SOCIALISM AND DEMOCRACY IN INDIA

By M. CHALAPATHI RAU

(Editor, National Herald)

India may resolve the stubborn contradiction between socialism and democracy, which in other countries has remained unsolved. The contradiction seems to be real. It is usual to discuss men and measures, they are important, but it is more important not to miss the broad pattern of the social and economic revolution. India’s crisis is one of production, and the processes of socialist transformation have to be related to it. Planned development, with the tremendous urges and needs of an under-developed country, is an effort to meet the production crisis. The ends are important, though it is good to emphasize the means. It is usual to think of Indian democracy as a peaceful, if not wholly non-violent, process. If Indian democracy cannot answer the needs of the people, it will fail, whatever changes the Constitution might undergo in letter and in spirit. Those who do not accept socialism in any sense stress the importance of preserving the forms of democracy at any cost, and there are those who have doubts if socialism can be achieved through democratic means. For a clear discussion of these attitudes, definition of democracy and of socialism is essential. The process embodied in the Constitution, including the amending process contains the essence of democracy; and socialism, which is outline in the Directive Principles of the Constitution, adumbrated in the Second Plan, and projected in the Third Plan and in the programmes of the parties pledged to socialism, is, broadly, the collective organization and effort of the community, in the interest of the mass of the people, for common ownership and control of the means of production and exchange. Apart from the ideological method in the madness of parties of socialism, and apart from the doctrines ranging from democratic socialism to communism, it is only in practice, and from time to time, that terms like ‘democracy’ and ‘socialism’ can be annotated. To those who want to match means and ends (and not merely want to go back to Adam Smith and confuse free markets with freedom) the essence of the problems of democracy and socialism is how to reconcile the democratic process with the socialist process. It has been the central theme of doctrinal disputations and cleavages in the socialist movement everywhere. It is so at present too, and the resulting controversies over democratic means and socialist ends have led to lack of clear understanding about where we are going and whether we are going in the right direction.

The happy, if cranky, existence of so many Indian socialists does not mean that there can necessarily be something called Indian socialism, Vedantic in concept and Gandhian in its ethics. The only socialism which has inspired hope and fear in people is scientific socialism which began with Marx and soon became international in inspiration and scope. In a big country, tradition is bound to have an impact on the internationalism to which people like Trotsky clung fatalistically. The absolutism of the Romanoffs in Russia could not be discarded like a winter cloak. The Czars fought for security from the Baltic to the Black Sea–and so did Stalin! The Manchus and Confucius are deeply embedded in the fatherhood of Mao Tse-tung. Even in smaller countries, history has its hang-overs, though Rumanian communism or Albanian communism has the character of a carbon copy. The communists have had the advantage of a base in the Soviet Union, and this has emphasized the fearful aspects of communism and its conflict with socialism. Even the Soviet Union has been changing under the impact of its economy and under the pressure of international development, but communism does not change. The association of socialism and communism is still as popular among conservatives as the divergences between them are among communists and socialists. The differences which have developed suggest that they are differences only over tactics, but it cannot be forgotten that only communist parties have been able to bring about socialist transformation, and not socialist parties. There have been other important differences. The socialists have grown to value democracy, while the communists, with Leninism for guidance and the Soviet Union as their base, have believed in a rigid application of the doctrines of the dictatorship of the proletariat and democratic centralism. As the means influence ends, socialism has become different from communism. The ideas are simple, but the ideologies have become complex. Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan and others, who were known to be socialists, have gone back to Utopian socialism, to Proudhon, Saint-Simon, Owen, Kropotkin, and others, with their emphasis on local organization and their fear of the State, though it is not fashionable to claim to be Utopian Socialists. A vast country like India, with a long tradition, cannot be imitative even in its socialism, and follow what some Cominform decides. The task of socialist leadership is to face the facts, interpret economic and social forces correctly, and guide them. Schisms will wither away, and the unity of the socialist forces will become real, if it is understood that power ultimately lies with the people. The lesson which communism has taught to the world is that the democratic process is worth preserving wherever it is possible, for democratic socialism, which has become a contradiction in term in communist countries, has little hope to offer and spare, if it ceases to be socialism.

