Radical democracy: why is it still relevant today? Premium

The Hindu explains the concept of radical democracy as theorised by freedom fighter M. N. Roy

Periods of crisis, social, political or economic, call attention to the necessity for a radical reorganisation of society; all rational and progressive individuals are cognisant of this urge. This was the case with 19th century liberal democracy, which had degenerated into exploitation under capitalism, forcing those with a sense of dignity and justice to seek out a better alternative to a social order that was building itself atop the dictum “every man for himself, and devil take the hindmost’‘. In time, a large part of these radicals and revolutionaries came under the influence of new collectivist doctrines, which offered a transitional dictatorship and centralised economic planning as a remedy to solve the defects of liberal democracy and capitalist exploitation across the world.

The initial enthusiasm of that age of revolution came to a close when the “spectre of communism’‘ that had once threatened capitalist hegemony had itself degenerated into a dictatorship; what was stipulated to be a transitional phase had come to be the norm. The concurrent rise of 20th century fascism led to the development of a political situation where there were outright dictatorships on one end and the mere panacea of democratic formalities on the other. The world lurched toward the dangerous realm of global conflict as a result of these developments.

With millions dead and the world in a state of chaos, many who had been champions of solving humanity’s problems saw dictatorship as no solution at all. Those who had fought apathetic spiritual dogmas, exploitative capitalists, and absolutist imperialism had done so with the intent to see human beings free to choose their own destiny, and not become vassals to a new form of tyranny. However, the question of reconciling the aspirations of freedom and democracy, and the desire for social and economic justice, continued to remain a quandary as before.

During this period of social crisis, one that continues to this day, the Indian freedom fighter and humanist philosopher Manabendra Nath Roy, and many of his colleagues, which included critical Marxists as well as thoughtful nationalists, developed a theory which they felt offered a solution that reconciled the aspirations of freedom with the desire for justice.

Before a contour of a radical democratic political economy can be laid out, a scientifically consistent philosophical outlook must be iterated. To this end, Roy and his colleagues developed the philosophy of new humanism. Humanism, they argued, was as ancient as human beings, and could only be enriched by the new discoveries in scientific thought. A humanism enriched by these new developments in the understanding of the natural world would be best described as ‘scientific’ or ‘new’ humanism.

However, the reaction felt by the bewildered bulk of modern humanity in the aftermath of the discoveries of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century led many to believe that only two ways existed out of the intellectual chaos and moral confusion of that age. The first was the lure of a security offered by a totalitarian State which would regiment the lives of the masses through the control of its social, economic, and cultural existence; the second way was a recrudescence of modern society into the dark embrace of old world theology. In some cases, both notions were fused to create an even more horrifying Frankenstein’s monster.

These routes are likely to ensure that civilised humanity is defeated, and would mean a relapse into a sort of modern-day savagery. It would be a negation of the intellectual revolt that brought forth the development of modern science, which represented a great advance in humanity’s ancient quest for freedom from the vagaries of nature.