by Sarita Pillay
It
is an all too familiar narrative. The gutsy and radical revolutionary
movement which seizes control of the state in a bid to liberate the
people. Or perhaps it’s the more reserved yet equally idealistic
social-democratic party which looks to state-reform as the liberatory
panacea. These are the two revolutionary protagonists. One of them
(it doesn’t matter which) gains control of the state and the people
rejoice. But very soon the masses are overcome by a sense of betrayal
(Badiou, 2006)(Holloway, 2002). The revolution fades into obscurity
and the very system which was opposed is recreated in a similar form.
It is a narrative which could be applied to virtually every state in
the globe. A narrative of failed liberatory politics.
Liberatory
politics can be interpreted as a politics of emancipation, a politics
of self-determination, dignity, participation and equality – for
all. A state can be defined as “an institutional structure charged
with exercising authority within a definable jurisdictional purview”
(Rasmussen, 2001). Max Weber adds the state’s perceived legitimacy
as an authority, along with its monopoly over force, to its
definition (Rasmussen, 2001). This essay will look to argue that it
is necessary for a liberatory politics to be conducted at a distance
from the state, drawing largely from the arguments of Holloway (2002)
and Badiou (2006). Liberatory
politics which looks to utilise the logic of the state or considers
the state as a tool for change when in the right hands – is setting
itself up for liberatory failure and the familiar "betrayal"
of the masses (Holloway, 2002) (Badiou, 2006).
It is necessary then for a liberatory politics to abandon viewing the
state (and state power) as its point of departure, as the focus of
its march towards change.
“Betrayal”:
The flaws of state-focused liberatory politics
Empirical
evidence alone could convince one of the failings of the state-based
attempts at liberation. From radicalism to reformism, the attempts to
capture a state and liberate a people have fallen short, or failed
(Holloway, 2002). In recent decades, it’s the reformist approach
which has characterised attempts at emancipation – from the
social-democratic parties of the so-called West to the liberation
parties of the Global south – gaining control of the state was
viewed as the means to change society (Rodger Gibson, 2011). But a
familiar pattern ensued in these attempts, where “the means of
hierarchy and centralisation quickly came to supplant the ends of a
liberated party free from oppression and exploitation” (Rodger
Gibson, 2011). It would be unfair to call these state-based
liberatory politics unprecedented failures, some liberatory
concessions were made (largely material), but they remained limited
liberations (Rodger Gibson, 2011). South Africa is a perfect case in
point: the ANC framed itself as the liberation party of the country’s
previously subjugated black majority – where liberation was based
on equality, freedom and dignity. Although there have been numerous
liberatory concessions, in the form of access to amenities and
services, many South Africans express dismay at the half-cooked
liberation that they’ve been served. South Africa is one of the
most unequal societies on the earth, and the inequality is still
highly racialised. Freedom remains a limited, and often unrealised,
concept for the country’s poor majority.
In
his assessment of the proletarian party, Badiou (2006: 263)
attributes this familiar failure to the contradictory nature of
liberatory parties, which are “simultaneously free in relation to
the state, and ordained to the exercise of state power”. Despite
promoting an “ideological rupture” from the state, despite being
“free” as evidenced through its theme of revolution - the
social-democratic, communist (or liberation) party is inherently
flawed in its pursuit of emancipation (Badiou, 2006: 263). This is
because the party is organised in a centralised, hierarchical and
disciplined way, obsessed with taking state power – “It bears the
thematic of the new state” (Badiou, 2006:264). This
centralisation sees the emergence of what Badiou (2006: 273) calls,
“the left”, those who position themselves as “the only ones
able to provide ‘social movements’ with ‘political
perspective’”. The liberatory politics becomes a politics of
some.
Is it not hierarchy and differentiation which liberatory politics
looks to oust? Irrespective of whether the state power is won by
reformist or radical means, this fundamental and detrimental tension
remains at the heart of the liberatory party (Badiou, 2006: 264).
“…it [the party]
becomes the site of a fundamental tension between the non-state, even
anti-state, character of politics of emancipation, and the statist
character of the victory and duration of that politics” (Badiou,
2006: 264).
