Food store in Soviet Union in its final days. Notice the empty shelves.
This is continuation of my previous article about critique of Dr Bandy Lee’s thesis on nonviolence. This article may go a little offtrack but I thought it was necessary.
Dr Lee talks about success of nonviolence by citing some historical developments but these developments are not presented in proper light. The substantive context and causality of these developments is overlooked/mistaken. In previous article I focused on Gandhian preaching on nonviolence which I believe are mostly political myths. I also gave a context to Colonial era, how and why it ended, and what came after that. To study Indian independence movement you need to understand this full spectrum of questions.
History is among the most complex of fields. To understand historical events you need a good grasp of several fields - politics, economics (i club both of them together as political economy), sociology, anthropology, linguistics, Science etc. And not to mention another important area - social psychology. I know many thinkers who have good grasp of political economy but give little credence to social psychology. They thus make pitfalls in analyzing certain historical events. Dr Lee’s scholarly work on MAGA phenomenon made me foray into her area of expertise and looking into her work has been undoubtedly rewarding. I like her macro-model on causes violence, conceptual thesis on contagion of violence, mass psychosis and Dangerous leaders.
But back to topic. In her article, Dr Lee casually talks about success of non-violent movements for Democracy in Eastern Europe. Here Dr lee makes a pitfall. For she ignores the context of political economy behind these developments. Whether non-violent movements against Democracy were a success story or something else entirely? Once again, to understand these events, you have to understand the continuum which means comprehending full spectrum of questions. To begin with, what is modern Democracy? How did Democracy came about? Why for certain nations Democracy came out a little late in 20th century? Mind you that nations like US, UK etc already had Democracy long before rest of the world. And how successful was Democracy in various parts of the world? Was the success universal or uneven? There are many such questions.
This may sound strange to many intellectuals. But Democracy is actually a Capitalist concept. Democracy endogenously evolved with Capitalism and nations where Capitalism was first to born were also the birth places of modern democracy. UK and US became democratic in 18th and 19th century. Why did it take long time for a modern democracy to reach certain eastern European nations and Global South countries? Because Capitalism arrived late in those places (Some Eastern European States had a volatile democracy pre World War 2 but it wasn’t a stable period). I recommend three great books to understand the assertions I just made. Socialism, Capitalism and Democracy by Schumpeter, The Great Transformation by Polanyi and The Triumph of Broken promises by Fritz Bartel.
Democracy, in Eastern European States and many global south nations, wasn’t really because of non-violent movements. Democracy actually came to these nations indirectly due to failure of Communism/Socialism/Central planning. Democracy was a legitimizing force to support for transition to market economy or more precisely to a market society (read Polanyi’s book to understand this term). In centrally planned communist economies, the governmental legitimacy was based on economic delivery. The government didn’t gave you a right to vote (universal suffrage) but instead gave you a Job, modest housing, pension, affordable groceries etc. So long as forces of central planning could deliver economic performance, people were ready to digest the lack of universal suffrage. What happened when Centrally planned economies started failing to deliver? That’s when all the problems started in 1970s and 80s.
In a Market society, you don’t have a right to a job, a house, a pension, guaranteed golden years of retirement etc. How can you attain these things? Of course, you have to depend on the markets to attain these things. Too bad if your marginal product is too low or you are just out of luck. Now since you don’t have a guarantee to your basic economic needs, how could you be compensated? Well, you will get a right to vote and universal suffrage. That’s how Democracy became a legitimizing force for market society. Fritz Bartel explain in great historical detail on how Democracy arrived in Eastern Europe out of failure of communism and crisis of central planning.
Economies of Soviet Union and Comecon States suffered from lack of efficiency, price flexibility and innovation (these are actually interconnected problems). Comecon States came to depend heavily on foreign debts and soviet subsidies to cover their spending needs. The debts kept rising while these economies fail to correct themselves. Soviet union was itself marred by problems that ailed its satellites. By late 1970s, Soviets and Comecon States started to understand the problems but couldn’t find the solutions. Pricing reforms and austerity generated backlash from people. When unpopular economic reforms were forced on society, they demanded a share of political power to forge a new social contract. That’s when the Democratic movements by trade unions and civil society became powerful. ‘If you snatch our economic rights, you have to give us political rights’ - That was essence of Democratic movements at that time.
