Left is never right – Introduction

In the opinion of the house, the Left is never right

Introduction

This week we launch into round three of OIS’ online rendition of the Great Indian Debate. This round will debate the motion: in the opinion of the house, the Left is never right. Proposing the motion is Saattvic – a graduate student of Economics who is particularly unafraid of speaking his mind. Opposing the motion is Maidul, a research student of Politics and a self-avowed leftwing political activist. With what we hope is a natural ideological alignment of speakers and the two stances in the debate, we are set for a very exciting war of words.

Saattvic is reading for an MPhil in Economics at Merton College.

Maidul Islam is a Clarendon-Hector Pilling Scholar (2007-10) and a Doctoral candidate in Politics at Brasenose College.

Moderator: Anisha Sharma, reading for MSc. in Economics for Development at Keble College.

Date: April 7, 2009

Left is never right – Proponent’s view

Proponent’s view

As the proponent, let me first clearly set out the key terms and the scope of this debate. By ‘Left’, I mean the group of political parties in India that are popularly classed as subscribing to a communist ideology, the most important (in terms of the number of seats held in the previous election) of which are the CPI(M) and the CPI. Also, I interpret ‘right’ in the moral/ethical sense of ‘right or wrong’. Moreover, as this debate is to be held in the context of the current Lok Sabha elections, and due to lack of writing space, I restrict the scope of the debate to the economic policies that the Left parties propose to enact if voted into power. I must also note at the very beginning the word ‘never’ in the motion. It is impossible to propose the motion with this, as it is too extreme. I don’t contest that in certain circumstances and on certain issues, the Left may have got it right; rather I believe that the sum total of their policies will do more harm than good. I will thus try to prove the Left, with regards to its desired economic policy, is generally not right. In doing so, I shall focus on increased state intervention, inflation control and industrial policy.

Left is never right – Opponent’s reply

Opponent’s reply

The basic argument against the Left about public expenditure and state intervention provided by the proponent is based on an old debate dating back at least to the days of John Maynard Keynes and not always associated with ‘Marxist ideology’. It is indeed intriguing to only call the Left as the proponent of state intervention although I would argue that this policy of state intervention is correct. Thus the Left is right in terms of taking right issues, agendas, policies (here ‘right’ is meant as ‘correct’ and ‘ethical’). When the neoliberal economics is currently being discredited in the western advanced capitalist countries with a call for state intervention in the midst of global economic recession, the Keynesian economics that actually saved capitalism from its own crisis has been forgotten by the proponent. The entire argument against rising fiscal deficit hinges on the fundamental premise that it will raise the rate of interest and hence will adversely affect investment. Keynes had pointed out long ago that this assumes full-employment of labour and resources. However, in a country like India, anybody who assumes the above premise is surely wrong, since in India, we have large scale unemployment. On the other hand, in a situation of unemployment and unutilized capacity, if the fiscal deficit is actually increased, then it generates a higher level of income via the multiplier effect and generates an equal amount of savings and result into further investment. In other words, the argument against fiscal deficit in times of unemployment is incorrect.

Left is never right – proponent’s rebuttal

Proponent’s rebuttal

I thank my opponent for his response. Sadly, though, the opponent has wasted a lot of time and energy arguing against positions that I never took in my opening view.

The opponent, in the first paragraph the opponent implies that I have a problem with the concept of state intervention. Please read my opening view. I never suggested anything of the sort. As an economist, I know full well that a certain level of state intervention is required, especially when dealing with public goods. I am also well versed in Keynesian macroeconomics. My problem is with INCREASED state intervention with no means to finance it. My problem is with state intervention in areas where it is inefficient, like price regulation and expansion of the public sector into areas which can be handled quite well by the private sector.

Left is never right – The opponent’s rebuttal

The opponent’s reply to the rebuttal

The proponent, although denies vehemently that he is a believer in the efficiency of free market capitalism, a concept which has got completely discredited even in advanced capitalist countries, his entire thinking is enmeshed in the logic of free market capitalism. Let me explain by giving examples from his points under quotes.