The Soviet Union which, as the first country to make a large-scale experiment in socialism, has been a subject of study for all socialists for years, and has had a great influence on several countries, has stuck to dictatorship of the proletariat and to democratic centralism. The Communist Party works as the agent of the proletariat, and has great achievements to its credit. The Soviet Union, though it has a full constitutional apparatus, has been a one-party regime, and has not yet been able to outlive fully the violence of the Russian Revolution. It is recognized that dictatorship of the proletariat has meant dictatorship of the party, with its social composition changing from time to time, and, in essence, it has been dictatorship of the Central Committee. In democratic centralism, the minority has the right to dissent, though it must accept the decisions of the majority. This right to dissent has been shown to be subject to several limitations. If it becomes inconvenient to the majority, it can be denounced as anti-party activity; and purges follow. It does not matter how far these purges have become non-violent after de-Stalinization. There is no right for a minority to form another party, and, as long as the one-party regime lasts, the Soviet Union will have to be prepared for tendencies towards Trotskyism or Stalinism. The point of interest, to students of democracy and socialism, is that, white the Soviet Union has achieved great economic progress, and safeguarded the interests of the working class, it has not been able to free its social and economic processes from the tight control of party preventing the emergence of new classes, or to assure the withering away of the State in the forseeable future. In other words, it cannot be said that, in the Soviet Union, the democratic process and the socialist process have been reconciled, even if democracy is not interpreted narrowly to mean the systems which prevail in the West.

The Yugoslav Communist Party, on the other hand, claims to be making a determined effort to invest its socialism with full social content, in conformity with the original aims of Marxism-Leninism. In Yugoslavia too, there is a one-party regime, and the party is active. The organization, there, of workers’ and producers’ councils, as self-managing units as a democratic base for the productive process and socialist transformation, seems to be an earnest attempt, and deserves sympathetic study. There is a marked difference between the Yugoslav approach and the Soviet approach, though both parties claim to be Marxist-Leninist parties. The Yugoslav party claims not only to adapt Marxism-Leninism to Yugoslav conditions but to follow the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, learning from experience. It has also tried to learn from Soviet mistakes. These differences are as fundamental as the differences over the relations between communist countries. The Yugoslav party refuses to accept Moscow’s hegemony, and it is unfortunate that Soviet and Chinese criticism of the Yugoslav stand has been concentrated on this aspect rather than on the more important aspect of the internal application of Marxism-Leninism. To the Yugoslav party, the uprising in Hungary was caused by the lack of social and democratic content in the Hungarian regime which, under Rakosi, had become rigid, formal, bureaucratic party control.

From these recent controversies in communist countries and the changes in the economic policies and economic administration in the Soviet Union, which had been wrongly supposed to be unchanging, it is clear that socialism has as many problems as capitalism. Indian experience has emphasized the lesson that the public sector has as many problems as the private sector. This has impressed on all who are keen on socialist transformation that humility is not only good in itself but is necessary for the social and economic progress of a country like India. There are fewer illusions even among students of Marxism after what has happened in recent years in the Soviet Union, and the number of people with first-hand acquaintance with communist regimes is increasing. Whatever inspiration they might receive from the improvement of living conditions in communist countries, they cannot forget the Indian context. They could at best be impatient, but they cannot ignore problems, and an important problem is how to ensure the democratic process while ensuring the socialist process, and how to make them one. It does not mean that, as some say, capitalism is dead, and that there are no capitalists now, because of the impact of State action in almost every field. It is known that all forms of public enterprise and State activity have been vulnerable to the insidious influence of private enterprise or of big business. Even if it is assumed that capitalism in the old sense does not prevail, as it is claimed that in the United States it does not prevail because of the increasing amount of federal control and regulation, it does not mean that socialism has arrived or that we are all socialists now. Nor is it certain that the present Indian economy carries the assurance of developing into a socialist economy. In the Second Plan, however, sound principles were laid down, and there is a framework of strategic controls, which, if they are maintained firmly, can allow sufficient scope for private enterprise to play its part, with legitimate incentives, as in Communist China. It is, however, a stable economy that can impart stability to the State, not the reflection of social temper in Parliament or declarations of government policy. The State has to achieve confidence and dominance sufficient to ensure socialism, and the disparate aims and character of the parties of socialism have not been a helpful factor. From any point of view, it is essential for the parties of socialism to realize that socialism is a troubled process which should be made as smooth and painless as possible.

