Role of the broad Left Politics: Democratising Institutions, knowledge and power

John Samuel

What does 'Left' mean today? How do we contextualise the role of the Left politics in the world, and India?

The term Left is a relative and comparative category rather than indicative of a clear political ideology or political philosophy. The term ‘Left’ can signify a whole range of policies and political positions. Left can have multiple connotations in multiple contexts and periods- indicating social democrats, socialists, communists, anarchists, greens, and even Liberals in the context of the USA. Though it signifies a broad range of politics and policies that seek to change the society to a more equitable and egalitarian direction, the use of the term precedes the movement for socialism or communism in the late 19th century. The Left is generally seen as political bias in favour of equality, fraternity, Freedom and emancipation- with a policy bias in favour of a more active government, welfare state and the marginalised sections or class of people. Right wing politics is generally perceived in terms of the maintenance of the status-quo, conservative values, individualism, less role of the government, accumulation of wealth, maximisation of profit and free market ideology.
In spite of such broad indications, it is not easy to put people in to such neat categories as most of the people derive their worldview, perspectives and attitude from a variety of sources and contexts ; their perspectives are often shaped by the power-relationship at a given point in time, social locations and cultural contexts.

The notions of Leftwing and Rightwing emerged during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in parliament; those who sat on the left generally supported the radical changes of the revolution, including the creation of republic and secularization. Radical Montagnard and Jacobian deputies form the Third Estate used to sit left to the President’s Chair, a practice that began in the Estates General of 1789. All through the 19th century the main dividing line between the Left and Right in France was that Left supported Republic and the Right was for Monarchy.
So the term Left is more indicative of those who questioned the status-quo of power and sought change in favour of more freedom. The term Left could mean different things in different countries. In the US, a political liberal who support affirmative action, poverty-eradication etc are termed as Leftist. But the meaning could be different in Europe- where those who supported workers rights and more rights for immigrants etc are termed as the Left. China, once up on a time, was known as a Leftist country, though the perceptions changed in the last twenty years. India, during the leadership of Nehru and to a certain extent during the first few years of India Gandhi was perceived as Leftist. So the term Left may denote a whole range of politics from social democrat to extreme Marxist- Leninist ideologies.
Though many may call ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’ – formal political model or policy choices as the real Left, it is important to also remember that Hitler too advocated for National Socialism- and claimed to work towards an egalitarian society in Germany. The full of name of Nazi Party was The National Socialist German Workers party. The irony is that both Joseph Stalin and Hitler claimed to be Socialists- and also said to represent the worker’s right- were responsible for the death of millions of people. The brutal and murderous Regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia too was supposed to be ‘leftist' Many of the early Zionists began as socialists and communists in Europe in the early twentieth century. So various kinds of authoritarian regimes claimed to be left, in their effort to appropriate the entire political space, presumably representing the cause of ‘people’ and workers ‘ So the term ‘left’ has a rather contested trajectory with different connotations at different points of time and contexts.

What does Left mean today? After the collapse of Soviet Union and transformation of China in to market economy, there were not many examples of Left as a Regime- though on ‘relative’ scale various political parties were termed Left or Right based on the perception and political dynamics in a particular country. There are also many parties which began as Left ended up as extreme Right wing. For example JVP in Sri Lanka- which began with Marxist ideology of change ended up as the representatives of extreme Sinhala Chauvinism in the context of political contestations based on Ethnicity and civil war. So the term Left is rather a fluid category- more in relation to other political positions which seek to maintain the status-quo of the powerful establishment and interests at a given time.