Badiou
(2006) would probably agree with Holloway (2002), who sees the state
as a key component of a system of differentiation, inequality and
ignominy. By framing an emancipatory politics entirely on capturing
the state, its logic of power is accepted and in all likelihood
recreated in an alternative form. Holloway (2002) explicitly extends
this “betrayal” beyond just the liberatory party to any form of
liberatory politics (including the radical revolution) which looks to
gaining state-power as the most important step towards change.
The
core of what Badiou (2006) says can be understood by Holloway’s
(2002) argument against state-focused liberatory politics and its
absorption of the state’s logic of power. Holloway (2002: 12) sees
the state’s inherent conception of power as “power-over”, of
giving some the power over others. Power-over is also a power of
inequality. For the people within the state, the state’s power-over
is their capacity not to do (Holloway, 2002: 13). Liberatory
politics, on the other hand, is arguably driven by the logic of what
Holloway calls (2002) a people’s “power-to”. A state-focused
liberatory politics is confronted by the tension of attempting to
enable a power-to, by utilising a system of power-over. It is
essentially an impossible feat. In a state-based system people are a
passive done-to, in a liberatory ideal, they are active doers. Even
when state-focused liberatory politics claims that seizing the state
is the first step in a two part change (“we’ll seize the state,
then change the system”) the “dynamic acquired in the first phase
is difficult, or impossible, to dismantle in the second phase”
(Holloway in
World Social Forum, 2005). Liberatory politics cannot occur by
accepting (even “temporarily”) the power-logic of a state,
instead it requires a complete rupture with the “power-over”, “a
rupture with the representative form of politics” (Badiou, 2006:
289).
“Power
lies…in the fragmentation of social relations” (Holloway, 2002:
31). Fundamental to this “power-over” characteristic of the
state is the fragmentation of social relations – the processes of
identification and classification (Holloway, 2002: 30). Holloway
(2002: 30-31) sees the state as a cog in a system of “shattering”
social relations. Due to its close ties to concepts of capital, a
material fragmentation of social relations is at the core of the
state (Holloway, 2002: 31). Here, social relations are fragmented by
separating the “done” (product) from the “doing” (worker) and
classified through things (Holloway, 2002: 31). This identity is
pervasive – it dictates conceptions of self and how people relate
to each other. Liberatory politics cannot oppose a capital form of
production, but accept the state, because the state itself is part of
a system of differentiation. Is it not equality that the liberatory
politics strives for?
The
state is exclusionary in its nature, not only does it establish those
who have “power-over” through fragmenting social relations, the
state is also spatially exclusive. As the earlier definition of the
state showed, it is spatially limited. Holloway (2002: 31) argues
that liberatory politics which focuses on gaining state-power tacitly
accepts this spatial exclusivity, and with it the classification of
citizens and non-citizens. Is liberatory politics not about freedom,
equality, dignity, for all? By accepting the state’s logic of
classification, the liberatory project recreates elements of that
which it opposes. By
prioritising the state as the site of liberatory change, the
liberatory movement also inevitably takes on a nationalist character
(Holloway, 2002: 15-16). The obsession with the nation-state as the
centre of social transformation ignores the fact that the "system"
that needs to be overturned extends beyond borders (Holloway, 2002:
15-16). The liberatory politics becomes short-sighted– limited by
the logic of the state’s spatial constraints. What of the “for
all” in liberatory politics?
There
is another short-sightedness that Holloway (2002:14) identifies
within a party-focused liberatory politics: an underestimation of the
network in which the state is embedded. The
state is positioned in a web of social relations, and the way which
work is organised is central to this web (Holloway, 2002: 14-15). The
web is dominated by a capitalist system, where any movement contrary
to this system will see an economic crisis ensue and capital take
flight (Holloway, 2002: 14). State-based liberatory politics is
limited within a capitalist system - which limits the extent of real
change. Bolivia is just the latest of countless examples of this
throughout history. Despite the radical shift in the state’s
politics and ownership of natural gas resources – efforts for
change are restricted by an overarching global capitalist system
(Kaup, 2010). It is still bound to contracts exporting gas, and the
state still relies extensively on the capital and presence of
international energy corporations (Kaup, 2010). State-based
liberatory politics idealistically isolates the state from its social
environment – but is soon constrained by the realities of a greater
state-based capitalist network. Liberatory politics becomes a shadow
of its former self, a politics of concessions, a politics of
betrayal.
