On Sectarianism
Kumar David
Introduction
Would it be an exaggeration to say that
sectarianism has become a part of the life-blood of leftwing politics?
Could one assert that left sectarianism is chronic, congenital
and genetic? Chronic in the sense that it is all-pervasive, to
be found everywhere almost all of the time. Congenital in that
every left tendency, even those born with the promise of non-sectarianism,
quickly succumb to the disease. And finally it is genetic because
sectarianism appears to be some intrinsic affliction built into
the very genetic code of revolutionary left politics. If sectarianism
is indeed such a deep affliction of leftwing politics perhaps
we should probe a little deeper into its causes and draw some
lessons on how to deal with the malady. The purpose of this article,
therefore, is largely pedagogic.
I would like to start with a few comments on the preliminary
round of the April 2002 French Presidential elections. Chirac,
the incumbent President from the moderate right scored 19.9% of
the vote and Le Penn who may be described as extreme right or
neo-fascist, depending on your preference, scored 16.9%. Thanks
to the split in the left vote Le Penn came first in 35 departments,
mostly working class, of France's 100 electoral departments. The
other five candidates on the right collected 16.1% between them
and an unaffiliated farmer's candidate scored 4.2%. The abstention
rate was a record 28.4%.
On the left, the Social Democratic candidate and Prime Minister,
Jospin, collected 16.2%. The three Trotskiests collected 10.5%
between them; France's once powerful Communist Party 3.4%, the
Greens 5.3%, a black lady on a multicultural platform 2.3% and
a nationalist Eurosceptic 5.3%, making up a poll of 26.8%. The
total left poll therefore was a redoubtable 43%. However, the
left, as usual, shot itself in the foot with remarkable precision
and invited a neo-fascist to advance to the second round. This
is a feat of supreme stupidity that even the Sri Lankan left,
despite its accumulated experiences of decades of sectarian imbecility,
has as yet been quite unable to surpass!
In the second round the entire left, recoiling in horror at its
own imbecility had no choice but to vote Chirac who collected
82% of the vote, the largest in history - and this by a candidate
who may even have lost to Jospin in a straight fight.
Sri Lanka's suicidal left
Now to Sri Lanka. In my view there are only three occasions
on which it could be said that a schism in the left movement was
completely unavoidable - the pre-war division into the LSSP and
CP, the emergence of what may be called the Maoists and the rise
of the JVP. The first two are the reflection within the country
of mighty international trends and in one way or another these
continental drifts would have engendered their manifestations
locally. The third was unavoidable because the JVP occupies a
borderline between Pol Potism and the left, between an incipiently
fascist petty bourgeois demagogy and the radicalism of youth frustrated
by the failure of third world capitalism. The gulf between these
two hobgoblins can sometimes be hard for the left to bridge thus
making space for other types of movements. A worst case scenario
is when it erupts as rabid religious fundamentalism such as the
fascistic Hindu movements in India. The Khmer Rouge macabre ideology
of primitive cannibal communism too is but a second cousin of
the JVP way of thinking and acting - remember 1989.
It is my humble view that all the other splits in the left movement
were blunders or were to a large degree avoidable, and by avoidable
I am suggesting that subjective factors contributed to something
that was not inevitable or foreordained. It is necessary, on reflection,
to consider only two major schisms, the 1964 split in the LSSP
and the expulsion of the Vama tendency in 1977 leading to the
formation of the NSSP. The majority of nine hundred and ninety
nine sects and cults on the left in Sri Lanka are sprouts and
splinters, weeds and worms thrown up post-1964 and a few are out
of the NSSP experience. Hence dealing with these two examples
is adequate for the purposes of this article since the only major
omissions are breakaways from the CP, somewhat similar to the
post-1964 case, and the militant Tamil movements, a recent experience
whose fundamental features stand outside the scope of this article.
Fortunately the jury is no longer out on the 1964 split since
most of those who led or participated in the walkout now concede
that it was a grievous blunder. Why was it a blunder, and therefore
a sectarian error that has inflicted considerable damage on the
left movement? Because the LSSP was not a write-off as a consequence
of the victory of the pro-coalition viewpoint championed by N.M.
Perera in 1964. The LSSP was the repository of decades of left,
working class, anti-colonial and revolutionary politics. The left
tendency walked away from that into permanent political isolation.
Key sections of the party were hostile to coalition politics but
quite unwilling to split the party. The left tendency walked away
from them and left the salvaging operation to a clutch of youngsters
who took another 15 years to establish a credible alternative
focus within the LSSP. But above all it was a blunder because
the left tendency lost the opportunity to win the party away from
opportunism when the bankruptcy of coalition politics with Mrs
Bandaranayake became evident in the mid-1970s.