Emerging Trends

Hence, it is important to understand and locate the term Leftwing Politics, in the context of the changes in politics, economy and society. There is a shrinking of democratic space across the world; there is an elite capture of the state; there is a marginalisation and mistrusts based on identity; and there is the emergence of a right-wing identity politics in different parts of the world. Hence those who question such injustices and marginalisation have a role to play in the world and in India. So the Left Politics is still relevant, though such transformative politics needs to be firmly rooted in the new praxis of true democratisation and respect for all human rights.
It would be good to consider twelve key political and socio-economic trends when we try to explore the possibilities of the future of the Left:
1) Cumulative marginalisation of groups of people in the different contexts- denying their rights to live with dignity
2) Increasing identity politics based on religious ideology- and cultural contours. Increasing sense about social, political and economic inequality between countries and within countries.
3) Unprecedented rate of urbanisation, increase in urban poverty, inequality and consequent violence
4) New crisis of ecology, economy and food
5) Degeneration of political party system as election networks of various interests, with only goal of capturing the state, for the comforts of power, by political and economic elites.
6) Increasing corporatisation of the State and the influence of corporate financing on political process and elections.
7) Spread of consumerism as a part of the cultural and social pathology across the world.
8) The new wave of xenophobia , stereotyping and mistrust between people of different cultural and religious background
9) The path-breaking information and communication revolution created new forms of communications and communities and new global community of people virtually connected and networked to each other than ever
10) The emergence of a global elite- seeking to influence three- Ms- Military, Market and Media— to control and capture the power of the state
11) The emergence of a multi-polar world with new tensions between countries
12) Emergence of a global movement of people- through multiple forms of mobilization through internet, global civil society networks and increasing networked new social movements and peace movements of a wide variety – claiming the global Left political space campaigning for a world without poverty, injustice, war and exploitation of nature and people.

Locating the Left

Beyond the binary- comparative spectrum, in reality most of the governments draw policies and politics from multiple sources of normative framework- some of them would be from the left spectrum and others from the right. It is indeed a difficult to see a ‘perfect’ text book Communist, Socialist or Capitalist model anywhere in the world.
In such a context it is important to think beyond the formal models of any particular text book versions or cultivated dogmas ( as models of government and as clear prescriptive forms) in the 19th and 20th century. It is important to reconceptualise the Left politics for the 21 century. While it is good to be informed by the analysis, experiences and experiments of the past, it is important to outgrow the text-book versions of any one model, to relocate a new left politics within the context of democratic governance and justice.
As long as there is dominating status-quo, marginalisation, alienation, discrimination, and violation of human rights, Left has a role to play in globally and in India.
The future of Left Politics needs to be informed by the original ideals of the Left (freedom, fraternity, Rights and Justice); however there is a need to develop a new praxis of governance and government in the context of the emerging issues and trends. Though political party process is important, a new weave of left politics need to be shaped beyond the conventional confines of Party Politics and beyond the mere intentions of capturing the power of the state. While Party Politics is an important factor, when Party Politics itself become a part of a status-quo of the vested- interest-matrix, the real initiatives for transformative politics would only come from non-party political process. Because, possible creative initiatives and movements tend to operate beyond the usual confines of the interests of an institution or establishment.

The issues and perspectives of gender justice, social-economic and ecological justice should inform the left politics. Justice- as a concept has an ethical underpinning - in a way informed by all positive elements in the religious-ethical legacies. Equity- in terms of opportunities and access to resources, and equality in terms of dignity- and as citizens- would be important. So, the principles of Dignity, non- discrimination, civil and political rights, and inalienable rights as human beings should inform such a left politics.
And it is important to understand and appreciate that Ethics, Ecology and Economy are inter-related. Planet and People should take precedence over any efforts to maximise profit. And any monopoly of power- in terms of politics, economy and institutions- need to be challenged.
It is time to discard any mechanical formalism or for that matter ‘Statist’ ideology masquerading as ‘socialism’ or the Left. More important point is to rediscover the ethical premises of justice, freedom, Rights, Responsibility and translate them in to real life choices, institutional context and policy contexts. The notion of a teleological or linear march to Communist ‘salvation’ or nirvana-(with withering away of the state) taking 'scientific steps' 1, 2, 3,4 etc proved to be redundant. While it is important to organise and mobilize people against injustice and oppression, it is also important to have the compatibility of means and end. And unjust means can never be a justification for a just end. Any politics of violence would breed violence. Politics of annihilation and the authoritarianism of any kind (in the name of a proletariat or politburo) cannot be the real Left Politics- as it violates the basic idea of freedom.