In
Holloway’s (2002) view, the conquest of state power by liberatory
politics becomes an obsession with power. The conquest of state power
becomes the driving force of the emancipatory movement, side-lining
(and relegating) other sites of social emancipation (Holloway,
2002:16). Here, liberatory politics becomes hierarchical, any action
and thought other than the conquest of state power is deemed
frivolous (Holloway, 2002:17). This hierarchy of the struggle
extends to a hierarchy of lives, and people (Holloway, 2002:17). This
is a familiar plot, an echo of a system of hierarchy and distinction,
of a politics that was hoped to be escaped, not relived.
“Dignity”
and “Power-to”: A liberatory politics at a distance from the
state
Liberatory
politics is about freedom, equality, dignity, for all. Holloway
(2002) and Badiou (2006) show how by occurring close to the state,
liberatory politics limits its ability to realise its goals.
Liberatory politics falls to a politics of differentiation, of
hierarchy, of inequality, and power-over. If it’s a limited
liberation you seek – focus on the state. If it’s a failed
liberation you seek – focus on the state. That much is clear. But
if it’s a true liberation you seek, what then is the answer? Badiou
(2006) and Holloway (2002) would say what is required is a liberatory
politics conducted at a distance from the state.
Badiou
(2006) proposes that the Paris Commune of 1871 best illustrates a
true type of liberatory politics, breaking with the recurring pattern
of a “parliamentary destiny” (Badiou, 2006: 272). Bakunin (1871)
also admires the liberatory alternative presented by the Commune,
calling it a “bold, clearly formulated negation of the state.”
“This time, this
unique time, destiny was not put back in the hands of incompetent
politicians. This time, this unique time, betrayal is invoked as a
state of things to avoid and not as the simple result of an
unfortunate choice. This time, this unique time, the proposal is to
deal with the situation solely on the basis of the resources of the
proletarian movement.” (Badiou, 2006: 272).
For
Badiou (2006: 287) the Paris Commune did something unique, something
which “the left” and its centralised political logic failed to do
– “it destroyed the political subordination of workers and
people”. The Paris Commune succeeded in the absolutisation of the
political existence of the previously inexistent worker (Badiou,
2006: 288). The Paris Commune did not recreate a system of political
subordination. Instead, the Paris Commune created its own system of
politics - where everyone was equal and involved in political
decision-making, where elected leaders were open to retraction and
social measures were debated and decided (Badiou, 2006). This was a
politics of non-compromise and non-negotiation with the state. This
was a politics of its own terms, of a bottom-up liberatory logic.
Badiou sees this as evidence of the possibility of “another world”
– a changed world: “it exists in the observation that political
rupture is always a combination of subjective capacity, and an
organisation -totally independent of state- of the consequences of
that capacity” (Badiou, 2006: 289). This can be understood as the
“power-to” of the previously inexistent, and an organisation
derived from that capacity – completely independent of the state.
Like
Badiou (2006), Holloway (2002) believes that “power-to” (or
“subjective capacity”) of the previously inexistent can only
occur with liberatory politics at a distance from the state. The
state is not a “thing” to be seized; instead, it is a set of
social relations, a way of doing things which needs to be changed.
For Holloway, liberatory politics is about a movement with an
alternative understanding of “power” – where “power” is
self-determination, power-to, and actively building alternative
social relations (World Social Forum, 2005). This is a liberatory
politics beyond the state-logic, free of fragmented social relations
and a top-down determination by others (World Social Forum, 2005).
Further, this alternative liberatory politics is focused on
“revolution now”, of realising the society we want to create –
not of capturing the state as a means to change society. For Holloway
(1995) dignity is fundamental to the alternative liberatory politics
– enabling “power-to”, self-determination and the defragmenting
of social relations.
“Dignity is to
assert one’s humanity in a society which treats us inhumanely.
Dignity is to assert our wholeness in a society which fragments us.
Dignity is to assert control over one’s life in a society which
denies such control.” (Holloway, 1995)
Holloway
(1995) points to the contemporary Zapatista movement, Ejército
Zapatista de Liberación Nacional
(EZLN),
in southern Mexico as an example of a successful liberatory politics.
