FORTUNE (MARCH •76), C 1976 BY TIME INC., TIME & LIFE BLDG.,
Condensed from FORTUNE: DANIEL SELIGMAN Communists in "Democratic" Clothing
Some of the largest communist parties in the industrialized world say they believe in civil liberties, free elections, and a multiparty system. Do they mean it?
SOON Americans may be focusing hard on a question that once would have seemed very peculiar.
Can communists be democrats?
Only a few years ago, the answer would have been: no, obviously not. Today it isn't obvious at all. A number of communist parties in the advanced industrial countries now claim to be democratic. They say that they are committed to a multi-party system in which civil liberties and cultural freedom would be guaranteed. They say that they have no interest in bringing anything like the Soviet version of communism to the West.
Whether they mean what they say is a matter of considerable significance. Communists talking about democracy have serious prospects of entering the governments of Italy and France during the next couple of years, and interesting longer-run prospects in Spain (where the party is now outlawed) and Japan. If even one of these four countries were governed by communists, the political map of the world would surely be transformed in ways that Americans could not ignore. The nature of the transformation is a matter of controversy. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, who is skeptical about the communists' profession of democratic beliefs, has argued that bringing their parties into government would undermine the free world's unity and resolve. On the other hand, those who believe that the "democratic" communists really mean it sometimes argue that their participation in the democratic process would principally threaten Soviet interests. It is a real question whether the regimes of Eastern Europe could survive the spectacle of communists entering a democratic government and later retiring from office after being defeated in a free election.
The desirability of bringing communists into government involves economics as well as politics. In principle, at least, they might turn out to be truly democratic, independent of the Russians, even willing to support NATO and the European Community—and still be a disaster for the West. What would remain of the market system in any country where "democratic" communists came to power? They are generally committed to preserve a mixture of public and private enterprise, and they are certainly not emphasizing plans for any major nationalization of industry. Still, their strident anddemagogic rhetoric about the menace of multi-national corporations does not sound encouraging.
A Gigantic Hoax? It seems reasonable to ask whether communists talking about democracy aren't simply engaged in a gigantic hoax, hoping that the talk will bring them to power but planning to revert to their normal totalitarian practices after achieving it. There is certainly a prima facie case for regarding totalitarianism as the norm. Seventeen countries have gone communist over the years, from the Soviet Union in November 1917, to Laos in December 1975. There is today no political opposition or cultural freedom in any of the 17.
There is another reason to be skeptical. Over the years, communists have been flagrant liars. And their doctrine has long proclaimed that any tactics are morally permissible in the war against the bourgeoisie. Lenin was amazingly explicit about this. He said that the true revolutionaries were those willing "to resort to all sorts of stratagems, artifices, illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges."
But the most compelling reason for skepticism lies elsewhere—in the ambiguous relationship between the democratically oriented communist parties and the Soviet Union. While the party leaders frequently criticize the Russians, and reject their guidance on many issues of common concern, the parties nevertheless insist on their underlying solidarity with the Soviet Union, as members of "the socialist camp." When a professed democrat says he' belongs to a "camp" that condones totalitarians, it is natural to wonder about the depth of his commitment to democracy.
At the same time, it would be foolish to deny the possibility of democratic communism. After Nikita Khrushchev's February 1956 "secret speech," which shattered forever the mystique of Stalinism, the parties outside the Soviet sphere were free to create their own versions of communism. Their ideologies do not appear to represent an insuperable difficulty to the creation of democratic versions. In fact, communists would appear to have some powerful incentives for moving toward democratic positions. It has become fairly obvious in the last few years that the most successful communist parties—those that have attracted the most members and won the most votes—are precisely those that have moved the furthest away from Stalinism.
Wooing the Voters. The Italian party, which was first and most emphatic in proclaiming its commitment to democracy, is also the largest in the West, with 1.7 million members. In regional elections last June, the party won a third of the total vote; in electoral support it is now generally considered the equal of the Christian Democrats, who have ruled Italy all through the postwar years. The communists' secretary-general Enrico Berlinguer was voted the "most trusted" of all Italian politicians in a poll taken last year.
