That146;s democracy, comrades

Till the other day, they prided themselves in being Stalinists. Even now, a significant percentage of Indian comrades will want a dictatorsh...

Till the other day, they prided themselves in being Stalinists. Even now, a significant percentage of Indian comrades will want a dictatorship of the proletariat in the classical sense. You can use harsh descriptions like 8220;doctrinaire8221; or even 8220;dogmatic8221; for hardliners in the CPIM. But what you have to accept is that Marxists have built the most stable and the most resolute framework for inner-party democracy. It8217;s a proven system with in-built checks and balances 8212; a secure institutional mechanism which is not going to wither away easily.

The world8217;s largest democracy does have a number of political parties, which are no better than personal fiefdoms of regional and caste satraps. Quietly, almost against the tide, the CPIM is alone flying the flag of democratic expression in its party forums. The Congress is hardly embarrassed about its inability to look beyond 10 Janpath, the party believes that its survival depends on mindless subservience to the Nehru-Gandhi family. Even the BJP, which has a healthy loathing for dynastic politics, has not been able to nurture leadership at the grassroots level. On occasions, the idea of democracy in the BJP has been quite bizarre. Party President L.K. Advani took the ill-advised risk of berating a volatile senior leader like Uma Bharati in full public view.

Earlier this week, CPIM politburo member Prakash Karat offered an almost unbelievable explanation in defence of the political line his party was pursuing. He said that at the last 17th party congress in Hyderabad three years ago, the leadership had received over 4,800 amendments to the draft political resolution from comrades critical of the party8217;s line of thinking. This year, at the 18th party congress, the number has not exceeded 2,800. This, he argued, was reason enough to conclude that its tactics of supporting the UPA, despite strong disapproval of its economic policies, had found acceptance within the party.

Which other party in the country will take the views of its cadres so seriously? For that matter, which other party will seek the opinion of its rank and file in such an uninhibited manner? The CPIM can now claim to have a deep-rooted tradition of encouraging criticism. The elaborate process in itself lends credence to the term self-introspection. And democracy within gives the party numerous advantages. The functionaries feel they are wanted. They remain active. Corruption is minimised. The party is vibrant. The election machinery stays alive.

The political resolution passed at every party congress is the political strategy document, which the CPIM adopts for a period of three years or till the time the next congress is held. Three months before the congress, the party circulates the draft resolution. It is debated at the branch, then the local committee level. It is dissected at district and state committee levels. And then not just the contours but also every word in that powerful document is scrutinised by elected delegates from all over the country at the congress.

Every effort is made to ensure no Doubting Thomas goes back dissatisfied. At least, the dissident cannot complain of not being given the opportunity to voice his fears and grievances. The elected delegates, in turn, elect the Central Committee. The CC is the highest decision-making body of the CPIM. CC members cast their ballots to decide who will be in the highest day-to-day executive, the politburo.

You cannot cynically dismiss this system as a routine attempt at democratic centralism, which need not have a true democratic ethos. After all, even the Soviet Communists had distorted that same principle of democratic centralism to create a rigid hierarchy, which dictated elections within the party. The CPIM variation has flowered in the natural democratic environment of a pluralistic India. Of course, even within the CPIM, the party line is set by the central leadership and the right to question that authority can never be fully exercised.

Story continues below this ad

But the Central Committee has achieved miracles, high points of inner-party democratic functioning. In 1996, it turned down the wishes of the party8217;s two venerated stalwarts, Jyoti Basu and Harkishen Singh Surjeet, preventing Basu from being prime minister. Subsequently, Basu described the party decision as a 8220;historic blunder8221;. You can go on debating the political wisdom of that CPIM refusal but it was an ideal example of majority opinion questioning and prevailing upon supreme leadership.

The same Central Committee again took the tough decision of not joining the UPA government despite the best ever performance by the CPIM in 2004. And these are not isolated instances. At the 1978 Jalandhar congress, general secretary P. Sundaraiya stepped down after his views on how the party should be built gradually only after consolidation in areas where it had begun to wield influence were rejected by delegates. Sundaraiya remained a politburo member till his death. Similarly, look back at the famous July crisis of the CPIM in 1979. The Bengal leadership had put its foot down on the issue of the party supporting the Charan Singh government. It lost to the majority opinion in the party.

When it comes to running the party, the CPIM does not put on those blinkers.