The Zapatistas strive for the liberation of the indigenous people of
the Chiapas Highlands (Carlsson, 1995). “The Zapatistas are less
bent on seizing power than they are in breaking down the
authoritarian social relations which have frozen Mexican politics for
so long” (Carlsson, 1995). The
Zapatistas see themselves as armed with “the truth” of their
situation, their country and themselves – Holloway believes that
this “truth is dignity” (Holloway, 1995). Their dignity
undermines the legitimacy of a system of fragmented social relations
(Holloway, 1995). Dignity is an assertion of self, as well as an
assertion of all. It asserts one’s legitimacy, and asserts politics
as a politics of listening, where everyone is equal (Holloway, 1995).
It was mentioned earlier how state-focused politics becomes obsessed
with state-power, trivialising politics which is contrary to this
goal. Dignity, on the other hand, enables the respect of the politics
of all – of the young, the old, the children, women and men
(Holloway, 1995). Dignity is emancipation now. “Dignity is to live
in the present the Not Yet for which we struggle” (Holloway, 1995).
Is this not the essence of liberatory politics? Is this not an
equality and power-to, for all?
It
is through creating their own space, outside of social relations
dictated by the state, that the Zapatista movement is able to create
a breathing liberatory politics. The politics of listening sees the
movement driven by the principle of “mandar obeciendo” (“lead
by obeying”) – of a deliberative collective decision-making
(Holloway, 1995). The movement has distanced itself from state
structures and its associative form of power. All members of the
movement’s Front of National Liberation had to renounce any
aspirations they might have had to hold state office (Holloway,
1995). It is not only a relational and personal liberation that this
movement enabled – it extended to structural and material
liberation. In the 38 provinces in which the movement asserted
control, they set up parallel structures to governance built on
participatory democratic ideals and the rotation of leaders (Rodger
Gibson, 2010). Decisions are made through village assemblies and
efforts are made to avoid heirarchisation at points of decision
making (Rodger Gibson, 2010). The movement has also set up its own
mode of production and exchange, external to capitalism and its
constraints (Rodger Gibson, 2010). There is no one dictating what
liberation is, it is viewed as a continuous process, a project rather
than an end (Rodger Gibson, 2010).
In both of these
alternative forms of liberatory politics a common theme emerges. A
liberatory politics which occurs at a distance from the state has the
opportunity to enable emancipation at its most fundamental levels:
social relations and the person. This is arguably an element of
liberation which state-based liberatory politics, in the logic it
adopts, oftentimes abandons. State-based liberatory politics may make
liberatory concessions, but these are largely material and at the
expense of the core “power-to” at the heart of ideals of
liberation.
“Too
good to be true” – The issues with state-distant liberatory
politics.
Liberatory
politics at a distance from the state appears to be a politics with
the true potential for liberation. Some key questions, however, need
to be directed at the theories put forward by Badiou (2006) and
Holloway (2002). Where, in all of this, does the state’s monopoly
of violence come into play? Is it not idealistic to envision a
liberatory politics outside of the state-logic functioning unhindered
and unchallenged within the state? The Paris Commune fell at the
hands of a rampaging French army, after all. At a debate between John
Holloway and Alex Callinicos at the World Social Forum in 2005, this
very point was made to Holloway by a member of the floor. He/she
pointed out that liberatory politics is always susceptible to state
repression and violence (World Social Forum, 2005). The floor-member
used the example of state-repression directed against the Argentinazo
in Argentina, once the biggest unemployed people’s movement in the
globe (World Social Forum, 2005). A blooming liberatory movement was
stifled by the wrath of state violence. Although liberatory politics
occurring independent of the state is ideal, it takes one bout of
state violence to break. Holloway acknowledged this issue – he sees
the unlikeliness of this liberatory movement defeating the state in
open conflict, and he sees the unattractiveness of the movement
seizing the army and police (recreating a hierarchy of power) (World
Social Forum, 2005). He proposes an armed resistance instead, where
rebellion is integrated into the community (World Social Forum,
2005). Although this serves as a deterrent, it is arguably little use
in the face of a state-facilitated violent onslaught.