Meanwhile, the communist parties that sound as though they are still selling the Soviet version of communism (e.g., the U.S. and Danish parties) tend to be small and isolated sects. Thus there is a growing incentive for communists to behave like democrats.
To a considerable extent, the Italian communist party is a model for the other "democratic" communists. It has achieved this status, not only because of its electoral triumphs, but also because of a kind of intellectual pre-eminence in the communist world. The Italian communists have signed formal declarations with communist parties in other West European countries committing them to democratic principles. A declaration signed by Berlinguer and Spanish communist leader Santiago Carrillo last July proclaimed:
"Socialism can only arise in our countries through the development and full achievement of democracy. This has at its base the affirmation of the values of personal and collective freedom and the guarantee of the principles of the separation between church and state, of freedom of speech, of the plurality of parties and the open dialogue between them, of the liberty of expression in culture, in art, and in science."
Do the Italian communists mean it? Can one possibly accept the democratic professions of those who voluntarily ally themselves with the rulers of a totalitarian society like the Soviet Union?
"Democratic Centralism." Antonio Giolitti, a former communist who is now a prominent socialist member of the Italian parliament, says that he does not doubt Berlinguer's own sincerity when he talks about democracy. But Leninist patterns of thought are so deeply ingrained in the political behavior of many communists that it would be imprudent to trust them, he fears. "I think of this hypothesis," said Giolitti recently. "The communists form a government. They take power. There is much debate and uncertainty over what they will do. Businessmen begin to send their capital abroad. Other parties demonstrate against the communists and perhaps there is some violence on both sides. What will the communists do in this situation? I am not sure—but I worry that their instinct will be to limit the freedom of others and to do anything that will enable them to avoid surrendering power."
Some critics of the Italian communist party believe that its commitment to democracy is suspect on still another count. The Italian party—and, it would appear, every other communist party in the world—believes in "democratic centralism." In principle, this doctrine permits local cells and sections to discuss all questions confronting the party and to elect delegates to the policy-making conventions. Once policy is set, however, "democratic centralism" requires all members to support it in every detail; there can be no deviations; no factions, no journals expressing dissident ideas. The penalty for factionalism is frequently expulsion from the party.
The Italian communists have often expelled their own dissidents, and there is no doubt that the threat of expulsion works to inhibit free speech within the party. This is all quite different from the tradition of democratic socialist (and, for that matter, conservative) parties, in which the standard assumption is that every member will have the right to maintain his beliefs and to argue them indefinitely. That is why a party governed by the rules of "democratic centralism" doesn't really look democratic to critics like Leopold Labedz, editor of the London-based quarterly Survey. "If they really are converted to democracy," he asks, "why do they need this monolithic party? If they really believe in freedom for ideas, why do they begin by suppressing ideas inside their own party?"
Minimums for Trust. The electoral successes of the Italian communists have had a profound effect on the French communist party, which was much slower to shake off the heritage of Stalinism and is still more rigid and dogmatic in its approach to current issues. But the spectacle of an Italian communist party pushing a democratic line and growing steadily stronger, while the French clung to their Stalinist past and grew weaker, provided a convincing case for an overhaul in France.
It would appear that the decision for change was made some time last fall. In November, party leader Georges Marchais joined with Berlinguer in issuing a declaration of principles that committed both to a vigorous defensé of democracy. The declaration held that "all freedom resulting from the great bourgeois democratic revolutions should be guaranteed and furthered."
But will any communist party ever be credible in talking about its conversion to democracy ? Given the fantastic changes that have already taken place in the world of communism, it seems wrong to rule out the possibility. Some of the parties may ultimately do what has to be done to gain credibility. At a minimum, that means two changes. First, they must unambiguously abandon solidarity with totalitarians. Second, they must stop running their parties by the rules of "democratic centralism."
Those changes would presumably not come easy to the communists, but there is no reason why noncommunists should settle for less. In their present form, the parties would appear to justify the concerns of those who want to keep them out of government. They represent too great a risk. #end
No comments:
Post a Comment