Party small talk

As a literary form,manifestos have complicated origins. They have surface similarities to catechism and to charters of political grievance,but the modern manifesto is relatively recent. The Communist Manifesto is arguably the ur-text of the genre — still skin-pricklingly beautiful,it is a surpassing rhetorical achievement. It distilled the recognisable features of the form — putting forth a particular vision of the world,combining political explication,polemic and concentrated poetic images. The 1955 Soviet Publishing House edition of the Manifesto described it as the working class’s “banner… its compass in its revolutionary struggle… its historic mission.” It was “the theoretical weapon needed to combat capitalist slavery.”

This is not to say that political manifestos always have to be supersized declarations of change — but even the more provisional plans put out periodically by major political parties and leaders can use some purpose and flair. They can solidify a pragmatic shift within the party line,demonstrate political priorities,and take swipes at the opposition. And occasionally,there comes a manifesto that really manifests,breaks out of dull repetition,and rouses its readers some way. In 1994,Contract with America was a high point for American conservatives — a document that skirted contentious subjects like abortion,and stuck to what Newt Gingrich called “60 per cent issues” — outlining the exact ways in which Republicans would push for reforms and the logic behind them. Or Tony Blair’s rejuvenating New Labour manifesto,demonstrating how “the policies of 1997 cannot be those of 1947 or 1967”. They can also be paper promises with no bearing on political action — for instance,on first read the Fascist manifesto seems utterly unobjectionable,even progressive,with planks including voting for women,minimum wage,and a “peaceful but competitive foreign policy”.

But in essence,manifestos are raucous assertions of identity and difference,whether in politics or art. Maybe that’s why some of the best manifestos came out of modernism,and the clashing aesthetic proclamations of various avant garde artistic movements of the early 20th century. No matter how perspectival their visions,they were nothing if not flamboyant — “Let us not mince words: the marvellous is always beautiful,anything marvellous is beautiful,in fact only the marvellous is beautiful,” announced Andre Breton’s Surrealist Manifesto. The artistic enterprise was like guerrilla warfare — and as “ism turned to schism” (Malcolm Bradbury),new manifestos were born,each one equally emphatic and certain of its mission.

There’s always a performative and a pedagogic element to the manifesto. It schools you in its own particular storytelling,and it is also showbiz — announcing its own arrival and its distinctiveness,with a big bang. Obviously,today’s political party platforms can’t be compared to dizzy modernist visions of art. But manifestos,at heart,are a piece of provocation. And in fact,many landmark manifestos existed at the intersection of culture and politics,whether it was Marinetti’s raving Futurist manifesto that celebrated speed,machinery,war — “the only cure for the world” — and Italy’s revival,and issued a “challenge to the stars”; or the Situationists in the ’60s who wanted to unleash human creativity and rejected the very idea of use-value and specialisation (famous last words: “To those who don’t understand us properly,we say with an irreducible scorn: ‘The Situationists of which you believe yourselves perhaps to be the judges,will one day judge you’”).

Another ism that has sprouted plenty of schisms is,of course,feminism. Maybe that’s why so many sub-groups have often cut loose with their own manifestos — and some of them are pretty wild. On one end of the spectrum is a solemn Declaration of the Rights of Woman,on the other,the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) manifesto — an only half-joking tract on eradicating men,who are now “unfit even for stud service”. (“SCUM will couple-bust — barge into mixed (male-female) couples,wherever they are,and bust them up. SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men’s Auxiliary of SCUM”,and more in this vein.) Groups like SCUM didn’t lay out earnest tenets for a better world,they went at it slantwise with their shock tactics.

Today,the one domain where manifestos thrive is the world of technology; maybe because the great arguments have only just begun,or because the debaters are an especially fervent bunch. The Hacker Manifesto laid out an entire subversive morality of breaking computer security,inspiring armies of geeks. Same way,Richard Stallman’s GNU manifesto has the status of scripture for many in the free software movement. Like the revolutionary art manifestos of modernism,many of these texts have immense quote recall.

Of course,it is hard to expect burning poetry from the blueprints of governance,but then again,great change has been wrought precisely when manifestos have been wielded as “theoretical weapons”.

amulya.gopalakrishnan@expressindia.com