The Vama split resulting in the formation of the NSSP was avoidable
if the leaders of the LSSP were prepared to stick with democratic
centralism to which principle they had sworn allegiance. The issue
can be put in a nutshell. The Vama (Left) tendency led by Vasudeva
and Wickremabahu demanding an end to coalition politics and an
independent political orientation would have won a majority in
the late 1970s had the leadership agreed to the test at a party
conference. Instead the leaders resorted to expulsions, first
Wickremabahu, then others one by one and the last straw, Vasudeva.
It cannot be argued that this is something unavoidable in terms
of the fundamental objectives of left politics. It seems to fall
much more within the sectarian sickness decried in the opening
paragraphs of this article. It is necessary then to probe whether
this assertion is true. Whether there are, perhaps deeper more
objective causes, underlying the chronic repetition of splits,
schisms and sectarianism in the history of the left.
Superficial explanations
What about culture, ethos and social context? Indeed, but this
delineates the particular trajectory in which sectarian politics
manifests itself in this or that national context, but not the
pervasive nature of divisiveness throughout the global left movement.
Rich as the cultural explanation is in fleshing individual national
case studies, we still need to seek for common denominators on
a more universal scale.
Readers will forgive me, I hope, if I quote a few lines from
a December 2001 document entitled Inventing Irrelevant Categories
that I wrote for presentation elsewhere.
The representatives of the ruling classes, generally speaking,
and except in times of great social turmoil, have shown a remarkable
ability to set aside their petty differences and act unitedly
to safeguard their common interests. Various sections of the bourgeois
and traditional elites, even from different communities, have
the ability to plaster over sectional and factional differences
and form winning alliances. This is especially so at election
time, not only in Sri Lanka but also elsewhere in the world. The
UNP/F, the PA and Tamil and Muslim bourgeois parties as well as
potential or real class alliances and "national" governments
have shown this ability. Conversely, the left has earned for itself
the reputation of being sectarian, divisive and petty, and indeed
the number of left parties in a country is a matter for derisive
mirth among our opponents. There are some understandable reasons
for this. It is much clearer and easier to understand how to protect
privilege, wealth and power that is already in possession, and
more difficult to precisely define the alternatives with which
to replace these things if one were able to do so. This ambiguity
makes room for a variety of views to emerge and to be dogmatically
held in ways counterproductive for the left as a whole. This difficulty
is understandable but one must strive to overcome it.
While these explanations all remain true to a degree they also
remain inadequate as an objective theoretical explanation of left
sectarianism. For that we need to turn to the Bolshevik roots
of much of our leftwing paradigms.
The relevance of Leninism
I certainly would not suggest that Lenin's strategy was wrong
in relation to the conditions he encountered or the tasks that
the Bolshevik Party set itself. The proof of the pudding is in
the eating and I for one continue to salute the victory of the
1917 revolution and the politics of those who carried it out,
and did so using the only methods that would have enabled that
victory. The question is; how relevant is this experience for
the subsequent history of the left? Certainly under similar circumstances
similar strategies are warranted and to ignore this is a grievous
error for which Luxemburg and Liebknecht, for example, paid with
their lives. But the point is that circumstances in most of the
world for most of the last fifty years have not been the same.
The problems facing the "Globalised" world has changed
from the time of Lenin, so has the political landscape as old
style authoritarian regimes give way to modern style democracies
or dictatorships.
First let us dispose of a matter which is not what I am referring
to in the current context of discussing sectarianism - the Leninist
party. It is generally agreed on the left today that this model
is only of limited relevance now. Certainly such matters as clarity
of programme, quality of leadership, commitment and political
discipline continue to be vital - but this is obvious and not
for the left alone. Some other features are less meaningful, for
example the preference for full-timers is positively harmful if
pushed too far. In democratic or semi-democratic societies the
majority of party members must be participants in society, actively
involved in everyday social and economic life. The professional
revolutionary is an anachronism to be avoided. The traditions
of democratic centralism are essential to the cohesive functioning
of any organisation that needs to make decisions by internal consultation
and then act with team spirit. However, the need for secrecy or
glossing over differences in the public arena is often overdone.
(Granted though that mischief making by outsiders is always a
concern in this respect). Most of these changes are accepted all
over the left and the relevance of the Leninist model is much
reduced in circumstances which are far different from Tsarist
authoritarianism. In any case, I do not think that the Leninist
party model per se was a source of sectarianism although its close
knit character may have contributed towards the crystallisation
of sectarian trends.
