¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

POPULISM is the most hated word to the entrenched oligarchy everywhere. But once upon a time it was celebrated, cheered and replicated first in the western world and then across the seven seas. It was the driving force of history that dismantled millennia old feudal structure in Europe through a series of populist uprisings around the late 18th century. They created the conditions for the new capitalist classes to emerge as the new governing class who wanted to control all the levers of power. The populists wanted their share of the pie and say in the governance but soon found themselves facing barricades raised by the new ruling classes. Does it make sense? Immensely! If populism was the engine, capitalism was the fuel. If the fuel dries up the engine will surely come to a stop. Thankfully it didn’t, instead capitalism went on expanding and amassing wealth, while the populists pushed out from the corridors of power grew angry and restless. This was a recipe for friction, and it took a heavy toll.Ìý

The populists under the banner of trade unions, civil society groups and associations, and many other subaltern organisations faced the infamous ‘blood & iron’ tactics carried out by the new capitalist governing classes across Europe and America. This suppression spanned the entire 19th century until the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917. Out of many such clashes four stands out prominently, the bloody suppression of the revolutions of 1848 followed by the carnage of the Paris commune in 1871. The world still recalls the Haymarket massacre of 1886 on May 1 every year. Thousands of industrial workers were reported dead in the heart of New York City and in the adjoining districts due to sheer negligence in 1914. Yet, populism survived even after repeated setbacks and defeats but had to make compromises. ÌýÌý

Capitalism, the most dynamic productive relation ever, not only proved indestructible but succeeded in benefiting an increasing number of people by creating industrial and so many other ancillary service sector jobs, though for trifling wages. But it was better than no income at all. So this in turn slowly gave rise to a wide social support base and stability; it required political continuity. The days of constant socio-political tension slowly receded but didn’t go away. The workers organised into trade unions and made their presence felt frequently pressing for legitimate rights like work hours, wages, right to organise and right to vote as citizens. These popular demands were slowly accepted by the state and the capitalists over a period of more than a century but in turn the workers ceased to bid for state power and refrained from destroying property. What emerged through these endless bargains were the trade unions, and a number of civil society groups of committed individuals. Collectively they formed a body of pressure groups, if not seeking the same remedy. The state was on the other side representing the combined power of civil-military bureaucracy, key actors of the capitalist enterprises and the political leadership; an oligarchy or the permanent state. ÌýÌý

But what about democracy — the favourite talking point of all the oligarchies across the world? It didn’t fall from the sky one fine day; it had to be earned over centuries of social engineering to reach the bargaining point stated above between rival groups representing diverse, often conflicting, interests and intents that came about only a century or so ago. But how did oligarchy coexist with democracy? Initially when only the wealthy could vote the natural intent was to ensure continuity of the oligarchy and not to upset the status quo. But by the time adult franchise was introduced, profit from the colonies were pouring in, making it easier for the governments to pacify the angry masses by sharing some of the spoils as social benefits, better facilities and allowing vote. Finally, by the time the working classes, at least a big part of it, joined the colonial project the oligarchy was so entrenched that no one wanted to overturn the apple cart anymore. So the voting pattern was more about increasing the colonial exploits abroad and fixing many gaps in the socio-economic arenas at home than probe imperial policies that systematically exploited the colonial people and its wealth. The rulers and the ruled aligned because labour-capital conflict mostly shifted to the colonies. It was the heydays of colonialism; populism slowly receded in the background. Ìý

