In their newly edited book, The New Republic: Populism, Power and Trajectories of Indian Democracy (published by Aakar Books in 2022), Shray Mehta and Ravi Kumar take an innovative approach to exploring contemporary Indian politics under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second mandate by putting together a compilation of nine interviews: seven scholars on India and two politician-activists. Along with their contributors, the authors build a complex analysis of contemporary Indian politics with a large fresco exploring neoliberalism, authoritarianism, populism, ethnonationalism, majoritarianism, Hindutva, caste dynamics and new social movements. The contributors explore current political developments through a Marxist approach, with a focus on historical continuities, micro-phenomena and local dynamics and drawing from a transdisciplinary scholarship. The book is an occasion to encounter various scholars in their quest to answer a pressing question: “What happened to Indian democracy in 2019?”.

This format mirrors in many ways Pradeep Chhibber and Harsh Shah’s recent book: “India Tomorrow: Conversations with the Next-Generation Political Leaders” (2020), by compiling politicians’ interviews. In this book, Mehta and Kumar offer the public an easy-to-read wide range of informal yet complex academic discussions brought to light with little jargon, and historical and analytical depth. Their promise to present conversations beyond the “journalistic attempts”. It is an enjoyable book that caters to both political scientists looking for theoretical and empirical contextualisation, as well as to the general reader interested in contemporary politics. One can particularly appreciate the selection of contributors mainly composed of well-grounded Indian scholars (except Nilsen). Interviews are structured well, whether by theme (economy, nationalism, populism, authoritarianism, minorities) or conceptual and analytical framework, presenting the reader with various schools of thought: Marxist class struggle, Gramscian hegemony, W.E.B. Du Bois’ dignity wage, Althusser’s state apparatus, or Ambedkarism for the 21st Century. Each provides worthy explanations for the conditions and development of authoritarian politics and Hindu majoritarianism under neoliberalism.

The book takes on contemporary “authoritarianism” beyond regime change by approaching the economic, cultural, narrative, social and caste transformations at play. By describing the transformation of India’s political-economic discourse from the “welfare” to neoliberal concepts of “efficiency” (indexes, welfare schemes) and “good governance” (business-friendly), the book articulates sharply the broader themes of global capital, with the end of welfarism, the rise of authoritarian governance, and the submission of democracy and judiciary in the name of development. The critics first explore the contemporary situation as a historical continuity and acceleration of UPA’s autocratic drifts – whose keenness on usurping constitutional frameworks, and exploiting corruption and repression for political gains, while bowing to neoliberal injunctions – have buried “welfarism”, thus, paving the way for Modi’s ethno-nationalist and “development” discourse (10-15).

The book goes on with Achin Vanaik (26-40) questioning the new regime after the 2019 elections, with an epistemological debate on the effect of transnational economic forces, and the nature of hegemony and state-apparatus; populism, sovereignty and nationalism; identity-formations and dilemmas; and competing imaginaries while modernity clashes with religious rebirth. Following the discussion on narratives, Nilsen (41-58) develops W.E.B. Du Bois’ concept to explore “the wages of Hinduness” shaping majoritarian wishes of affective and aspirational forms of dignities relying on minorities suppression, delving into a Gramscian analysis of the end of Congress and the rise of RSS’ hegemony in the face of global capital, and its ideological translations into India’s legislative and institutional framework.

The book continues with Maidul Islam’s chapter (pp. 59-86) on Muslim electoral politics, “Muslim particularism”, questioning “identities” in the face of exclusion, and the obstacles for the marginalised to constitute a unitary movement (or an electoral coalition) to resist growing authoritarianism. Following this, Hilal Ahmad (pp. 87-105) offers a large debate on concept definitions, concept co-optations (by the RSS), discourses and (counter) narrative on “nationalism”, “development”, “secularism” and “Muslims” as a constitutional minority and a vote bank. Subir Sinha (pp. 106-116) returns to hegemony and narratives by addressing strong men and populism, Modi’s constant image transformation through PR, the rise of vigilante politics along with the capture of state power.

For Anand Teltumbde (pp. 117-148), the capture of state power is first explored through the economic aspects resulting from the formation of NITI Aayog, BJP’s fiscal and economic policies, or new reservation demands from powerful caste groups. The famous Ambedkarite then continues by exploring constitutionalism and reservations for Dalits, the division of the Ambedkarite movement after Ambedkar’s death, or instances of co-optation of the movement by Hindu-nationalist forces from Maharashtra to UP. Teltumbde’s argument is continued by the fellow Dalit leader and activist-politician Jignesh Mevani (pp. 149-152), who interrogates the future and the renewal of Dalit politics, from constitutional to land revendications during the Una movement.

Similarly, Nandini Sundar (pp. 157-161) addresses the question of how the Left can revive itself, while the BJP and the RSS have patiently infiltrated state and education institutions, filling in the gaps left by liberalisation. Reviving the Left is also the concern of farmer leader Vijoo Krishnan (pp. 162-175), whose experience of social and farmers’ movements makes him think beyond electoral politics. Thus, especially considering the author Shrey Mehta’s recent article on agrarian populism, it is no surprise to see Krishnan concluding the sets of interviews by drawing it as fertile soil for new narratives of resistance.

