Liberalism vs The Rest

Liberalism vs The Rest by Sauvik Chakraverti, 
Saturday March 22 2008 18:23 IST

Surely the first question any aspiring ‘representative of the people’ must ask himself is: What is the role of the State in a free (or democratic) society? To Raj and the Thackeray parivar, to Narendra Modi and the Sangh Parivar, to Buddhadev Bhattacharya and the communist parivar, just as it always was for the Nehru parivar, it seems perfectly apparent to me that their idea of State is ‘an institution that protects us from injustices, except those it commits itself’ (Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima, circa 1350).

Coercion is their motto not because they are anti-democratic, but precisely because they are democratic. The process we call democracy in India is riddled with coercion. Anyone who runs a political party holds vast powers over all members; a political party is a power hierarchy based on ‘hegemonic relationships’. When politicians vote within democratic assemblies, each member must respect the orders of his ‘party whip’. The very term reeks of coercion. Then there is the Party High Command (or Politburo). Theirs is the ‘vote motive’. Or is it ‘rent motive’? Compared to these motives, the ‘profit motive’ is innocent: shubh laabh.

Raj Thackeray is ‘political’ in that he seeks to represent a majority. He is the leader of a ‘recognised’ political party and has powers over ‘party cadres’. This is true of all political parties. It is because of this that Roberto Michels propounded his Iron Law of Oligarchy in 1915: “Hierarchical political parties can never yield a classless, socialist society,” he wrote. “Where the instrument is hierarchical, how can classlessness result?”; adding, most accurately, “socialism will fail at the moment of its adherents’ triumph.”

The politics of Thackerayism, Moditva, Buddhadevism, Lalooism, and Nehruvianism are all ‘legitimate’: these recognized political parties swear by ‘socialism’, as defined in the Constitution of India and their party constitutions. But the reality of hegemonic power relations within each party hierarchy should wake us up to the fact that the way we are headed is not the classlessness of socialism, but something diabolical. It is aimed at taking control of the dysfunctional State, which provides access to further coercion, through legislation, through taxation, and through manipulation of the police and the administration. Never will we attain Socialist Equality if we continue with this socialist democracy. Oligarchies will rule. Chaos will follow.

In vivid contrast, Liberalism begins with voluntary co-operation in markets. Voluntary exchanges in the market order must be free, we believe. We therefore oppose legislation on ‘victimless crimes’ like gambling, prostitution, and ganja peddling. To us, coercion is an actionable tort, and a grave matter. We dream of a coercion-free natural order. That is why our ideal State is a provider of Justice. Nothing else.

This is Liberty under Law. It yields Freedom and Property, not Equality. To liberals, socialist ideas of Equality are a dangerous deception. The highest political values of liberalism are Freedom and Justice. Yet, we are barred from political participation while Raj Thackeray is legit. “Fair is foul and foul is fair,” as Macbeth’s witch put it. To grasp the amount of coercion that Raj Thackeray has unleashed on a poor minority, recall that 50,000 north Indians have fled Maharashtra since he began flexing his Maratha muscles.

Unveiled threats are also coercive. As they were not countered by immediate and stern State action, they were deemed imminent by all concerned, who fled.

What would happen if liberals took over? Whom would we throw out? This is relevant given that politicians place before the voter their own idea of a ‘class enemy’. To Raj Thackeray, north Indians are the enemy. To Modi, it is non-Hindoos. Who are the enemies of Liberalism?

The enemies of liberalism are all those who coerce the rule-following citizenry. Today, apart from some recognised political parties, the biggest profiteers from arbitrary coercion are the police and the taxation bureaus. A liberal government’s first task will be to bring these coercive bureaus to heel. The police must protect petty traders. Taxation must be linked to services provided. Today, taxation is arbitrary and excessive like those on civil aviation, which transfer business to the unsafe railways. Tolls on ‘notional highways’ are double-taxation, as we pay dedicated road taxes on automotive fuels. As we pay the taxes, proper highways must be built as 'freeways'. The excise department must be stripped of licensing powers, so the business of alcohol retailing can be free. The customs department must either be abolished, or a small ‘revenue tariff’ should be levied on select, bulk imports. A minimalist State requiring minimal taxation: that is the liberal ideal.

Where masses are poor, taxation must be lighter still. If liberals come into positions of authority, the police, the excise, the customs, the income tax will feel the heat. And that’s a promise.

To conclude: There is hope for liberalism as we do not require coercion for the fulfillment of our political ideals. As other political creeds require coercion, they are doomed to failure as there is an limit beyond which none will submit to authority. For this crucial reason, liberalism is destined to prevail over all competing political visions. It is only a matter of time. 

http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayitems.asp?id=SEC20080322085650&eTitle=Columns&rLink=0