Ìý

Populism in the coloniesÌý

FOCUS now shifts to the colonies. The colonial project was the logical product of mercantile and then industrial capitalism. From early on it gave the world slaughter of the natives and pillage coupled with slavery and subjugation, sanctified by the pompous intent to save the heathen soul with the cross. So resistance by the colonial people was obviously expected but it came in different forms and shapes. Of course there was cooperation from a section of the colonial people for multiple opportunistic reasons. But the majority waged a popular campaign with the intent to get rid of the colonial yoke in some cases by armed resistance in others by non-cooperation and non-violent agitation. The key condition of any popular movement is the support of a wide variety of opinions across many divides within the anti -colonial resistance. Once more such diverse views/forces came together the process of decolonisation accelerated. But the process didn’t ensure easy sailing. The heavy popular pressure tactics against foreign occupiers came very handy for the new breed of the local ruling elites but it had its down side too. Populism proved a double-edged sword. Ìý

While it had the power to pressure policy decisions, it also left little room to manoeuver, which proved very costly in the long run. India’s partition is a case in point. Nevertheless the sheer weight of people’s power on the streets unlike any time in history did have far reaching impacts. In pre-modern times the absolute monarchy took the people for granted, but in modern times people’s consent whether via ballot or by uprising became mandatory for governance, of course with a lot of constraints. In the newborn states adult franchise was introduced from early on that had immense impact both positive and negative, thunders of which are still rolling. This exposed so many faultlines in the existing socio-economic and political arena that finding stability at home while fending off constant external pressure of so many kinds became like dancing with the devil. Most bent and turned autocratic whether in civvies or khaki. This in turn gave rise to an oligarchy in the making. The same trend of a small wealthy elite not more than 10 per cent of any country that had formed the oligarchy in the western countries from the early 19th century as mentioned above repeated itself in the new-born states. Here too they seized all the levers of power early on. ÌýÌýÌýÌý

This is a paradox. Any society while transforming from a backward agricultural economy into an industrial one will find it impossible to govern via liberal democracy. The western countries practised democracy at home that too a restricted one while demonising the rest of the world. The post-colonial states suffer the same dilemma; their constraints are greater as they face numerous internal demons and constant external squeeze and sanctions. They are trapped in a vicious cycle of trying to catch up with the west without any of the advantages it had enjoyed via the colonial project during its transformative period. Yet most pretend to be what they are not. Consequently, the lived experience over the past seven or eight decades has not proved very encouraging. This is at the heart of frequent populist revolts against the authorities across most of the developing world. Of course, there are exceptions like China.

Demands vary in countries but the wide gap of expectations between the top tier of state agencies staffed by the privileged elites and the wider populace never seem to reach a point of agreement. Aspirations for accountable governance are provided with empty promises and illusions of democracy. Yes, in many developing countries elections are held regularly but most are either bought and sold or manipulated or hijacked or all combined. Once elections are complete in comes the permanent state agencies of civil-military bureaucracy with their controlling devices. In the key areas of governance ie, in the decision making process that affect everyday life of the ordinary people they have no say. This causes alienation that in turn results in anger, distrust of authorities, civil disobedience and finally insurgencies. In recent times the uprisings in Bangladesh, Nepal and Indonesia and several insurgencies in India and many other developing states are the cases in point. Ìý

Ìý

Populism reappears in the west Ìý

WHILE one can understand the frequent violent protests and uprisings across the developing world with so many inadequacies in so many fronts on a regular basis, it’s baffling to discern populist voting patterns and recurrent popular protests/revolts in the western world. It is a nightmare for the ruling elites. For nearly a century they had taken it for granted that whatever narrative they offered to their populace regarding internal or external policies was good enough to pacify their worries. And the wider popular opinion in spite of a lot of grumbling went along with the status quo. It seems not any more. Because the trust they had placed on the elites seems to be withering away. Reasons are many.

For more than three centuries the collective west was the final arbiter over the fate of much of the world. But from early 20th century this absolute control faced twin challenges. One from one of their own ie, Germany, and the other from the newly created Soviet Union ruled by the workers representatives, ie, the hated other of the western elites. Tussle was unavoidable between these two classes just as it was in the aftermath of the late 18th century social and industrial revolutions. Friction between the west and the Soviet Union began early on and reached a peak in the early 1940s. At the end of World War II the world was divided in three main camps, the west led by the US, socialist camp led by the Soviet Union and the third was a non-aligned group of countries led by a collective of newly independent states.

