Class, Power and Social Transformation: Reflections on the Praxis Ahead
With the recent defeat of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) in Kerala, many commentators have argued that India has entered an era in which the Left is no longer a serious political force. Considering the strong social base and organisational strength that the LDF still enjoys in Kerala, and the lively movements that the Left parties have been leading in different parts of the country, it is not difficult to see that such commentaries are mostly wishful thinking. Nevertheless, the setback in Kerala, along with the collapse of long-serving Left governments in West Bengal and Tripura in the last decade, does pose some serious questions regarding the future of the Indian Left. The following, I think, are the most prominent. How important is participation in government for the Left movement, and what is the correct way to approach it? How can the Left balance the fervour of its oppositional activities with the patience that constitutional interventions demand? And, most importantly, how can the commitment towards the basic classes be kept intact while attempting to win over other classes and forge broader coalitions? Any sincere attempts to rejuvenate the Left will have to deeply engage with these questions, I believe.
Power and Resistance
It has long been debated within the Left how far the existing parliamentary institutions can be effectively used to further the interests of the working classes. Except for the Maoist party on the extreme Left, most of the Left formations in India have settled this debate in favour of participation in the democratic framework that the Indian constitution has provided, albeit with varying degrees of conviction in its efficacy. However, participation in parliamentary democracy has also required the Left to make several ideological and organisational adjustments to secure electoral gains and remain politically relevant within the existing system. With the parliamentary performance of the Left at its lowest ebb, it is high time to evaluate the adjustments made for parliamentary benefits and see whether they were worth it. An ideology-driven movement cannot sustain its base if its electoral actions pull it towards opportunism. When the movement’s machinery becomes occupied with day-to-day parliamentary manoeuvres, it often loses its appeal as a party of difference and as a party that invests in deep dissatisfaction with the system.
This is not just about being immersed in corruption, nepotism or other evils associated with bourgeois liberal democracy, but also about the larger approach towards the existing state structure and the need to transcend it. The class contradictions are quite often glossed over in contemporary ideological pronouncements in order to forge broader coalitions. Also, in the attempt to defend the existing constitutional schemes from the ongoing assaults by the Hindutva brigade, the liberal claims regarding equality and inclusivity within the system are often parrotted by many within the Left. As a culmination of all these factors, the historical task of transcending the system is overlooked. This tendency, which Prabhat Patnaik calls ‘empiricisation of the Left’, needs to be taken seriously in further attempts to recover from the setbacks. The issue becomes more complicated when it comes to the participation in or leading of governments, either at the centre or at the state level. The left governments, from time to time, have used their hold over the state machinery to provide relief to the people, further social security, and dismantle the remnants of the feudal order. At least to a limited extent, it has also been used to bring progressive socio-cultural reforms. But it has been difficult to resist the temptation to settle into the comfort of the status quo and to consistently realise the revolutionary potential of the movement. In future attempts to rise electorally and influence the state machinery, the legacy of pro-people interventions needs to be furthered, and tendencies to take the existing state machinery for granted shall be shed.
Agitation and Governance
Enough has been said by many about how the continued presence in governmental power corrupts the Left formations and affects their ability to advance the real interests of the basic classes. Recently, there has even emerged a tendency to advocate voting the Left out of government to preserve its revolutionary purity! For example, K Satchidanandan, noted Malayalam poet and cultural activist, who has been serving as the president of Kerala Sahitya Akademi under the LDF rule, opined that the Left should stay out of power for the next five years and advocated for alternate governments. Yet, an aversion to state power and a romanticisation of political abstinence cannot form part of a revolutionary praxis committed to advancing working-class interests and consolidating the gains achieved through popular struggles. Beyond such simplistic formulations, there is a need to reassert the mutually constitutive relationship between mass struggles and pro-people governance.