Left in the context of India

The very constitution of India is a commitment and promise towards a more equitable, and just society with guarantee of Human Rights. However, even after sixty four year of Independence, substantive freedom is postponed for millions of Indians. There are still millions of mothers dying at child birth. It is reported that more than two hundred thousand farmers committed suicide due to debt and inability to manage small or medium scale agriculture. There is also increasing instances of inequality and injustice. There is an increasing communalisation of politics and new forms marginalisation based on cast, creed and identity. One in four Indians may still go to bed hungry.

Though the Nehrivian paradigm of social democracy firmly established the foundation of the new Indian Republic and made the first initiatives for affirmative action, India is yet to realize the promises and potential of the Constitution or the ideal of the Republic. After sixty years of Independence, a new political class, with the patronage of new economic elites emerged in India. While new paradigms of urban-centric economic growth models helped to create a new ‘Shining’ Indian upper-middle class in the metropolitan cities of India, it also pushed out the concerns of the marginalised and poor from the centre of the ‘development’ discourse. ‘Development’ was seen more in terms of inequitable economic growth, urban infrastructure, and employment opportunities for the upward-mobile middle class. And the fact of the matter is that more than 70 percent of the Indian population, living in villages and small towns hardly got any stake in this process ‘development’. The neo-liberal policy paradigm promoted ‘development’ in terms of ‘economic growth’ and GDP- and at the cost of majority of Indians at the receiving end of sky-rocketing price of essential commodities, lack of housing or gainful employment and decreasing democratic space to assert. While political parties expressed their concerns and sought votes- on the basis of identity of cast, creed and religion, they often fail to translate the rhetoric of election manifestos in to practical policy options in favour of the poor and marginalised. As a result, there has been less investment to support rural employment, sustainable agriculture, rural infrastructure or the social and economic development of the historically marginalised and minorities in India. Historically marginalised sections of people- Dalit, Adivasies and various kinds of religious and ethnic minorities form almost fifty percent of the Indian Population. In spite of all rhetoric of manifestos and the ‘vote-bank’ politics during the elections, most of the governments have fallen to the erroneous notions of ‘development’ as ‘economic growth’ – along with investment in impressive urban infrastructure. This creates new forms social and economic inequality. And such new inequality and perceived sense of injustice would breed new forms of social and political violence in India. And the new waves of Right-wing fascist formation in the form of Hindutva agenda create further insecurities among the marginalised communities in India. Such political contexts undermine the very promises and ideals of the Republic of India.

It is in this context that there is a space and scope for a new Left discourse, promoting equity, justice and socio-economic growth;ensuring human rights and human development to all sections of people, particularly the marginalised sections and the rural poor. A broader Left political discourse need to include a cross section of the civil society, social movements and political parties. However, Left agenda needs to be seen beyond the confines of one political party or other. Because Political parties- including the Communist Parties in India have become mere electoral networks or institutions to win or lose elections- and 'capture' the state to enjoy the 'comforts' of power. So a Left agenda need to be seen across political parties and beyond political parties. Political Parties are important actors in a democratic process. However, one of the important agenda of Left discourse also needs to be democratisation and accountability of political parties.
The irony of Indian Democracy is that there are an increasing number of political parties based on feudal or semi-feudal values. A significant number of members of the Parliament are there due to their pedigree, rather than their credibility as leaders of the people. The corporate financing of most of the Political parties by rich family run companies is at the core of political corruption in India. This leads to a new nexus between the lobby of rich and powerful economic elites and the political ‘managers’ of various political parties. So increasingly the economic elites seek to control the apparatus of the state and that of government – through their political and media operatives. A handful of economic elites can influence the political and policy making process- by financing political leaders, parties and by indirectly owning or controlling the mainstream media (through stocks or through adversely impacting the advertisement.) It is this systemic subversion of democracy, annulling the possibility of the promises of the Indian Constitution, and creating more inequality and consequent violence, at the core of the crisis of democratic Governance in India.