There is another aspect of Leninism, which again I will defend
as appropriate to the circumstances and tasks of his time, but
far less important today, which I do think is part of the problem.
This is the tendency to split precipitously and with great harshness
on programmatic and theoretical differences. This tradition is
one of the worst lessons that the Sri Lankan left has only been
too quick to pick up. The same can be said I presume of most of
the world's Trotskiest sects and of the innumerable splinters
from the communist parties - social democratic organisations are
less prone to this disease. It only takes a relatively minor practical
or theoretical issue. For example, the theory of the state in
Cuba, the role of the peasantry in this or that context, who to
support in which election, or the colour of Bukharin's beard,
will excite denunciation in the most acerbic terms, followed by
a walk out. Sometimes a split is unavoidable if the perceived
error is grievous, but as one who believes that even the 1964
walkout by the left faction of the LSSP was a blunder, I think
such situations are very rare. If the 1964 split was a blunder,
in comparison how much more stupid today's kaleidoscope of jarring
reds and purples must seem. We have been brought up on the wrong
Leninist traditions.
Something deeper
Nevertheless I will have to agree with those of you who say
"Maybe this is all true but there must be something more,
something deeper, to the left's inability to come to terms with
its own fragmentation". I think we have failed to come to
terms with the issue of Reform and Revolution, we have not worked
out how to blend practical activity in the existing bourgeoisie
democratic polity with our long-term commitment to socialism as
the only way out for humanity. The little pamphlet by this name,
with the exception of Accumulation of Capital her study which
has increased a thousand fold in relevance as failing Globalisation
pushes the world to the brink of a new imperialist war, is Rosa
Luxemburg's most important theoretical work. The pamphlet was
written as a polemic against Bernstien and others who argued that
the coming of democracy signalled a period of supremacy of reformism
in politics and made all talk of socialism and social transformation
irrelevant. The thrust of her position was that there is a blending,
a continuity, between involvement in daily, and therefore apparently
reformist tasks, and the need to cut loose and pose questions
of state power when that was the order of the day. The two, when
properly conducted are not contradictory or mutually exclusive
but continuous and dialectically interwoven. I will not attempt
to summarise her fine argument or many examples, but readers will
be well served if they revisit her few pages.
Left sectarianism arises when one fails to conduct this connection
properly. If one treats every day and every event as though it
was an ideological, theoretical and organisational precursor to
immediate revolution and the capture of state power, then one
will end up in sectarian contortions. If one conducts work in
the mass and peoples democratic arena with scorn for the many
other progressive forces and influences that are at work there,
isolation, not unity in action, is the end result. If one fails
to grasp that the process of social transformation is going forward
on a much wider front than the actions of ones own organisation,
it is a misunderstanding of the social dynamics of modern society,
especially in the crisis ridden countries of the third world.
It is this incorrect frame of mind that underlies sectarianism.
Its objective cause is the relative stability of capitalism in
the West and the rise of nationalism in the post-colonial countries
in the second half of the twentieth century. The majority of leftwing
political parties of Marxist orientation have not properly worked
out the dynamics of reform and revolution in this new context.
Some does and don'ts
Participation in elections as a rule should be avoided except
when a substantial critical mass has been put together. The notion
that unless one intervenes at the polls the public will lose sight
of one's programme is false. Whenever possible a single joint
left candidate must be put forward and every effort made, especially
by the candidate concerned, to publicise the collective nature
of the candidacy. With many left leaders, as with the superstars
of the entertainment industry, an oversized ego is a recurrent
malady. Workshops and training courses must be conducted for left
leaders, preferably with those from many parties attending simultaneously,
on how to overcome this personality defect. If lifelong training
and schooling in human and interpersonal relations is good for
corporate CEOs why not for the lordly chieftains of the left?
Most important, a tradition of constant intermixing of party
comrades, visiting each other's offices, non-hostile dialogue,
socialising, joint symposia and the like must be promoted. I for
one am quite amazed and disappointed at how little social or seminar/study
type group interaction there is, for example, between LDF, NSSP,
LSSP and CP members and sympathisers. In part this may spring
from a profound sense of insecurity among some leaders who are
unquestioned within their own organisations but treated like ordinary
mortals in a larger forum. Once the practice of intermingling
starts, however, courteous forms of intercourse will develop and
these fears recede.
Kumar David
Hong Kong
June 2002.
HOME
