For A New Politics

Rediff has an interview with a dude billed as “the most influential RSS leader in Karnataka” where the guy claims that their recent violent attacks on Christians and their churches will be good for them in the elections!

Later, the interview proceeds:

Q: What expectations does the Sangh Parivar have from the first BJP government in south India?
A: We have only one expectation and that is Hindutva. We want the government to rule as per Hindutva.
Q: Do you think the BJP government is ruling as per your Hindutva agenda?
A: The rule so far has been good. There are no complaints.
Q: You seem confident that the BJP government in Karnataka will dance according to the tune of the Sangh Parivar.
A: I did not say that. All I am saying is that the party should not divert from the issue of Hindutva.

At least the Taliban are armed and dangerous. These guys are legit. This is “Indian democratic politics.”

Note that the core of the RSS idea is VIOLENCE.

While the idea at the core of the Free Markets is:

PEACEFUL, GAINFUL, VOLUNTARY EXCHANGES WITH FRIENDLY STRANGERS.

Note that this is also a MORAL IDEA.

Survival through the use of force and violence is the way of the dacoit, the plunderer, and The State.

And what is The State up to?

Here is Chacha Manmohan saying India faces an “increased security threat.”

He concludes with a boast:

"Just as we understand the economic issues well, similarly we have the ability to fight terrorism."

Scary thought.

The Central Planner As Guerilla Warrior!

Ha ha.

Anyway, with all this RSS bull, I think Karnataka faces a “security threat.” I wonder what the Central Planner and his Central Security Forces and his National Security Advisor can do about it.

Yes, there is something seriously amiss with the contents of our socialist, secular, democratic “politics.”

Many new faces have thus entered the electoral fray this year – but Shekhar Gupta, editor-in-chief of the Indian Express, Padma Shri too, calls them “partyless wonders.” He believes they can accomplish naught. His article thereafter praises the party system and India’s political parties. To quote:

“The essence of parliamentary democracy is the party system. All democracies are built around competing parties, ideologies, mass leaders, manifestos. Imagine a Parliament of 543 individuals, or where even 10 per cent of the members have no party affiliation. Imagine the incoherence, the sheer anarchy.”

Methinks Shekhar Gupta mistakes “politics” for “political organization.” And since something is deeply wrong with the contents of Indian “politics,” something must be even wronger with our “political organizations.”

The interview with the RSS bossman proves it.

However, this is exactly why there is a need for a new politics – a politics of the partyless wonders. All politics is about getting one’s voice heard in the din. There is the din of parliament. And there is the din of the “para-parliament,” the press, tv, blogs etc. This is where all the action of the new politics must focus. Here, those with “political organization” behind them have noticeably failed – look at Advani’s or Laloo’s blogs. Recall that Gandhi was bigger than the Congress organization – and he was an active para-parliamentarian. His Young India reached out to millions.

One thing about these partyless wonders is that they are distinctly pro-market. Gopinath is a pioneering entrepreneur, Sanyal a private banker, and so on. Thus, they have the moral argument on their side. And it is the only secular morality we can have. It can either be voluntary exchange or plunder. And a “political order” cannot be established on violence. It can only be established through peaceful co-operation between all members. Only then is there “order.” This moral argument is the core strength of classical liberalism. As Mises says in Human Action, this moral foundation is the source of Might, basic to politics:

If we hypostatize or anthropomorphize the notion of ideology, we may say that ideologies have might over men. Might is the faculty or power of directing actions. As a rule one says only of a man or of groups of men that they are mighty. Then the definition of might is: might is the power to direct other people’s actions. He who is mighty, owes his might to an ideology. Only ideologies can convey to a man the power to influence other people’s choices and conduct. One can become a leader only if one is supported by an ideology which makes other people tractable and accommodating. Might is thus not a physical and tangible thing, but a moral and spiritual phenomenon. A king’s might rests upon the recognition of the monarchical ideology on the part of his subjects. He who uses his might to run the state, i.e., the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, rules. Rule is the exercise of might in the political body. Rule is always based upon might, i.e., the power to direct other people’s actions.

(From Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, Chapter 9: “The Role of Ideas”, part 3, “Might”, pp. 188. pdf here.)

Thus, it is our Philosophy that gives us Might.

We need to spread the virus, through a “new politics,” of individuals entering the para-parliaments where real people speak.

And may The Force be with you.