Nevertheless, “The New Republic” would have benefitted from adding an extended description and justification of its methodological approach and interview selection process. Moreover, the book’s layout lacks some key information, for instance, interviewees’ names are missing from the page header, interview dates are at the end of each chapter, and contributors’ biography and bibliography is in the annex. The absence of this information for the general (non-academic) public is a pity considering the book’s quality.

To conclude, the book brings political theories on authoritarianism in India to the wider public. Undeniably so, its interview format offers an inherent explorative and exciting theoretical dive with scholars juggling with their thought process, personal theorization, and in-development ideas on economic neo-liberalisation, rising authoritarianism, new hegemonies, narratives, and resistances. Yet, the book is a simple read of complex issues in the current contemporary challenges to Indian democracy. Not only does it add to the growing literature on “authoritarianism” in India but offers insight into what scholars’ thoughts were during Indian democracy’s tipping point. It is a testimony of the times, “an attempt to capture this intellectual moment” (p.12).

***

Victor Alembik is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at the University of Milan.

https://doingsociology.org/2022/11/21/the-new-republic-populism-power-and-trajectories-of-indian-democracy-edited-by-shray-mehta-and-ravi-kumar-2022-a-review-by-victor-alembik/

After renewing left-green populism in 2017 under the political advice of Chantal Mouffe, his left populist strategy continues. Melenchon’s social-green politics and populist strategy takes core in two books he published on these subjects : “The Green Rule: For Eco-Socialism” in 2012 and “The People’s Era” in 2014. His rhetoric presents classic elements of populism shaped under environmentalism, sovereignty, anti-globalism, valence issues, and the people’s embodiment into a political savior against international elites and mainstream parties.

Who is Mélenchon?

Running for the third consecutive time since 2012, French presidential candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, seems like an indefatigable populist leader, a political campaign addict, who from the margins of the radical left managed to revive his falling political career after quitting the very centrist Socialist Party in 2008. In fact, 70 years old Mélenchon is no outsider in French politics- the first Trotskyist-Lambertist in his youth, terrific organizer, head of publication and radio for his organization. He joined the Socialist Party in 1976, and became the youngest elected senator at 34 in rural Essonne in 1986. Slowly carving his way upwards within the Socialist Party, but incapable of winning the party’s direction over the party’s social-liberal wing represented by François Hollande, he left the party in 2008 and created the “Left Party”, making him a political outsider. This move allowed him to “de-professionalise” or “de-class” himself through ideological radicalisation, political marginalization, and rupture with traditional mainstream parties: radical-left outsider with the Left Front in 2012; inspired by Chantal Mouffe he switched to left-populism in 2017 with France Insoumise; and governmental populist left in 2022. In 2017, his strong charisma and rhetorical skills, associated with a clear political program “The Future Together”, helped him surf on the demise of the Socialist Party and reached 19.6% of the votes, an incredible score for a radical left candidate in France. Thus, in this 2022 French Presidential Election, Mélenchon is eyed by all psephologists who wonder if his 2017 performance could be repeated under his (once again) new banner and its populist name: the “Popular Union” supported by the “Parliament of the Popular Union” — a parliament of experts, activists, citizens, and public personalities supporting him. From this introduction, one should differentiate Mélenchon from the too-often-repeated perspective of the populist leader as an “outsider”, but rather a “professional career politician”. Mélenchon’s politics holds on mass performance and public speeches; activism, strike, and actions alongside labor unions; policy expertise and strength of his political program. For this reason, his political posture is complex to grasp due to its populist rhetorical reshaping of extremely precise policies and institutional measures; and due to his capacity to embody multiple postures simultaneously: a populist, an activist, a professor, an expert, and a professional politician. Nevertheless, his politics hold on two main ideological pillars: reinventing the people through the constituent assembly and recreating harmony between humans and nature.

Reinventing the people: the Constituent Assembly as a “populist moment”

