Article Appearing in the forthcoming Issue of People’s Democracy
The Presidential election is being contested by two candidates –
Pranab Mukherjee, standing on behalf of the UPA, and P. A. Sangma,
supported by the BJP (and sponsored initially by the AIADMK and the
BJD). This election is not to be seen as just a contest between these
two candidates. Beneath the surface are stirrings and a churning process
that presage a political realignment.
In the background of the presidential contest are the troubles
afflicting the UPA government, which include the worsening economic
situation due to its bankrupt policies, the lack of cohesiveness in the
alliance itself and its inability to take political and policy
initiatives. Price rise and corruption have eaten into popular support
for the Congress and the UPA government.
The BJP’s credibility has also taken a battering. The Mumbai
National Executive session put the leadership tussle and the aggressive
rise of Narendra Modi on public display. The RSS’s role was evident.
These events have had their repercussions on the NDA. The JD(U) response
has been firm. Its assertion that it will not support Sangma or any
other BJP-sponsored candidate shows its discomfiture.
The weakening of the UPA and the NDA was manifested in the ways in which they dealt with the presidential issue.
In the UPA, there was a rift between the TMC and the Congress over
the candidate to be proposed. This event is not to be seen in isolation.
The TMC has been at odds with the UPA government on various issues.
While much of the conflict is posturing by the TMC, there is a deeper
reason for it. In West Bengal, the TMC is working to marginalize the
Congress and to appropriate its base, and is quite willing to resort to
strong-arm methods to accomplish this objective.
The BJP wants the NDA to expand; in reality, it is in disarray. On
the issue of the Presidential election, the JD(U) and Shiv Sena have
decided to support Pranab Mukherjee.
As against the Congress and the BJP, the regional parties have been
gaining ground. These parties are not bound to either of the major
parties. They are acting on the basis of their interests, sometimes
opportunistically. But the common stand they are taking is to assert the
federal principle, which is a positive trend.
This is the background to the current presidential elections. The
CPI(M) has always seen the presidential elections as a political issue
and taken a political stand. The political-tactical line of the Party
decided at the recent 20th Congress calls for fighting the
Congress-led UPA government and its economic policies; at the same time,
the Party is opposed to the BJP and its communal agenda. The Party will
fight against neo-liberal policies, communalism and the growing
imperialist influence. The Party will seek to cooperate with
non-Congress secular parties on issues and initiate joint movements and
struggles on people’s issues. The Party will work to build a Left and
democratic alternative. Such an alternative requires the strengthening
of the CPI(M) and the Left as an independent force. The process of
strengthening the CPI(M) and the Left also requires the defence of the
Party and the Left movement in West Bengal, which is under severe
attack.
It is in this framework that the Party has worked out its approach
to the presidential election. The Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) has decided
to support the candidature of Pranab Mukherjee. The basis for this
decision has to be explained.
Approach Since 1992
Ever since the 1991 Lok Sabha elections, there has been no question
of supporting a BJP-sponsored candidate. This is because, after the BJP
grew in strength, an important task has been to prevent it from putting
in place a constitutional head of State who would be amenable to the
influence of the Hindutva forces, a development that would, in turn, be
inimical to the secular democratic principle of the Constitution.
Such a consideration led the Party to support the Congress
candidate Shankar Dayal Sharma in the 1992 presidential election. It is
also the reason why, from 1992 onwards, notwithstanding the Party’s firm
opposition to the policies of liberalisation introduced in by the
Narasimha Rao government and followed by successive governments, the
question of protecting the secular basis of the Constitution and the
polity has been given priority. This is the understanding that led to
the Party’s support to Shankar Dayal Sharma, K R Narayanan and Pratibha
Patil. The only exception was in 2002, when the NDA government was in
office. The BJP sponsored A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, and the Congress
supported his candidature. Since there was no other viable candidate
from the non-BJP camp, the Left parties put up their own candidate.
The candidature of Pranab Mukherjee in the current Presidential
election has led to a deepening of the rift between the Congress and the
TMC. The TMC tried to get Dr. Kalam to be a candidate, a move that had
the full backing of the BJP. Having failed in that, the TMC is now left
with the option of abstaining or reversing its position and supporting
Pranab Mukherjee. The rift within the ruling alliance is something that
the CPI(M) took into account when deciding its stand.
