Marxisms in the 21st Century. John Saul

popularly called) participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre (Baiocchi 2003; Baiocchi, Heller and Silva 2011; Bruce 2004). In 1986 the PT won the mayoral position in the city, but was not a majority in the city council. This led it to innovate. It decided to open up part of the city’s budget for popular participation. It held popular assemblies in neighbourhoods across the city where ordinary people got to decide what the city’s development priorities were. By democratising the allocation of part of the city’s budget, civil society was transformed into a robust arena of citizen participation. Neighbourhood associations increased from 240 in 1986 to 600 in 2000 and district-level popular councils increased from 2 to 12. Housing cooperatives jumped from 11 to 71 between 1994 and 2000 (Baiocchi 2005: 42). The participatory budgeting process not only gave civil society a voice to determine the investment of some of the city’s funds, but also created vibrant institutions in civil society (Goldfrank 2003). This is clearly a model of democracy that is different from vanguard democracy in which the Party dominates, or representative democracy in which elected officials make all the decisions.

      Another radical experience in direct democracy is the Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s (CPI[M]) democratic decentralisation campaign in Kerala, India (Williams 2008). While the CPI(M) is a vanguard party in name, in practice it has had to be extremely responsive and accountable to its support base, forcing it to create spaces of mass participation in state governance.⁷ Kerala became famous in the developing world in the 1980s for its achievements in human development, but had not achieved economic growth, which was necessary to maintain its redistributive programmes. In the 1990s the CPI(M)-led state government decided to try an exciting and novel experiment in participatory democracy (Williams 2008). The state devolved forty per cent of its finances to local government institutions that had to engage in local development planning with communities. Communities were involved in the deliberations, the decisions made and the implementation of development plans. A few elements of the decentralisation project are worth highlighting. First, a significant part of the funds were earmarked for local economic development projects, mostly through cooperatives. In this way, the state was marrying direct democracy in the political sphere to the economic sphere. Second, the devolution of power and resources was not about bypassing the state, but rather was about using participatory democracy to strengthen (through becoming more accountable and effective) the representative institutions. Third, this shift to decentralisation was not simply a decision of the state, but was integrally linked to the organisational support of the CPI(M). For example, the CPI(M) helped train thousands of community activists, through thousands of hours of training and four thousand pages of training material. The point is that it requires immense organisational support to coordinate grassroots activists. Finally, the project has been successful in galvanising people to become more involved in the development of their communities.

      It must be noted, however, that these recent experiments in direct democracy work within representative democracy. It was the PT mayoral election victory that provided the opportunity for participatory budgeting, and the CPI(M)’s involvement in representative democracy that created the space for the radical experiment in direct democracy.

      Conclusion

      What the PT in Brazil and the CPI(M) in Kerala teach us is that radical experiments in direct democracy are part of the twenty-first-century Marxist imagination. What is also particularly noteworthy of these two experiments in direct democracy is that they were spearheaded by political parties. The experiences of Brazil and Kerala suggest that Marxist political parties can transform themselves from vanguard parties to parties that champion direct democracy and representative democracy. While I have focused largely on political democracy, any attempt at achieving democratic, egalitarian, ecologically sustainable, anti-capitalist transformation requires economic democracy in conjunction with political democracy. Thus, the same systems of direct and representative democracy from the political sphere must simultaneously extend into the economic sphere where workers own and control the relations of production and make decisions about how production is organised and about the distribution of surplus. Recent events in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Argentina, Bolivia and at the grassroots in South Africa could be described as further examples of such movements in the struggle for political and economic democracy.

      Notes

      1 This is not an exhaustive discussion of democracy in either tradition, but rather provides a rough sketch of the way in which liberals and Marxists have viewed democracy within the Marxist tradition.

      2 While representative, parliamentary and liberal democracy are often used interchangeably to refer to elected governments or parliamentary institutions, I prefer to use representative democracy to explicitly refer to systems of government in which representatives are elected by the citizenry (universal suffrage) and constitutionalism, division of powers, basic universal and civil rights such as freedom of speech (both written and spoken), the right of assembly and artistic freedom are upheld. Representatives can be there in the role of fiduciary (that is, representing general interests and able to make independent decisions in their best judgements) or delegate (that is, representing particular interests and beholden to decisions made by their constituents) (Bobbio 1987: 47–48).

      3 This is not to deny earlier attempts to envision a participatory democratic society. In the 1970s the New Left also pushed the idea of direct democracy, but it did not take root in many of the movements seeking social transformation.

      4 There are, of course, important exceptions to this generalisation. The point I am making is that the dominant tradition within Marxism was vanguard democracy and not direct democracy.

      5 He argued against the political participation of the ‘electoral mass’, because the ‘masses’ were only capable of ‘a stampede’ (Schumpeter [1942] 1975: 283).

      6 The Italian, French and Spanish Communist Parties were the main parties that made up the Eurocommunist movement.

      7 Like the SACP, the CPI(M) has factions vying for power. Since the 1990s the grassroots faction has been able to win enough space to shift the party into radically democratic spaces.

      References

      Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. (1956) 2011. Towards a New Manifesto. London: Verso.

Almond, G. 1954. The Appeals of Communism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Althusser, L. 1970. For Marx. New York: Vintage.

      Althusser, L. 1972. Politics and History. London: New Left Books.

Amin, S. (1985) 1990. Delinking: Towards a Polycentric World. London: Zed Books.

Anderson, P. 1976. Considerations on Western Marxism. London: New Left Books.

Arendt, H. 1951. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Hartcourt Brace and Company.

Arendt, H. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Arrighi, G. and Saul, J.S. 1973. Essays on the Political Economy of Africa. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Bahro, R. 1978. The Alternative in Eastern Europe. Translated by D. Fernbach. London: Verso.

Baiocchi, G. 2003. ‘Participation, activism, and politics: The Porto Alegre experiment’. In Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance, edited by A. Fung and E.O. Wright. London and New York: Verso.

Baiocchi,