Staunch critic of the French Vth Republic, which he qualifies as monarchic, Mélenchon’s main political goal is the reinvention of the “people” through the gathering of a constituent assembly in charge of writing the Constitution of the next French Republic. Mélenchon’s constitutionalism and ideological commitment to the left set him far beyond the minimalist definition of populism based on the tryptic of “the opposition between the people and the elite ; the embodiment of the people in a leader ; the sovereignty of the people” (Mudde). As a radical left leader, he reinterprets basic Marxist theory of the proletariat’s struggle in populist terms: the revolution becoming the messianic victory of the “people” over the elite; the proletarian dictatorship becoming the establishment of true democracy. His constitutionalism describes the necessity for “the people to reconstitute itself” through a “Constituent Assembly” which will allow “each and everyone to attribute itself and others the rights to which they agree to give and take” in order to build a “secular, democratic, social and ecologist Sixth Republic”. To quote Mélenchon’s wonderful alter-ego Michel Vidal in the political series Baron Noir: “Marx said the proletariat will be revolutionary or won’t be ; I say the people will be constituent or it won’t be”. In order to understand that reinvention of marxist theory under populist terms, one must come back to Mélenchon’s obsession with Robespierre and the French Revolution, from which he built his conceptual framework on Michelet’s historical interpretation of 1789 : “The convocation of the Estates General of 1789 is the true era of the birth of the people. It called on the entirety of the People to exercise its rights.”. Here, the populist leader is reinstating the founding principles of the French Revolution through the direct political intervention of the “people”. Therefore, the political emergence of the “people” engages a historical rupture by granting it its own political responsibility of being history’s most sincere actor. The people are not an object of politics anymore, but the very political subject and actors of history. The convocation of a “Constituent Assembly” aims at reconstituting the people through a “populist moment”, with the possibility to solve the salvating battle between the “people” and the corrupt or capitalist elites through the creation of new political institutions made for and by the “people”. For this reason, Mélenchon’s populism reaches far beyond the binary opposition of the “people” and the “elite”, but is composed by strong philosophical conception of democratic institutions, historical and materialist dynamics, and constitutionalist principles which shape and are shaped by the “people”. By engaging the people as the democratic engine of history, he allows for a rhetorical reappropriation of both democracy and history, and thus bring a moral, historic, and political responsibility onto the people, which, despite its oppression, is compelled to resist, fight, and transform society under humanistic and progressivist aspects.

Recreating Harmony between humans and nature

Mélenchon’s democratic vision of reinventing the “people” through a new constitution built under the eco-socialist ideal of the Green Rule: “we cannot take more from nature than it can reconstitute”. His “Meeting on Water”, published on YouTube in November 2021, during the fourth Covid lockdown, presents a great case study of left-green populist rhetoric. He develops his vision of an eco-socialist sovereignty through the opposition of international and national industries to the local savoir-faire of “people” who defend their local ecosystem against the industry’s threat on land erosion, deforestation, water pollution, people’s traditions, local knowledge, and local biodiversity (46:17). In a lyrical populist tone he declares “we know how to fight these issues since forever, don’t come and tell us what to do” (42:47). By equating the people to their environment as a singular body, he frames a united benevolent “humanity” in its quest to retrieve its “nostalgic nature”. Industries’ threats on the environment become equated to a threat on the physical body of the “people”; a threat which requires protective and solidarity responses. He absolves local “people’s” responsibilities in maintaining environmentally unsustainable farming techniques, by enforcing the sole blame on external malevolent agents which impose both harsh labor conditions (social left) and environmental devastation (green politics). The external threat offers the possibility for the “people” to unite under a reactionary and survivalist collective narcissism against future environmental disasters provoked by the environmentally unaffected elites. This collective narcissism against the environmental crisis presents a unique opportunity for collective action, innovation, and knowledge building shaping the “people” as the only transformative force guided by pure ideals and willing to preserve the environment, through its forefront engineers and technicians ready to build the green infrastructures that will benefit the whole (52:25). He thus wishes to create an intergenerational environmental pact for the “people” by appealing again to the “people’s” local and technical knowledge, his direct source of information “the people explained to me, I didn’t know” — which he quickly opposes to the elite’s incapacity to listen to the “people” and understand their local culture. He thus portrays himself as a common man, with common sense, who listens to the “people”, understands their local knowledge, and who builds collective ecological solutions directly with the “people”. Against him, against the “people”, the old parties and their paradigm of economic growth and policy-making which threatens the harmony inside and between nature and the “people” (which are equated), thus threatens their whole and survival.

The re-establishment of harmony with nature requires the re-establishment of democracy under the rule of the “people”. On one side, he describes the amoral conspiracy-prone capitalist elites who “come, steal and never repair” the infrastructures or the environment, which he rephrases under semi-marxist terms: “Capitalism externalize cost — education cost its for the state, environmental cost it’s for the people — they take, they steal and they are responsible for nothing. And you saw during the pandemic how they made money on your back” (58:56). The attribution of blame and guilt requires immediate reparative and executive actions against each of the system’s greedy supporters: the party-system, the liberal economists, the mainstream parties, the industrialists, and the capitalists. Each represents a direct threat on individuals and on the “people’s” life and environment, due to the elite’s never-ending thirst for profit accumulation which leads them to a never-ending conspiracy against “us” (59:29). The elite parties become far more than those “who steal our jouissance” (as Zizek would say) they steal our future, they are unstoppable, incompetent, decadent; lacking technical, local, and environmental knowledge; complicit, immoral, corrupt, and profiteers of elite capitalism and environmental destructions; supportive through their policy-making. Facing the corrupt elites who lead the people to their death, Mélenchon appears as an incredible savior, a messiah who offers a vital choice, the choice of survival by bringing a left-green government in place who can save the environment. An argument he currently uses heavily to convince left voters to join him in the last days before the elections. To conclude, Mélenchon thus creates the imaginary of the “people” as the engine of a history based on environmental transition and preservation, and social harmony, against the immoral anti-environmental money-obsessed capitalist elites. This engine of history is put into action through the ideal of the Green New Deal and the VIth Republic which will rebuild harmony between nature and the people, and in-between people. Will this strategy allow him to pass the first turn of the elections ? Answer on the 10th of April.