Democracy and socialism have to be expressed in constitutional forms. If the people are convinced that democracy is compatible with economic improvement, they will never give up democracy. In Asia, as in the West, there has been some preoccupation with the externals of democratic institutions. In Asian country after Asian country, it has been shown that freedom from want is more urgent and important than freedom of expression, and that the mere scaffolding of democratic institutions is not enough. Naturally, the Asian peoples, somewhat perplexed and distracted, are taking a long time to decide the form of democratic structure which could be put into this scaffolding. The patronising Western presumption that Asian peoples deserve some form of paternal authoritarianism is silly. It is said that Asian people find it easier to understand a political system from which a recognizable leader who personifies authority can emerge than one in which the sovereignty vests in a vague mass. Yet the critical and opposition spirit is in evidence everywhere in the region, and many who love Nehru or U Nu do not necessarily love the Nehru Government or the U Nu Government. There has been an opposition tradition, strong and persistent, in several countries; and the elaborate attempt to build up consciously, an opposition like that of the Swatantra Party seems largely superfluous. Personal domination of a leader is not non-existent in Western democracies. The charge of Cabinet dictatorship is familiar in Britain, while in other countries dictatorship is naked and personal. The effective leader in the parliamentary system is sensitive to public opinion and has a sense of responsibility, never caring to enforce obedience or conformity. In British experience there have been examples of the unchallenged supremacy of one man, like Churchill’s dominance in the last war, but he never discarded the working of Parliament. U Nu’s re-emergence confirms that the dominance of a single powerful personality might essentially be a response to human, political, social, and even religious urges, common not only to the democracies but to other forms of society. Each country in the region will, without discarding the essence of democratic working, need time to evolve a form of government which will solve its problems best and answer its urgent needs.

The Indian Constitution, as Dr. Ambedkar, one of its draftsmen, said, is elastic enough to serve socialism or capitalism, though the founding fathers could have given it a socialist bias. Some of the Articles of the Constitution, particularly the Article on compensation, have been amended to soften property rights. Parliament, which has so far shown itself capable of reflecting the people’s temper, may find the Constitution elastic enough to push through more measures for extended public ownership and other forms of social and economic reconstruction. It is not possible to deal here with the various aspects of parliamentary democracy, the party system, the working of Parliament and its committees, parliamentary procedure, the relations between Parliament and the executive, the cabinet structure, and so on: for it is a large theme. To make the democratic process real, Parliament has to be vigilant, and must guard particularly against the “new despotism” of departmentalism, which might seem inevitable in the growing mass of legislation but should not go beyond certain limits. Below Parliament are State Legislatures, with similar features and not very different problems. Uncertainty prevails about the structure below the State level. The Constitution allows it to be anything that the people want it to be. It seems unfortunate that the Balwantrai Mehta Committee’s recommendations for large-scale decentralization have not been liked by the State Governments, which are keen on preserving their present powers and are not thinking of long-term needs. There is no definiteness about the structure at the district and sub-district level. Fortunately, there is less definiteness about the base at the panchayat level, though, here too, there is no co-ordination between the panchayats and the development structures like the N. E. S. Blocks. The confusion has led to poor results, for instance, in agricultural production. In local self-government, there is still a great lag in the country, and it may prove bad for the democratic process, and a severe handicap in development, even if it may not lead to over-centralization which makes people’s participation unreal.

