It is often said that society is no longer in its own hands but has come under the control of the state. This assertion is not untrue. The state is indeed dominant, wielding power, force, and authority through its laws and judiciary. It can manipulate reality, turning day into night and vice versa. However, is it truly possible in today's world to separate society from the state? The answer is no.
During the British era, there was an attempt to distinguish the two. Intellectuals of that time taught us that while states might rise and fall, society would remain a continuous entity. States could be foreign, but society belonged to the people. Yet, when society comes under the state's control, compelled to yield, what happens? And what of the state's ideology, imposed on society? Viewing the state as an adversary is not incorrect, but the responsibility of transforming it rests with society—more specifically, with its progressive individuals.
The challenge lies in finding such progressive individuals today. Capitalism recognises them as potential adversaries and seeks to suppress them, using two main tools: fear and temptation. The state threatens punishment, which it readily enforces, while also offering rewards to those it seeks to subdue. Consequently, many of these individuals succumb, swayed by fear or greed.
The resources the state uses to instil fear or offer rewards are not self-generated. The state lacks the ability to produce wealth and instead relies on plunder—funds derived from the labour and sweat of the people. This wealth, taken from the public, is used not only to suppress the people but also to stifle the voices advocating for their rights. Such practices occurred in the past and continue today, albeit with greater intensity and cruelty.
In his Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln defined democracy memorably as "government of the people, by the people, for the people" and declared it would never perish from the earth. At the time, he did not distinguish between the state and government. However, today it is often argued that the two are separate, though in practice they frequently merge, with governments often treating the state as personal property.
To establish democracy, it is imperative to make the state subordinate to the people, as the state is more powerful and enduring than governments. Democratising the state is essential, as a democratic state would compel governments to be democratic as well. Yet, under capitalism, is this democratisation of the state achievable? No, it is not. The very foundation of democracy—equality of rights and opportunities—is incompatible with capitalism, which thrives on increasing inequality.
Even in Lincoln’s own country, true democracy was never fully realised. The undemocratic violence in the United States now surpasses that of many other nations. For instance, on Independence Day in Chicago a few years ago, a gunman killed 16 people and injured 24 others during a parade. Moreover, just two years after delivering his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln himself fell victim to an assassin.
Nearly 160 years have passed since Lincoln’s death, and the bipartisan "democratic" system in the United States now faces existential threats. A peaceful transfer of power in the future is uncertain, with surveys showing that 93% of young Americans believe their country lacks a healthy democracy. Lincoln, an intelligent and optimistic leader, could not have foreseen how capitalism would evolve in his nation, transforming it into an imperialist force surpassing even colonial Britain. It was only a matter of time and opportunity.
During World War II, Japan was far from less brutal, yet within its borders, it was known for peace, unlike the United States. Strict gun laws in Japan mean political violence is unheard of, and shootings are rare. Despite this, a former Japanese Prime Minister, who served two terms totalling nine years, was assassinated during an election rally by a disgruntled assailant. Meanwhile, Denmark, famed for its peaceful welfare state, witnessed a rare shooting in a Copenhagen mall, leaving three dead and several injured.
Myanmar has endured military brutality that once had strong communist movements. Today, the Rohingyas are evidence of military oppression, and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, who once silently supported this oppression, now faces the same military's wrath. Protesters are routinely killed, with four prominent democracy activists executed despite global outcry, driven by capitalist interests in Myanmar’s resources.
Turning to China, the country shows signs of moving away from communism, as wealth disparity grows, and corruption scandals, such as the arrest of a former justice minister, emerge.
In West Bengal, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, a staunch anti-communist, lives modestly but faces corruption scandals involving her party. A senior leader, Partha Chatterjee, was caught with cash, foreign currency, and assets worth billions, allegedly amassed through corrupt recruitment practices. Partha claims the funds were managed with the party's knowledge, exposing the underbelly of political corruption.
West Bengal’s voters once trusted the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which ruled for 34 years but gradually deviated from its communist roots. Disillusioned opportunists from the party found shelter in Mamata's Trinamool Congress, which has been tainted by power struggles, financial corruption, and refusal to provide Bangladesh with its rightful share of water, highlighting the complexities of regional politics.
The writer is an Emeritus Professor, University of Dhaka
BDST: 1214 HRS, NOV 19, 2024
MN