The proponent argues that “the RBI uses a thumb rule even today that the rate of growth of money supply in the long run equals the rate of inflation”- This is another example of a rigid belief in the free market capitalism as argued by the monetarists under the leadership of Milton Friedman. There are ‘n’ numbers of theories which show that this belief in rate of money supply being equal to the rate of inflation is wrong. (See Kaldor’s Scourge of Monetarism). You are talking about empirics. Let me then also give you some empirical anecdotes. There had been a tremendous increase in the inflation rate all over the world in the recent period including India. Was it because of an increase in money supply world over? NO.  In India, did the Government increase the money supply to cause the inflation? No. Now, there is a peculiar situation. The Government is increasing money supply through decreasing the interest rate, bank rates, repo rates, CRR etc. But inflation has come down to 0.26%. This easy monetary policy was again done to revive the economy during recession. Has the situation improved? No. The industrial growth rate in the month of February is again negative. This tells us that the idea of using an easy monetary policy to counter inflation and any other problem in the economy is wrong. Only committed neoliberal ideologues believe in such theories.

Left is never right – Moderator’s closing remarks

We’ve finally reached the end of a hard-fought and extremely engaging debate between Saattvic and Maidul on the motion: the Left is never right. In proposing this rather provocative motion, Saattvic elects to argue that the economic policies that would be introduced by a Left-run government will “do more harm than good”. Essentially, the debate boils down to the discussion of the following questions: a) is increased state intervention desirable, and b) if desirable then how is it to be financed?

Centre right ideology – Introduction

This house believes that India does not have a party with a responsible centre-right ideology

Introduction

Democracy in India is a creative experiment in political modernity. The polity gets shaped through the battles over conservation, or, opposition and transformation of the innate conservatism of the society. However, it is important to note that almost all the political parties in India adopt or have adopted a conservative position on one or the other social issue, e.g. conditions of dalits, tribals, women, religious and sexual minorities, personal and civil liberties, freedom of speech and association, etc – leave alone the question of redistribution. There is always an inherent tension in the ideological positions, the Constitutional provisions, and the actual use of the state authority and policy formulation. So, how does one differentiate one Indian political ideology from another?

Centre right ideology – Proponent’s view

Proponent’s view

As India goes to the polls and the political landscape looks more fractured and ragged than it has ever been it is quite appropriate to question the ideologies which underlie the exercise of the greatest democratic process known to humanity.

Mark Twain wrote of India: “India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of history, the grandmother of legend, and the great grandmother of tradition.” Today, this nation is the seat of the world’s greatest democracy – a vibrant, thriving representation of the will of the people. So vibrant and so thriving, that it defies the constant acts of generalisation that the West has indulged in for centuries. So vibrant and so thriving, that it has necessitated those very generalisations for the West to understand us. To see our country through those eyes is to be unjust, and to ignore the contradictions it is founded upon, and which make it rich in a unique way.

Centre right ideology – Opponent’s reply

Opponent’s reply

The debate was set up to ascertain whether any responsible centre-right political parties exist in India’s current political scenario. Omkar’s post has significantly changed the terms. For in his persuasive, enjoyable albeit ultimately unconvincing initial post, he relegates this question to secondary status, arguing primarily on the normative question regarding the redundancy of western political terminologies to understand the Indian electoral scenario. Insofar as the descriptive question of the ideology of political parties themselves is concerned, Omkar vacillates between deeming multiple parties as proponents of centre right ideologies and admitting that perhaps not the BJP, but the NDA as a coalition bloc can solely be considered centre-right. As a responsible opposition, I’ll argue this debate in terms of the two questions- normative and descriptive- albeit with a hint of regret of what might have been.

Centre right ideology – Proponent’s rebuttal

Proponent’s rebuttal

Arghya’s recognises that I divided my argument into two halves, the normative and the descriptive, and he does well to recognise them as such. Having said that, though, he fails to understand them or appreciate them for what they are. So let me reiterate.

I started off with a broad consideration of whether the term “centre-right ideology” (noteideology – I will come to this emphasis in a moment) was fitting and apt to describe an Indian party, or inappropriate. I was well within my grounds as the proponent to do so. When Arghya accuses me of shifting the terms of the debate, he must first concede that as the proponent, these terms were for me to define in the first place. It was my job to set up the debate and outline the grounds I would contest it on. He may not like them, but there they are. But that is a technical issue competitive debaters love to engage with – it draws attention away from substantive shortcomings.