The peril which parliamentary democracy is supposed to constitute in this country has been repeatedly emphasized by Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan and others, though the alternative which they have suggested seems less perilous only because it is not adequate in the conditions of a modern, industrialized society. The essence of parliamentary democracy is government by discussion; and in the modern age, it implies adult suffrage eyen in less developed countries. Parliamentary democracy is not different from other forms of democracy in its essential features. As it has developed in Britain and other Commonwealth countries, it presupposes a constitutional structure, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, a government of elected representatives responsible to the legislature, and the existence of more than one party. It also means secrecy of voting, and, in some constitutions, there is provision for recall or referendum. It is known that it is a slow-moving, cumbrous machinery, involving delays and dilatory procedures, though it has, sometimes, under stimulus, and under stress of challenge, and with outstanding leadership, shown vigour and totalitarian tendencies as in Britain. The capacity of parliamentary democracy, however, to meet the pressing social and economic urges of the people of a country with an under-developed economy like India has been doubted, and not wrongly. Any form of government depends upon the social and economic content which is put into it, and parliamentary democracy might be as good as any other form of democracy for social and economic change, provided the people and their leaders are capable of ensuring change. In any such process, which must include industrialization on a large scale, a certain amount of centralization becomes inevitable, and a democracy on the panchayat pattern only, with idealist economics, village industries, and any amount of decentralization, cannot ensure the success of an industrial revolution. Whether there are to be direct or indirect elections, there has to be democracy and government on a national scale; and, if there is sufficient freedom of discussion, a pattern of economic freedom, and scope for dissent, a one-party State or a party-less State would seem difficult. In the Soviet Union, there are no differences in economic doctrine, or competing economic interests, to make two parties inevitable, and there is still the orthodox insistence on the one-party system. In India, it is difficult to envisage a party-less or a one-party system. Parliamentary democracy has not yet lost its charm for the Indian parties. Parliamentarianism did not start with independence. There was a long experience of legislatures, going back at least to the Minto-Morley Reforms, if not to Lord Cross’s Act. Apart from the perplexities of parliamentary practice, as codified by May, and the difficulty of translating them into Indian practice, the political parties know that parliamentary democracy permits any amount of scope for the growth of local self-governing institutions, and there is already a wide-spread panchayat base throughout the country. The democratic pattern, suggested by Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan and others, does not provide answers to many economic problems; and, if there are answers, it is possible to find them also in the present system. They seem to have over-simplified human and economic problems which are the basis of political problems. Gandhi, Vinoba, Nehru and Dhebar have at various times made the suggestions which Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan has incorporated in his thesis. But political systems cannot be created on the basis of a thesis; they have an organic growth of their own. The present system combines the traditional pattern of panchayats and the recent experience of legislative working at the national and State levels. Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan is partly right in thinking that the parliamentary system was a by-product of industrialism; but, if he carries his thesis to the extent of denying industrialization, by denying a parliamentary system he is not providing a solution for the main problems of Indian democracy. Nor does he improve his thesis by uncritical references to what he calls ‘the basic democracies’ of the United Arab Republic, Indonesia and Pakistan. This is not for the first time that he and others have shown a startling lack of faith in the people and their economic or political sense.

It would be useful to examine some of the basic issues of democracy, which have arisen in an epidemic form in Asian countries. They have arisen from time to time in European countries, and have been present in an almost permanent form in Latin American countries, though often complicated by military factors. The present propagation of basic or guided democracy, in countries as various as the United Arab Republic, Indonesia and Pakistan, can be separated from the issue of absolutism or arbitrariness. In constitutional terms, the issue is between the parliamentary executive and the non-parliamentary executive. Constitutions have a political basis and, where they endure for some time, an economic and social basis. The non-parliamentary executive or, as it is popularly called, the presidential executive was first adopted in the United States, on the basis of the theory of separation of powers, based in turn on Montesquieu’s exposition of the British Constitution in his famous book, “Esprit des Lois”. Montesquieu had misread the British Constitution as it was functioning in the middle of the eighteenth century, but his theory survived in a compact form for nearly a hundred years. The horse-and-buggy constitution which the American founding fathers prepared has been found to be adaptable to the gigantic dimensions of American democracy; and the American practice has been copied crudely in other countries and on the American continent, except in Canada. The non-parliamentary executive is not necessarily an unpopular executive. The American President, who was once elected by limited electoral colleges, has come to be popularly elected. In France, Louis Napoleon adopted the device of plebiscite for popular election. Mussolini and Hitler were his latter-day forms. Constitutions which were prepared to suit Bonapartism provided for strong executive governments which could go on without being responsible to the legislature. President de Gaulle’s Fifth Republic is the up-to-date European version of the non-parliamentary executive. The Fourth Republic was destroyed because in it the executive was responsible to the legislature. In recent days, the apologists of colonialism have been suggesting non-parliamentary executives to the African peoples, to divert them from the principle of “one man, one vote” and the rule by African majorities. In America, where the non-parliamentary executive of is familiar, President Ayub Khan is understood and even admired. The parliamentary executive necessarily means the party system. It is the party system and the political corruption involved in it, in the absence of long traditions and standards of rectitude, and the dilatory processes involved in owing responsibility to the legislature, and the inexperience of under-developed countries which have brought the parliamentary executive into contempt. The non-parliamentary executive in countries like the United States has its dilatory aspects too and even President de Gaulle is not able to solve a problem like the Algerian problem easily. It is not necessary to examine the limitation and advantages of either the parliamentary executive or the non-parliamentary executive to judge what is at stake for democracy in the rise of the phenomenon of President Ayub Khan. He and his advisers have proceeded on the assumption that democracy should be build from the bottom; but, though Pakistan’s ‘basic democracy’ is based on adult suffrage, there is too much of a mixture of elected and nominated members, while President Ayub Khan has been elected President before the Constitution has been prepared and is practically dictating the Constitution. The people of India may have varyingly understood the constitutional and political aspects of the widely propagated concept of partyless democracy. The non-parliamentary executive may seem advantageous from the point of view of administration and, if untrammeled by the democratic processes which prevail in a country like the United States, may seem to achieve the smoothness and efficiency of the one-party State. In the one-party State which prevail in communist countries, the party processes are parallel to the State processes, and are even paramount. The people of India have to realise, in these troubled times, the implications of their own Constitution. It was made by the products of British experience: it is not only for that reason that the parliamentary system may seem to exist in this country in a respected form. It can also be a matter of choice, knowingly made. The Indian Parliament is paramount even for the amending process, and the power of judicial review of the Supreme Court is limited for the sake of smoothening processes. But, as long as the people vote for symbols, their political power may not seem real. The question is whether, after two general elections, they are realizing their power. The success of the parliamentary system will depend not only on the social and economic progress made but on the checks which it will impose on the executive till the politically ill-educated mass becomes politically educated. With growing experience, the electorate can be certain that it can do away with legislatures in league with a corrupt and inefficient executive, but it cannot be confident that it can remove an executive, which, though elected is not subject to the control of the elected representatives. In countries like Pakistan there is much talk of formulating constitutions which will suit national tradition. But the much-talked-about tradition is a mirage of the past.