Hence, reclaiming the state and the democratic space in favour of the large majority of the marginalised and poor people need to be the number one priority of a transformative political process in India. This requires a whole range of coordinated process – to build more ethically driven leadership, a non-violent mass movement seeking economic and political reform and very clear advocacy agenda to influence public policies in favour of the marginalised and poor. India requires a new socio-political agenda and social reform movement of young people to challenge and change the situation. India requires new modes of social mobilization and creative action for a transformative politics.

In the context of Kerala, it is rather a difficult task to make a distinction between a Left Party and others- except in names. Because in Kerala, most of the people belong to a middle-class consumerist culture. Old Communist dreams were replaced by new consumerist dreams. Though there is lots of rhetoric about workers right, Kerala has a labour deficit- and now there are migration of labour from other states. Though in terms of 'party' and 'election discourse' the term Left is in prevalence, all main political parties in Kerala are a part of the status-quo; when it comes to social conservatism, issue of gender, cast and creed. So the question is what is left out of the Left in Kerala?
While in the context of world, India and Kerala, there is a space and need for a broad left movement- beyond the conventional party lines.There is less optimism regarding the long term role and viability of the Communist Parties- as the only custodians of Left Politics, as they stand now. This is due to the fact that in the last 30 years, the mainstream communist parties failed to capture the imagination of the poor and marginalised- adivasies, dalits, urban poor and others. They were busy enjoying and sustaining the power-base in three states. And in the process, CPM became a Bengal-Kerala party in its leadership and structure and fails to be a real pan-Indian Party. Even in the context of Kerala and Bengal, it was more a question of surviving and sustaining their base as a 'ruling' party. Slowly 'Communism' and 'Socialism' were for the slogans and rhetoric as the parties in these states become entrenched power-establishment with muscle and money power- and associated arrogance.
The fact of the matter is the India needs a vibrant and broad-based left movement. This has to happen at three level a) At the level of the Congress party - as a network party, it is possible to revitalize the ideals and ideas of Nehru b) At the level of communist and socialist parties- it is time they rethink their strategies and to position as a board based left alternative c) At the level of civil society initiatives and social movement- of non-party Politics. All these three forces- though in different locations may have to co-ordinate and work together -rather than undermining each other- against the elite capture of the Indian state, against communal fascism, and against inequalities, marginalisation and corruption. There has to be movement for social and political accountability and upholding of the Indian constitution.

Kerala requires a new Social Reform Movement- more in the legacy of Narayana Guru and those happened in the early twentieth century. What is required is a social transformation in Kerala and India. This requires broader movement than that of political parties- to influence the mindset, choices and attitude of the people

Emerging Role of Left: Towards a Transformative Politics

Social and political transformation happen through a whole range of cumulative process for radical shifts as well reformist advocacy: through knowledge, language, technology, and institutions. Hence influencing of such cumulative process for reformation as well as radical shifts is important for transformative humanism and democracy
Critiquing the institutionalized forms of power is the first step towards transforming the dynamics of power. Institutionalized and dominant forms of power tend to self-preserve through benign or malignant modes of tyranny and terror; coercion and consensus; and “common’ sense as well culture. If not constantly critiqued and challenged, all forms of institutionalized power can be oppressive, subjugating and dehumanizing. Hence, critiquing and transforming institutionalized power is an effort to resist dehumanization and relentlessly trying to humanize and democratize power. This requires a combination of the politics of people, politics of knowledge, and politics of communication to challenge the dominating forms of power: whether it is the power of the state or power of the market or power of mafia.
Every human action and institution needs to be historicized, problematised, politicized and democratized. Critical transformative approach involves consistent and constant critique of power and a commitment to challenge unjust power-relationship so as to humanize and democratize people, society, knowledge and institutions. Critical transformist approach to politics involves working within institution and working beyond institutions; such an approach involves resisting, engaging and persuading power-relationships to ensure justice as fairness and human dignity as the right to live in freedom.