Note that Democracy and market economy co-existing across the world is not just a correlation. It’s not just a coincidence that capitalist economies are also Democratic. Capitalism and Democracy are interconnected as Polanyi and Schumpeter explained in last century and Bartel explains the same thing in a lot more detail regarding collapse of Soviet union and rise of Democracy in Post Soviet & Comecon States as well as many global south nations when they transitioned to market economy or more precisely to a market society.
To be clear, not all democracies are stable and healthy. I refer you to my article where I have tried to put all my thesis on political economy regarding Democracy into a synthesis. Democracies in western world are healthy and peaceful (although US under Trump is now becoming an exception). Nations like Russia & India have a Potemkin Democracy - they are thoroughly dysfunctional and failed nations although still having universal suffrage.
Here, I strenuously point out to avoid a common pitfall. Democracy and universal suffrage doesn’t mean that people really have the power. In almost all Democratic nations of the world including the West, the power resides with Oligarchs and plutocrats, the real masters of politicians. Universal suffrage maintains only a perception that people control the politicians. Here, Schumpeter’s heterodox theory of Democracy is indispensable in grasping underlying basis of Democracy - Democracy is a system where various power factions compete with each other in a civilized way and policy making in only incidental out of Democratic system rather than being its main purpose.
Democracy in itself is not some supreme moral virtue of a nation State. A country can be a failed society, in poverty and starvation - yet it can be a Democracy. My country India is a good example of this. Russia is also a similar example. A country can be rich and prosperous, yet its Democratic politicians can be corrupted, mediocre and intellectually bankrupt. America and UK are such examples. What is standard by which a success of nation State should be measured? See my thesis on Perceptional legitimacy and Substantive legitimacy.
Summarizing everything
So how successful was Democracy. Success of Democracy was not universal but uneven. In post Soviet nations and Comecon States where the goal for transitioning into market economy was seriously recognized, the nations became Democratic market society after a brief turmoil. Transitioning a centrally planned economy to a free market is always difficult and the IMF conditionalities at that time were also ill-conceived. However, if you look at nations like Poland today, you can say that they are a lot better than their previous status in Soviet Union. So yes it was a success story.
And for a separate case, what about Democratic transition of my country India? No it didn’t turn out to be a success. The Colonial masters just packed up and left after World War 2 was over. Our political elites including Gandhi were actually clueless on post colonial road map. Democracy is a capitalist concept to create a market society. Our political elites wanted democracy but didn’t understood the essence of market society. They could never do meaningful economic reforms as populism and political bickering paralyzed the country. Most of all, the requisite for a functional Democracy never existed in India (Refer to Schumpeter’s thesis on Classical theory of Democracy). So nothing was achieved. Similarly, Democracy failed in other parts of the world especially in Asia and North Africa.
We can dig a little deeper. Was the entire project of market society - that is combination of liberal democracy and free market capitalism - a success story? It was a success story at least for some time. The collapse of central planning system showed that free markets were better alternative. Political rights substituted economic rights in Democratic market society. But success is not final. Capitalism came with its own set of problems and market society is also turning out to be problematic to say the least.
How is market society dealing with challenges like Climate change and environmental crisis? Not very well. How is market society dealing with internal discord, inequality, social grievances and political instability? Not very well. MAGA & Brexit movement is staring us in the face. And what do we do with nations which never even had a pathway for functional democracy? Like my country India. Where do we go from here? There are many unanswered questions.
Dr Lee has a stellar thesis on concepts like mass psychosis and irrationality of masses. I agree with her remark - ‘Irrational thinking and big lies are more more persuasive than informed reasoning’. Here I find some contradiction in Dr Lee’s work. In an unhealthy society, people do not have the capacity to take rational informed decisions. So how can a Democracy work in backward nations like India where Pathocratic leaders easily manipulate the psychological vulnerabilities of poor uninformed people?
Democracy works when people have attained higher level of consciousness. A society which has healthy reasoning capacity, good living standards and stable temperament to take political decisions. How does a country that is marred in abject poverty, exploitation, social backwardness and lack of intellect take informed decisions? Today, even in educated societies like America, people are incapable to take informed decisions. How can you expect democracy to work in backward and poor nations?
Now to conclude. In this and previous article, I got occupied with dispelling some myths about Gandhi, nonviolent movements for Democracy and putting them in proper light. I had to give a broad picture to understand these things. We cannot make simple assertions about success of so & so non-violent movements or carried away in worshiping Democracy and nonviolence. I never got into philosophical basis of efficacy of non-violence yet. This I will do in next article and try to conclude my critique.