Humanist
Politics - 3
4. What we mean by Humanist Politics?
1.“ Humanist politics may appear to be something
novel, because while politics has been qualified by a variety of adjectives,
these have never included the term “humanist”. The world has heard of
anarchist, democratic, conservative, revolutionary and liberal politics; there
has been nationalist, imperialist and socialist or communist politics, and it
might be asked what is the need of introducing yet another brand of politics in
this medley of political notions which has already created more than enough
confusion. The need arises from the fact that none of them seem capable to
solve the present crisis and to enable men to be freer and happier. The
necessity of humanist politics was born of the conviction that the crisis of the
modern world can be solved only by emphasizing the human element in public
affairs, or rather by giving the human individual a more prominent place in
political theory and practice. All sorts of forces, elements and factors are
considered as ends and means in politics, but it is often forgotten that there
is no purpose in all this unless it creates the welfare and happiness of men,
and that it is men alone who can bring it about, not impersonal forces and
factors.” (1)
2.“ Humanism as a social philosophy is concerned
with human behavior, with human relations. But a social philosophy, in order to
be convincing, must be integrated in to a complete system of thought, including
a cosmology and other branches of knowledge. This has its relevance to humanist
politics, and before making humanist politics plausible, the philosophical
background of Humanism had to be outlined to show how it leads upto this new
form of humanist politics.” (2)
3.“ The traditional Humanism could not explain how
and why man can be depended upon for behaving rationally and morally, that is,
a responsible citizen of a given society. Consequently, it came to be believed,
even by the best of Democrats, that though sovereignty indeed belongs to the
people, the people, composed as they are of men and women not sufficiently
educated, enlightened and qualified for administering public affairs, must
delegate their power to elected representatives, and hence democratic
government came to be known as representative government. “ (3)
4.“ It is not difficult to see the difference
between a democratic government and a representative government. Democracy has
been defined as government of the people, by the people, for the people. Of
that generally accepted definition, however, two-third has been silently
eliminated and in reality, democracy has come to be nothing more than at best
government for the people. A government of the people and by the people has
never yet existed anywhere in the world. The people do not govern; they simply
delegate their sovereign right to their representatives, and the
representatives govern; that is to say, the representatives meet in parliament,
the parliament forms a government, and both parliaments and governments tend to
become increasingly remote and independent of the theoretically sovereign
people.” (4)
5.“ Education for democracy is hardly found
anywhere. A certain degeneration of education in this sense is inevitable under
the formal parliamentary democratic system. That is in the nature of formal
parliamentary system of party politics. As soon as a party comes to power, it
naturally wants to remain and consolidates itself in power. There is plausible
reason for this: A party comes to power and forces a government with a
programme. Four or five years are not enough to implement that programme.
Therefore, the party must ensure another term in office. In order to guarantee
re-election in the next elections, automatically a party in power takes to the
practice of indoctrination and varying degrees of intellectual regimentation of
the people. Education under the formal parliamentary system is influenced by
parties in power and this is a kind of intellectual regimentation, which may be
almost imperceptible.“ (5)
6.“ The essence of parliamentary democracy is
believed to be the existence of opposition parties…………………………………….. In order to
come to power, the opposition party must be able to sway the majority of voters
away from the party at present in power……………………….. …………….Therefore, an
opposition party, which wants to succeed in the given atmosphere, has to appeal
to the same backwardness, the same ignorance, the same prejudices and blind
religious faith of the people as does the party in power. Thus, even the
opposition party will be no guarantee for democracy, indeed it is more likely
to reinforce and galvanize the very conditions which a truly democratic practice should tend to remove.” (6)
7.“ Humanists do not confine their concern with the
life of society to the small sector of human existence which is conventionally
called politics. But by their new approach, they indicate a way out of the
present crisis of politics and its problem.” (7)
8. “Until now political thinking has placed all
emphasis on the interests of the State. For the interest of the State
everything is justified. The constitution of a democratic State includes an
imposing catalogue of civil rights, but they all include also one clause which
entitles the executive to suspend the entire Constitution – if necessary, in
the interest of the State. That is to say, for the interest of the State, the
freedom of the constituent units of the State can be completely abolished.” (8)
9. “No freedom, no welfare, no progress or
prosperity can be actually experienced except by individuals. The concept of
national prosperity and greatness, of social progress, - which ignores that all
these blessings of a nation or society can be measured only by the progress,
prosperity, welfare and freedom of its individual constituents, - is a fraud and a delusion.
We are dealing with relations in which emphasis has
always been laid on one of the related things only: man has always been
relegated to the subsidiary position. In the relation between the State and the
individual, between man and society, everything else was always more important
than man. So also, when we think in terms of freedom and organization, we
remember that we must be free to organize and that organizations must be free
to do this or that, but we are apt to forget that organization has no sense and
purpose except to increase our freedom.” (9)
10. “Education for democracy does not consist in
teaching just reading and writing, but in making the people conscious of their
humanness, to make them conscious of their right to exist as human beings, in
decency and dignity. Education means to help them to think, to apply their
reason. That is to say, the new humanist political practice must begin as a
cultural movement. It must get out of the struggle for power of the political
parties. Even a humanist political party, to have to come to power would have
to join the scramble, would have to play the game according to its rules;
otherwise it would stand no chance at all. And if it refuses to play the game,
it is not a political party in the proper definition of the term.” (10)
11. “ Needless to say, a democracy cannot be
educated from today to tomorrow. But a beginning can be made here and now. For
example, if in the next elections there would be only two hundred people
throughout the country ready to practise
humanist politics, they could begin work in a dozen constituencies and there
begin the task of awakening the urge for freedom in the individuals and raise
the intellectual and cultural level of the people. These are after all not just
high- sounding phrase; they express themselves concretely in a change of
outlook and of their backward habits.” (11)
12. “ The scramble for power creates a vicious
circle. Maintaining that State power is now indispensable for social change,
humanist politics attacks the problem from the root, which is man. It states
that man is the basic unit of society. Therefore, a free society can have no
meaning except in the form of freedom of the individual human beings. In order
to achieve greater freedom, the conscious urge for freedom, the desire for a
democratic society, for a democratic way of life, must be awakened in a growing
number of individuals. Because any democratic change in society can be brought
about only by the basic individual constituents of society and unless these
have the conscious desire to bring about that change, it cannot be brought
about.” (12)
13. “ It might be argued by enthusiasts of social
change that that will take a very long time. That is not necessarily so. But
assuming that it will take a very long time, is there any alternative? And it
would have to be such an alternative as would bring about the kind of social
change that we want to bring about, namely greater freedom for the individual
constituents of society. Of course, those who still have faith in the
dictatorial alternatives will not see the force of this argument. But those who
have lost the faith that freedom can be attained by means of an even temporary denial of freedom, those
who are alarmed by the signs of growing regimentation and eclipse of the
individual everywhere, they have no other alternative. Humanist politics is the
only way before them.” (13)
References:
1.
P. 114:
Politics Power and Parties,
M.N. Roy;
1981,
Ajanta Publications(India), Jawahar
Nagar, Delhi - 110007.
2. P. 115: ibid.
3. P. 116: Ibid.
4. P. 116: Ibid.
5. P. 118: ibid
6. Pp.
124 -125: ibid.
7. P.119: ibid.
8. P.120: ibid.
9. P.121: ibid.
10. P.125: ibid.
11. P.122: ibid.
12. P.122: ibid.
13. P.122: ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment