casually admitted when exposed badly. This is dumb arrogance and very very unhealthy for the revolutionary movement.
The relationship between mass organisations and party leadership came up for repeated discussion in the convention. The actual behaviour of the leadership towards the mass organisations is contrary to the self-proclaimed mass line. Devan, the recently “expelled” leader of the student mass organisation (Viplava Vidhyarthi Sangathana) politically related to the CRC, CPI (ML), gave the gross example of the party leadership hurriedly composing a document concerning work among students without taking into account the draft prepared by the student activists themselves. Such high-handed actions spring from the party leadership’s perspective being confined to utilisation of mass organisations to suit sectarian interests.
There is absolutely no moral sanction for the arbitrariness prevalent in the M-L groups in Kerala. The logic that in a pre-revolutionary situation a tight, centralised organisational structure is necessary to withstand the enemy onslaughts is part of double talk. The metamorphosis of fighting organisations into anti-democratic, social fascist frankensteins in the post-revolutionary period cannot be an overnight change; it is the organisational structure and norms built up over a long period of time that enables vulgarisation. This was another point that came up in the convention. The atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust continually generated within the organisations is only too visible.
The democratic convention unanimously adopted two resolutions at the end of the proceedings. A call was made to the existing leaderships of the revolutionary movement to self-critically look at the question of democracy and come in front of the cadres and people with frank and sincere admissions of their wrong actions and perspective, and change themselves. Many of their wrong doings surpass violation of democratic rights, and rightly belong to the area of violation of human rights. Restitution of human values within these organisations as well as in their relationship to the people has become a mandatory precondition for any advancement of the revolutionary cause. The second resolution made a plea to the revolutionaries working within these groups/parties to raise the banner of democracy on their own homeground and hold the leadership accountable to the people and cadres. The convention felt the utmost need to concretise the issues involved so that a democratic style of functioning and atmosphere could be created in the revolutionary movement.
[Published in Frontier, 1991]