The pressure generated through struggles on the streets — by workers, peasants, students, women, and marginalised communities — must find expression within constitutional institutions and shape legislative, administrative, and policy outcomes. At the same time, developments within constitutional forums should neither remain confined to parliamentary chambers nor be treated as purely procedural achievements. They must be continuously buttressed, defended, expanded, or even contested through popular mobilisation. Without pressure from below, constitutional institutions tend to reproduce the inertia of dominant class interests. Conversely, without institutional intervention, popular struggles may fail to secure durable structural gains. The strength of Left praxis lies precisely in its ability to maintain a dynamic relationship between mass politics and constitutional politics, allowing each sphere to energise and correct the other.
One of the distinctive features of the Left governments had been that they could link mass militant actions with administrative measures in an organic manner, so that whatever was achieved within the system was understood as hard-fought entitlements rather than favours bestowed upon people by a leader, party or a particular government. Patronising rhetoric highlighting top-to-bottom deliveries and attempts to link them with the self-claimed magnanimity of a leader had been alien to the Left praxis. But, of late, such tendencies too have come up in the context of Kerala. In the light of the electoral setback, the Communist Party of India has underscored the need to get rid of personality cults. It has also warned against approaching the workers’ struggles (like that of the ASHA workers in Kerala) with disdain. They seem to be interventions in the correct direction. In the attempts to learn lessons from this experience, the inevitability of mass action will have to be underscored. Governance should complement mass struggles, rather than containing or taming them.
Development for Whom?
Such a comprehensive view regarding the relation between mass agitations and people-friendly governance can develop only with a clearer view of the issue of development. In regions where Left movements became socially and politically dominant, many urgent demands of the basic classes were addressed through reforms, welfare measures, labour protections, and democratisation, significantly checking overt forms of exploitation. However, these achievements also created the need to expand beyond traditional class mobilisation and forge a broader national-popular unity. Attempts were thus made to unite diverse social groups through linguistic sub-nationalism and the shared aspiration for development.
Simultaneously, the rise of middle classes — many emerging historically from working-class and peasant backgrounds — brought aspirations for social mobility, stability, and economic opportunity, encouraging sections of the Left to portray themselves as facilitators of development. Yet this also generated contradictions, as developmental discourse sometimes overshadowed persistent class inequalities and the concerns of dispossession. The experiences of Singur and Nandigram revealed the dangers of pursuing development without sufficiently addressing democratic consent and the anxieties of vulnerable communities dependent on land and livelihood. The challenge before the Left, therefore, is to build broader coalitions without losing its organic commitment to the toiling masses and the struggle for social justice.
A similar tendency could be observed in Kerala, too, where infrastructural projects justified through a broad developmental discourse, rather than direct appeals to class interests, have generated criticism regarding a possible rightward shift. In response to such criticisms, there has been an increasing tendency to emphasise the need for a broader coalition encompassing all sections except the big bourgeoisie and landlords, including the upper-middle classes. This marks a significant shift insofar as it reduces the earlier emphasis on worker–peasant leadership and tends to underplay contradictions between the basic classes and more affluent social groups. Eventually, this carries the risk of succumbing to the new normal espoused by neoliberalism. Moreover, unless there are sustained efforts to politically align these emerging social bases with the interests of the basic classes, the Left may struggle to retain their support over time, especially when right-wing formations are often better positioned to cater to their material aspirations.
In Conclusion
Our reflections on the rejuvenation of the Left are happening against the larger background of a global right-wing upsurge. Right-wing populism centred around majoritarian identities has put liberal democracies into a deep crisis. The terms on which day-to-day politics is conducted have become quite detrimental to class mobilisations. Nevertheless, earnest attempts are being made on the part of the Indian Left to keep resistance alive. This needs to be taken forward with vigour. Lessons learned from the experiences of the movement shall lead us on the march forward. Many of them point not just to practical missteps, but to ideological ambiguities and theoretical uncertainties. With a theory enriched by praxis, and a praxis informed by revolutionary theory, the Indian Left can still make advancement in the path to socialism.
Comments