The grammar of power- within micro and macro arena is often controlled by the institutionalization of knowledge, norms and historical and cultural ordering of life-worlds. This ordering of power is more often unequal and mostly unjust. Such unjust power-relationships get expressed through discrimination, deficit of dignity, exploitation, alienation and eventual dehumanization. So it is moral responsibility to humanize, deconstruct, decentralize and democratize power in all its forms and expressions

Social transformation requires intensive engagement with micro-politics- by challenging, changing, reforming and transforming to make it just and equitable. This involves changing language, attitude, behaviour as well as spaces and expressions of power within the family and communities. The most manifest form of micro-politics is the control over productive and reproductive sources. And this control is mostly expressed in terms of patriarchy that seeks to control women- as the most important reproductive source of life and living. Most of the unjust power-relationships codified in micro-politics of expected roles, and spaces- of body, life and life-worlds: in terms of rituals associated with birth, marriage and death. And in relation to sexual roles, pleasure and pains involved in orgasm- and sexual choices.
The nation-state derives its power from the legitimacy and legitmation of the constitution- with a claim of sovereignty and monopoly of power over a territory and people living in such a territory. Every constitution is constituted, through historical, knowledge, economic, social and cultural process- through various negotiations of power in all such spheres. The politics of the State is often the defining force of Macro-politics. The grammar of the power within and beyond a given nation-state determines the power-relationships in all other institutional arenas. The “statutory” legitimation process of market, civil society and religion are based on “regulation” of the power and politics of the state. Such constant negotiations and ‘regulations” of technology of power tend to create cultures of govermentality of power- in terms of legitimation, control as well as spaces.

There is a tendency of those in controlling the nodal locations of power to monopolize power- through claims of sovereignty. This monopolization of power to control natural, productive and reproductive resources, through ‘discipline” and promises of “security”, are at the root of unjust politics both in its micro and macro expressions
Hence a transformative politics is driven by a universal ethics- moral choices and value premises - informed by human dignity, equality, justice, responsibility to each other and the planet. It is informed and inspired by movements and struggles for economic, social, gender and ecological justice. Such a politics derives its moral legitimacy from various struggles and efforts to humanize the world- all through history- through care and love; through our creative and committed searches for making the world and planet a better place to live. Transformative politics is about imaginative potential of human beings to influence and transform the world within them, around them and beyond- in constant search for freedom and justice. Democratization is at the core of it. Democratization can only happen when there is spaces for dissent as well dignity: spaces to protest as well to propose; spaces to imagine as well as innovate. Creativity, Community and Communication (through language and technology) are three aspect that make human different from animals. And democratization is a process to affirm and constantly rediscover the potential and possibilities of human creativity, community solidarity and communicative actions.


Transformative politics is about the democratization of power, knowledge, technology and language. Politics is to make change happen towards a just, sustainable, responsible world- without poverty and war. Politics is to fight injustice, exclusion, marginalization and dehumanization. Social and Political Transformation begin to unfold when every person can celebrate her/his dignity and right to dissent and development. Transforming politics involves making market work for the people- not the other way around. Democratisation happens when people can seek accountability from all power-holders, State, Market and civil society. Politics is to restore the sovereignty of people and reclaim the state to citizens and the democratization of at levels of human action and institutions.


A creative Politics for must take responsibility to imagine and suggest alternatives to unjust power-relationships. Politics should help us to move towards -a world without poverty and injustice where every person can live a life of dignity, freedom, enjoyment and responsibility.
We get politically transformed and empowered when we acquire the courage of conviction to ensure sustainability of our planet, people, and a just world.