EDITORIALS

Tribunals and courts are needed as a last court of appeal. Ideally, they should not replace the executive. It is the job of the government to draft effective rules and implement them in letter and spirit. Regrettably, the record of the last two decades

suggests that governments, irrespective of their ideological colour, will pay lip service to environmental protection while working assiduously to remove from the path of investors what are viewed as environmental hurdles.

21st Century Socialism

Can a faltering left in south Asia rejuvenate itself by emulating the socialist forces in Latin America?

espite possessing the ripe conditions to campaign for an alternative, the left the world over has been unable to take advantage of the current crisis in neo-liberalism. The ideological defeat following the collapse of the Soviet Union continues to have a lingering effect on the socialist project. However, the relative success of a few experiments in Latin America, subsumed under the term 21st century socialism, has forced various left parties, particularly those in developing countries, to engage in new ideological debates about the nature of the socialist project. This is seen, for example, in the discussions among the Nepali Maoists and even at home within the Communist Party of India (Marxist). While the Nepali Maoists embarked upon a new path of political praxis following the Chungwang meeting in 2005, which for the first time acknowledged (though not without ideological contest from within) the need for a democratic route to socialism, the CPI(M) now seems to be deliberating upon the merits of the Latin American experiment, as seen in its draft ideological resolution document that was released recently. Twenty-first century socialism is a term introduced by sociologist Heinz Dieterich and is professed by the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. The emphasis by the left parties which are in power in these countries is on radical democracy. This includes the periodic use of popular electoral instruments for approval and implementation of populist socio-economic policies and for guaranteeing participation of hitherto excluded sections of the populace in decision-making, gradual nationalisation and social ownership of resources such as extracted fuels, and wide-ranging reforms in education and social welfare. The ruling parties in the three countries the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela led by Hugo Chavez, the Movimiento al Socialismo led by Evo Morales in Bolivia and the Alianza PAIS led by Rafael Correa in Ecuador differ from social democratic parties elsewhere in their strong rhetoric against imperialism, the formation of alternative political alliances such as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) and steady radicalisation of the polity. They delineate their ideas and praxis as different from 20th century socialism the kind that was practised in the Soviet Union and is still followed by many communist parties of today by staying true to electoral democracy and by rejecting the notion of vanguardism by a political party that supposedly represents only the interests of the working class. In fact, these socialist parties of Latin America have embraced a radical coalition of social movements representing the traditionally oppressed groups such as the indigenous people in the continent and also the traditional working class organisations. 8

They have privileged issues relating to the poor in general and not necessarily only of the organised working classes. The projects launched by the parties in the three Latin American countries have faced criticism from other left forces in these nations. They are seen as too reformist by some or too gradualist by others or not transformative by yet other radical sections. But such criticisms have not dented their popularity. In fact, over the past decade, these socialist parties have gained in strength as a wary public that has witnessed failed radical guerrilla movements has begun to support the new formations. The socialist parties in power resemble sociopolitical movements rather than traditional political outfits. There are a few important similarities between the conditions in Latin America and south Asia though there are of course major sociocultural, geographical and linguistic differences as well. The similarities are the presence of high levels of poverty and economic inequality, powerful political interests representing the affluent and large numbers of socially oppressed people. Both the parliamentary and radical left forces in India have tried to chart their independent political praxis after learning from their failures in the past. However, the parliamentary left, in its attempt to emulate market-oriented development in China, suffered a historic defeat in West Bengal in the 2011 elections, while the Maoists, still enamoured of the Chinese revolutionary praxis of the 1920s, remain a marginal force unable to grow beyond limited and remote areas of influence. In Nepal, the Maoists are in an ideological battle with themselves, despite making major achievements in the transition from a monarchy to a constitutional republic. The success of the Latin American socialists contrasts well with the stagnating orthodox socialist projects elsewhere. China is socialist only on paper, relying on state capitalism and market forces for its development. Cuba has also initiated limited market reforms to address its economic stagnation. And for long North Korea has been an autarkic dictatorship. As the Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street protests suggest, any acceptable alternative to both authoritarianism and formal liberal democracy can only be a participative, deliberative and substantive variant of democracy that is able to correct the iniquitous tendencies of unfettered capitalism. The Latin American project of 21st century socialism suggests that support of a larger population can be achieved by mobilising a coalition and by redefining the oppressed beyond narrow class terms. For the left in south Asia, it is a project well worth examining and learning from.
february 25, 2012 vol xlviI no 8
EPW Economic & Political Weekly