While America emerged unscathed and more strengthened after the war, Europe was a vast devastated continent. It had little choice but to adopt social democratic policies in governance despite retaining capitalist economy. America too to some extent pursued similar welfare policies. It adopted higher corporate taxes, installed stiff regulations and offered a number of social benefits to the less privileged. First, the Second World War and then the unfolding cold war helped it come out of the great depression and made it immensely wealthy; it could afford to share some of the wealth with its citizens. So both America and west European states took care of their citizens at least most of them via variousÌýsocial welfareÌýprogrammes. In return, most of the electorate put their trust on the respective governments. But not for long. America’s ambition for global empire by starting endless wars and regime change policies began to gnaw at its wealth and post war stability. In tandem came slow but sure discarding of the social benefit policies of the New Deal that had given America social equilibrium. Once the social contract began to erode the ordinary people slowly realised the things and the trust they had taken for granted were a mirage.Ìý

By the early 1980s, the collective west once again became the bastion of injustice disguised as stability. The ordinary people have been conditioned to accept their powerlessness. The super-rich and the key power brokers have captured the entire power structure of the state. There is an invisible power centre widely known as the permanent state or oligarchy or the deep state. They are a collective of CEOs of large MNCs, key actors of the security forces, and the top political leadership. They are the ones that decide the fate of the country, not the electorate. Yes, illusions of democracy are staged by holding periodical elections but even the electorate, at least most of them have by now come to realise the entire election process is rigged against them. It has become a farcical exercise. No matter what, nothing changes to improve their lot. The corridors of power remain ever elusive. Key decisions affecting the lives of the ordinary people are taken in a boardroom far from the view of the electorate. Ìý

Elections of most of the MPs, congressmen or senators are funded by one or the other large MNCs and in return they legislate to enhance the interests of these paymasters. And what drives this endless cycle of power manipulation is the ever growing reach of the monopoly capital. It needs to go on accumulating; its inborn nature, leaving finance capital in control of the economy. It means stock market speculation gets separated from production, leading to capital getting concentrated in fewer and fewer hands; a racket. To sustain such swindle the money managers compel the security state to wage endless wars making Orwell’s 1984 dystopian prediction come true ‘War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.’

The more it grows and consolidates, the more it needs to keep public scrutiny away from its nasty global imperial operation, and the more it grows secretive. Ordinary people are fed with a good dose of outright lies, twisted information and propaganda. Enabling the rich to go on amassing wealth by twisting and manipulating government regulations becomes the key role of the elected governments. This creates conditions for the respective governments to go on borrowing just to remain afloat and pretend to be stable. Hence, national debt goes on getting bigger and bigger. Today most of the key western countries are indebted beyond the ability to repay. No wonder welfare programmes and benefits are slashed to preserve the hold of the oligarchy over the levers of power. Yet they go on pretending to be masters of the world even if it means to threaten the destruction of the world as we know it today.Ìý Ìý

Facing this threat on a regular basis a time comes when most are forced to live paycheck to paycheck. It is when trust in the government begins to fade away. People come to see the nexus between the rich, the security forces and the government, and at that point popular opinion outbursts on the streets and the ballot boxes. The government tries their best to control, bribe, manipulate or suppress these angry eruptions but it reaches a point when all machinations fail. The collective west is fast reaching that point. The other dimension of populist politics is it may come with both right and left programmes. It may look intriguing but to the elites. The common people irrespective of left-right divide, even if some of them may share more or less similar reactionary outlooks, are usually treated with disdain and thought to be expandable. But whether populists will be able to implement respective programmes is yet to be tested. Until the drive of monopoly capital is reigned in no matter who governs, the socio-economic turmoil will persist.

Ìý

Ali Ahmed Ziauddin is a researcher and activist.