There
is another questionable aspect of this type of liberatory politics,
it may be manageable at a highly-localised level, but to what extent
can it spread and still be effective? A bottom-up liberatory politics
is feasible at village, and district-based levels. But when this
politics encompasses a greater area, how are non-heirarchisation,
dignity and power-to equally maintained? Holloway is similarly aware
of the challenge of co-ordinating direct democracy beyond a
local-level (World Social Forum, 2005). He proposes an approach of
self-education and experimentation as a means to finding the way
forward (World Social Forum, 2005). Although this explanation may
satisfy those involved in a liberatory political experiment or those
optimistic about an alternative liberatory politics– it does little
to allay the criticisms of Holloway’s detractors. But it cannot be
simply brushed off – the feasible scope of liberatory politics
beyond the state is untested in contemporary politics.
Finally,
there is an irreconcilable issue at the heart of liberatory politics–
and that is the question of centralisation. Stalin attributed the
failures of the Paris Commune to its lack of centralised organisation
(Badiou, 2006). Badiou (2006) and Holloway (2002) would blame
centralised organisation for the failure of liberatory politics. This
issue is highlighted by Calliniscos: “Combining centralisation with
self-organisation is not easy. But without a degree of centralisation
we will be defeated” (World Social Forum, 2005). The
highly-centralised consolidated state system is a significant hurdle
to the proliferation of decentralised liberatory politics. However,
in adopting a centralised organisation, the very essence of
non-heirarchisation and equality of the liberatory movement is
undermined. Unless it becomes like the state, liberatory politics
will always be limited in its scope. When it becomes like the state,
liberatory politics will always be limited in its realisation. This
is the irreconcilable issue of liberatory politics.
Conclusion:
The necessity of an alternative liberatory politics
If
a participant in liberatory politics were to be offered the following
options: Would you choose a liberatory politics that’s scope and
lifespan is undetermined, but it’s guaranteed to stay true of the
logic of liberation? Or would you choose a liberatory politics that
recreates elements of the system it chose to conquer, but is
pervasive? I believe he/she would choose the former. “Ya Basta!”
is the phrase which drove the beginning of the Zapatista movement,
“Enough is enough!” (Holloway, 2002). The participant in
liberatory politics is tired of the “betrayal”. The Paris Commune
and the Zapatista movement show how liberatory politics at a distance
from the state offers self-determination, equality and dignity – a
politics of and for the people. It is
necessary for liberatory politics to take place at a distance from
the state. It is a necessity in a world where the state-based
liberatory politics has failed. Liberatory politics at a distant from
the state is an experimental politics, a liberatory project. It faces
the possibility of state-repression, it faces the difficulty of
co-ordination at a large scale – but it enables the core of a
liberatory movement: an oppressed people’s power-to. Does it work?
As
Holloway said, “The only way to find out is to do it” (World
Social Forum, 2005).
Bibliography
Badiou,
A., 2006, The Paris Commune: A political declaration on politics in
Polemics,
Verso: London.
Bakunin,
M., 1871, The
Paris Commune and the Idea of the State,
http://libcom.org/library/paris-commune-mikhail-bakunin
, Date Accessed: 6 September 2011.
Carlsson,
C., 1995, The
Faceless Face of the New Mexican Revolution,
Processed World Magazine (33),
http://libcom.org/library/faceless-face-new-mexican-revolution,
Date Accessed: 7 September 2011.
Holloway,
J., 2002, Change
the World Without Taking Power,
Verso: London.
Holloway,
J., 1995, The
concept of power and The Zapatistas,
http://libcom.org/library/concept-power-zapatistas-john-holloway
, Date Accessed: 4 September 2011.
Kaup,
B.Z., 2010, A
Neoliberal Nationalization? : The Constraints on Natural-Gas-Led
Development in Bolivia, Latin
American Perspectives,
37: 123-138.
Rasmussen,
P.R., 2001, “Nations” or “States”:
An attempt at definition,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/172/30341.html
, Date Accessed: 4 September 2011.
Rodgers
Gibson, M., 2010, Anarchism, the state
and the praxis of contemporary antisystemic social movements,
http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-state-praxis-contemporary-antisystemic-social-movements,
Date Accessed: 5 September 2011.
World
Social Forum, 2005, A
debate between John Holloway and Alex Callinicos: Can we change the
world without taking power?, at the
World Social Forum in Porto Alegre,
http://libcom.org/library/debate-between-john-holloway-alex-callinicos-%E2%80%9Ccan-we-change-world-without-taking-power%E2%80%9D-
, Date Accessed: 5 September 2011.
