Why Left Electoralism Isn’t Enough
By David Mandel
The following talk introduced a discussion held in Montreal on March 16, 2006 among members of Quebec Solidaire (QS), the new left-wing party in Quebec. The event was organized by the Montreal collective of Presse-toi-à-gauche (www.pressegauche.org).
In the UFP (one of the parties that merged to form QS) we used to say we were a “party of the ballot box and of the street.” But there was never any discussion of what that meant. Nor was it clear why an electoral, parliamentary party wasn’t enough. Yet these are fundamental questions for the Left.
I’ll begin with the following observation: all the left parties that have formed governments over the past twenty years have ended up by bowing to neo-liberal orthodoxy, even while trying, usually without much success, to give it a “social” hue. The list of these governments is long and includes, among others, Lula’s in Brazil, Blair’s in the UK, Mitterand’s in France, Schroeder’s in Germany, as well as several provincial NPD governments in Canada. With the exception of Venezuela’s Chavez – a special case – no left party in power over the past twenty years has seriously challenged the basic precepts of neo-liberalism.
Electoral Dead-End
My thesis is that this is inevitable if a party seeking progressive change relies primarily on electoral politics, neglecting or completely rejecting extra-parliamentary political action.
To understand this, one must recognize the huge advantage that liberal (i.e. capitalist) democracy confers on the capitalist class. If I speak of the capitalist class (or capital, or the “business community”), it is because neo-liberalism is an ideology that serves to legitimate policies that promote the interests of the capital-owning class. Some, like one of the UFP’s candidates in a recent by-election, might argue that capital’s adherence to neo-liberalism is a case of ideological fanaticism, a false consciousness that threatens its own survival. And so, it is not a matter any more of the old class struggle, but of saving the capitalist class from itself. But supposing that were true – and the idea is highly dubious – what do we do if the capitalist class refuses to be saved? We still have to shift the correlation of class forces.
Let’s look first at the advantages capital enjoys within the liberal state institutions, regardless the political colour of the party in power. Capital can always count on a sympathetic hearing from the upper echelons of the public administration, the judiciary, the command of the military and police forces. With few exceptions, these people, upon whom the orderly functioning of any government depends, share the same conservative ideological orientations as the capitalist class. They often belong to the same social milieu.
But these advantages pale when compared to the political resources capital wields outside of the state institutions, within “civil society.” In a capitalist economy, it is the members of the capitalist class who make the main decisions concerning investment and the production and distribution of goods and services. As a result, the health of the economy and of public finances depends on their having confidence in the government’s policies. The owners and directors of the mass media belong to that same class and they naturally share its conservative orientations. One can add to the mass media, the multitude of think tanks, public relations firms, titled “experts” and many other avenues for influencing public opinion.
I want to cite, in this connection, an excerpt from a speech that Alcide De Gasperi, leader of the Italian Christian Democratic party, made to his cabinet in 1947. After the war and the overthrow of fascism, which had enjoyed the enthusiastic support of Italy’s capitalist class, the Christian Democratic Party tried to base upon the so-called middle classes. But De Gasperi quickly understood that the party’s real interest lay in winning the unequivocal support of the employers. This is how he explained it to his ministers: “There is in Italy a fourth party, in addition to the Christian Democrats, the Communists, and the Socialists, which is capable of paralyzing and rendering vain any effort, by organizing the sabotage of the national loan, the flight of capital, inflation and the spread of scandal campaigns. Experience has taught me that Italy cannot be governed today unless we bring into the government, in one form or another, the representatives of that fourth party, that disposes of the wealth of the nation and the economic power.”
Imagine that a party like Quebec solidaire gets elected on the basis of a programme that challenges neo-liberal orthodoxy. It would immediately come under crippling ideological and economic pressure from the employers and their domestic and international allies. This is what the editor of the CCPA Monitor, a moderately left publication that generally takes the Scandinavian states as its model, describes as the probable reaction to a Canadian government that broke with NAFTA: “We could expect an immediate threat of mass business shutdowns, layoffs, and outsourcing. ...Our economy could be seriously destabilized, our currency devalued, our unemployment rate tripled. Capital strikes and flights could precipitate a crippling depression.” And he says nothing of the ideological campaign.
A left party that counts mainly on electoral success and limits itself to the parliamentary struggle couldn’t resist for long. It would be forced to seek to restore business confidence by diluting its programme. The very prospect of capital’s reaction is so intimidating, that left parties over the past 20 years have tended to eliminate measures that seriously challenge neo-liberal logic from their platforms.
The point is that a left government that relies principally on electoral performance has to keep within what is ultimately acceptable to business. In the “golden” thirty postwar years, labour’s strength coming out of the depression and war, the rapid economic expansion and high profits made capital somewhat more tolerant. But that changed in the 1980s, and the left’s manoeuvring space within what capital will tolerate has narrowed radically.
Extra-parliamentary Struggle
It follows that a party that wants to go beyond neo-liberalism must find strength well beyond what electoralism can provide. It must build active support within society itself that can neutralize and overcome the advantages that liberal democracy gives capital. This brings us to the “party of the street.”
Such a party cannot be a mere electoral machine that limits its members’ role to preparing and running electoral campaigns. It has to be a political movement. It has to give priority to the active education of its members. They must be able independently and critically to analyse the issues. They have to participate fully in drawing up the party’s programme and defining its strategy.
This means that the party has to be profoundly democratic, its leadership at pains to encourage initiatives “from below” and to create space for independent rank-and-file organization. Only that can create the kind of commitment and confidence needed to change society. Only that can make possible real control by the party rank and file of the parliamentary party – always a major problem.
Being a “party of the street” means more than showing up at demonstrations with a banner. The party has to be rooted in the social movements. This is not a matter of “infiltration,” often raised as a bogey to justify the artificial and harmful division of labour between social democratic parties and social movements, particularly the unions. It means recruiting to the party, educating and organizing left activists of the social movements, so that they can bring into the movements a strategic vision of social transformation, force real debate, and also mobilize support for the party’s positions. This would give the party the means to encourage social struggles that challenge neo-liberal logic and to build genuinely committed support for itself within society.
It is only when the popular classes are organized and fighting to promote their interests that they can create the ideological space and confidence necessary to overcome the pressure of the capitalist class and its allies. Without that, any left party, even if it does manage to get elected with an ambitious programme of reform, will end by yielding to the superior forces. This has been confirmed over and over by experience.
To be able to bring positive change, the parliamentary struggle must be supported by extra-parliamentary mobilization. And electoral victories must, in turn, serve to encourage that mobilization. That’s what a “party of the ballot box and the street” means.
By extra-parliamentary political struggle, I have in mind actions like the Quebec unions’ “day of disruption” in December 2003 against Charest’s anti-labour legislation and the student strike of spring 2005. The “water wars” and “gas wars” in Bolivia are probably the most striking recent examples. They brought Evo Morales to power with an absolute majority of the vote, something that had never before been achieved, let alone by a left candidate.
But unless that mobilization continues, Morales will surely disappoint. This is not to cast doubt on his commitment or integrity. It is just being realistic, as Quebec Solidaire’s declarations of principles call us to be.
David Mandel is a member of Quebec Solidaire and Gauche Socialiste.