The features of the Indian economy, at present, which give a semblance of progress towards socialism are the emphasis on industrialisation, particularly heavy industry, the extension of the public sector, the importance given to the co-operative sector, and the controls and regulations imposed on the private sector. Industrialization is desperately important for an under-developed economy; and, while heavy industries, which alone can enable a country to possess the means of producing the means of production, and to put an early end to dependence on other countries, is important even in a capitalist economy, it is rightly considered more important for an economy developing in a socialist direction, for there is always need for small-scale and cottage industry, and heavy industry will only ensure the necessary framework and the basic means of self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, progress in co-operation has been slow and unreal, though the co-operative sector can not only be a buffer between the expanding public sector and the private sector, but offers the best and easiest forms of social and economic democracy. The Co-operative Movement, which required official initiative but only achieved excessive bureaucratization, has to be rescued and made a broad base of socialist transformation. Nor is the public sector easy to work. The controversy on the Life Insurance Corporation’s transactions has drawn attention to public corporations. This system has been borrowed from Britain where the post-war Labour Government made large experiments in it. It is agreed that it is only one form of public ownership, that there can be no hard and fast rules for the working of public corporations, and that only experience can provide wisdom. The experimentation is, of course, subject to public accountability. Parliament is bound to investigate, fully, the nature and the working of public corporations which have grown in an ad hoc manner in this country. It is not, however, sufficient to think in British terms or even in parliamentary terms. The public corporation form has to be related to new social and economic forces and to progress towards socialism; and, while the production aspect is important, and defects in the system can be reduced, the growing proletariat cannot be treated merely as a part of the industrial relations structure. It has to become an integral part of the productive processes, investing in the public sector the spirit of social and economic democracy.

If the direction is socialism, it is necessary to attend to the evils of State capitalism, however necessary and inevitable it is as a passing phase. The private sector, through forums of free enterprise, will attack all forms of extended public enterprise; and it controls the Press, the most tender part of the private sector. In spite of its professions, it cannot escape the trend towards concentration, stifling in the process the entrepreneur, as it has happened even under the “new” capitalism, or people’s capitalism, as it has been called, in the United States. There is, however, something in the advocates of free enterprise pointing out that economic democracy is essential for political democracy. In support, they can point out to the defects of the social and economic systems in communist countries. The same lessons have been learnt by those interested in ensuring socialism and democracy. It is, therefore, important for them to think, at each step, of social and economic progress as a whole, and to seek to reconcile the democratic process and the socialist process.

Back