The CPI(M) has also taken into account the fact that a number of
non-UPA parties have announced support for Pranab Mukherjee. They
include the Samajwadi Party, the BSP, the JD(S) and the JD(U). The
CPI(M) would have considered the possibility of another candidate to be
supported if there were other secular opposition parties willing to do
so. But with the exception of the AIADMK and the BJD, who sponsored the
candidature of Sangma, who has now got the support of the BJP, most
other parties veered round to supporting the UPA candidate. Pranab
Mukherjee thus became the candidate about whom there was the widest
agreement. This fact has also to be taken into account, particularly in
the context of the frantic efforts that were made by the BJP and Mamata
Banerjee to get Dr. Kalam to contest. It is significant that Mulayam
Singh and the Samajwadi Party refused to go along with this move, more
so given the fact that Kalam was their choice in 2002.
The UPA is not strengthened by the fact that many parties support
its candidate. On the contrary, it highlights the dependence of the
Congress on outside forces to get its own candidate through. It also
indicates that these forces are going to deal with the Congress on equal
terms, and that the Congress cannot lord it over them.
Not Equidistance
The political line of fighting the Congress and the BJP should not
be equated as maintaining equidistance from both on all matters. For
instance, on the question of President, there can only be a President
chosen by the major bourgeois parties. Nevertheless, since the key issue
is that the constitutional head of State should be firmly secular and
not in any way open to BJP influence, the CPI(M)’s thrust will be
against a BJP-sponsored candidate. When it comes to the fight against
economic policies, the thrust will be against the Congress and the UPA
government. The votaries of equidistance can accuse the CPI(M) of
supporting the Congress-led government on the issue of President; they
would also charge the CPI(M) of joining hands with the BJP when it comes
to fighting and developing mass movements against price rise and other
anti-people measures of the Congress. The political line of the CPI(M)
cannot be interpreted in this fashion.
The removal of Pranab Mukherjee from the Cabinet and the Finance
ministry will not change the orientation of economic policies. Whether
it is P. Chidambaram or Pranab Mukherjee or whoever will take over from
him, neo-liberal policies will continue, since it is the policies of the
ruling classes that the Congress pursues. In fact, there is going to be
a renewed push for neo-liberal reforms, something that the big business
and international finance capital are clamouring for.
Allowing FDI in multi-brand retail is part of this renewed thrust.
This is a major issue, involving the livelihood of four crore people.
This has to be resisted and stopped. It can be done only by mobilizing
all the political parties outside the UPA. Such mobilization must also
include many parties that are supporting the UPA and those who belong to
the NDA. The CPI(M) is for a strong powerful mass movement to stop
Wal-Mart and others opening shops here. It would like all opposition
parties to take a united stand. It would hence be erroneous to confuse
the approach towards the selection of a Presidential candidate with the
tactics of fighting neo-liberal policies.
On Abstention
The question is posed as to why the CPI(M) is not abstaining in the
presidential election. As against the UPA and BJP-backed candidates,
the Party could have opted out of voting for anyone.
Abstention in this case would mean lining up with Mamata Banerjee
and the TMC in West Bengal. This would be politically damaging and
unacceptable. The TMC is conducting a violent terror campaign against
the CPI(M). Sixty eight members and supporters of the Party and Left
Front have been killed since the Assembly elections. The attack on
democracy extends to all sections. Even the Congress is not spared. To
take the same position as the TMC will only harm the interests of the
Left and the fight against the TMC in West Bengal. The CPI(M), being the
largest Left party, has the major responsibility with respect to
protecting the rights of the working people of West Bengal, which are
under severe attack. One of the important tasks for the Party is to
defend the strongest base of the Left, which, in turn, will help the
Party and the Left to advance nationally.
Further, it is not a question of West Bengal alone. At the national
level abstention would amount to the Party withdrawing from the fray.
It would blunt the intervention of the Party in the developing political
scenario.
The ruling classes have been attacking the Left in a concerted
fashion with the aim of isolating it. Since 2009, the CPI(M) and the
Left have been weakened. Without having any illusions that the ruling
classes will cease their hostile approach, and given the unremitting
position of the Left against the neo-liberal policies, it is necessary
to utilize the conflicts and fissures within the ruling alliance between
the bourgeois parties. Abstention at this juncture will not help in
this regard.
Left Parties’ Positions
The Left parties have not taken a common stand on the presidential
election. While the CPI(M) and the All India Forward Bloc have decided
to support the candidature of Pranab Mukherjee, the CPI and the RSP have
decided to abstain. Earlier too there have been instances of the four
Left parties being unable to take a common stand on the Presidential
election. For instance, from the 1992 election onwards, the RSP has
often refused to support the Congress candidate.
