Saturday, July 06, 2024

Nothing but revolution can change Azerbaijan for the better: Interview with the Azerbaijani left


Murad Gattal
Ahmed Rahmanov
Togrul Veliyev
Ahmed Mammadli
25 June, 2024


First published at September.

In February 2024, Ilham Aliyev won the early presidential election in Azerbaijan with 92.12% of the votes, having been elected to the Presidency for the fifth consecutive time. With parliamentary and municipal elections scheduled later this year, there is little doubt that the victory of the ruling party and pro-government independent candidates will be equally decisive.

The authoritarian regime, which has been established in Azerbaijan and which reached its apogee after the victory in the Second Karabakh War, hardly leaves any room for the emergence of a political alternative. It is getting increasingly difficult to voice criticism: there are practically no independent radio and TV channels, newspapers, and magazines left, and all opposition press has moved online. Moreover, not only have an alarming number of journalists employed at independent internet media been detained since November 2023 but also the World Press Freedom Index, which was recently published by Reporters Without Borders, ranked Azerbaijan as 164th out of 180 states and territories, thus marking its drop by 13 positions in comparison to the previous year. Azerbaijan also consistently ranks low in international rankings that evaluate countries based on such factors as human freedom (126th), perceived corruption (154th), and LGBT equality (134th). Moreover, Azerbaijan scored 0 out of 40 possible points in the 2024 Freedom House report about the state of political freedoms in the country. As the number of political prisoners rose to 288 people in March, Azerbaijan faced the threat of being withdrawn from the Council of Europe due to suppression of freedom and human rights violations in the country. Nevertheless, Azerbaijan ranks relatively high in the economic freedoms index (having been ranked as 70 out of 184). Moreover, Azerbaijan was ranked 34th in the ease of doing business, according to the 2020 report by Doing Business.

We talked to trade union activist Ahmed Rahmanov, economist Togrul Veliyev, and ex-chairman of the Democracy 1918 movement Ahmed Mammadli about the current state of freedoms in Azerbaijan, participation of the left in public politics, opportunities to advocate for the rights of the oppressed, as well as prospects of the left movement in the country.

What is currently going on with Azerbaijani society and what role does the left play in it?

Togrul Veliyev: Back in 2019, several telling signs made us think that Azerbaijan was undergoing liberalization. First, several independent candidates won the municipal elections and some of them were even elected as heads of municipalities. Moreover, whenever participants in unauthorized protests were detained, they were released after a few hours rather than jailed. In general, the election campaign for the 2020 parliamentary election allowed for many things that were usually regarded as nearly impossible, including meeting with voters, rallies, and marches. Nothing like this is possible today. The authorities have even decided to alter the municipal legislation in order to prevent the opposition’s elected members from having any political influence. In addition to the pressure exerted by the state, another problem is that no one in the so-called ‘public sector’ has ever sought community support. That is, for instance, no one has ever attempted to rely on funding through donations instead of grants. All Azerbaijani political movements, both on the left and elsewhere, boil down to discussions at coffee shops and are, therefore, completely out of touch with the masses. Their members are educated people who enjoy arguing about Che Guevara or Stalin but have no idea about what interests the majority of people. Essentially, the ‘public sector’ forms its own clique. They shy away from the masses: instead of providing people with explanations as to why their political vision deserves support, they dismiss people with a “that is the way it should be'' response. Naturally, when the political movements faced pressure – as, for example, in the case when the authorities shut down two hundred organizations at once – the public remained indifferent.

Ahmed Rahmanov: Azerbaijani society is actually so small that one could say that everyone is related to each other. Invariably, kinship ties prevail over common sense. As a result, it is impossible to take people to the streets, even if it is for the sake of standing up for their rights or striking. One example of this would be my attempt to organize a protest for the rights of people with disabilities in front of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population. No sooner had we gathered than the police began calling relatives of the protesters and threatening them in an attempt to make them encourage the protesters to leave. And it works. It's the same with the left. We have, for instance, small organizations that translate and publish left-wing literature. However, this is not enough to construct the left movement as a political actor. In addition, many people are simply afraid to participate in public protests: although the police turn a blind eye to nationalist or pan-Turkish rallies, taking to the streets with a red flag is a sure way to get detained. Even Russia allows holding single-person pickets, but when I held such pickets here, I immediately ended up at the police station.

Ahmed Mammadli: The social and political activity of our members regularly led us to detention and arrest. The authorities did everything in their power to make it impossible for us to hold events and sustain our organization. Eventually, in September 2023 we dissolved it. However, one must not consider this self-dissolution as an act of waiving a “white flag,” so to speak. Instead, it was a demarche designed to demonstrate the country’s lack of opportunities for political activity. We knew that repressions were going to increase, and it was only natural that the authorities began to attack independent journalists. Today the regime is becoming increasingly oppressive, and I know that, had we not dissolved our organization in early September 2023, we would have issued a statement against the special operation in Karabakh, which would have certainly led to my imprisonment. Nevertheless, our activists continue their public activities, especially those aimed at the protection and support of our comrades and trade unionists who are currently under investigation or imprisoned.

Are there any leftist parties and movements in Azerbaijan?

Left-wing ideas and movements have a long history in Azerbaijan. The leftist tradition can be traced back to the foundation of the social-democratic organization “Hummet” in 1905, which became the starting point both for the founder of the Azerbaijan Communist Party and for the first leader of the Müsavat Party. On April 28, 1920, the former took over from the latter and proclaimed the establishment of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, which began the Soviet period in the history of the country. However, even “Müsavat” (full name - “Muslim Democratic Equality Party”), which dominated the government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (1918-1920), was initially a left-nationalist party, although it subsequently drifted to the right due to its opposition to the Soviet power as well as thanks to its coalition with Azerbaijani right-wing parties. Its political programme declared the right to an eight-hour working day, the redistribution of land to the peasants, free education, and civil liberties.

A.R.: Is there a left-wing movement in Azerbaijan today? Unlike more developed countries—that is, socially rather than economically developed—all political parties in Azerbaijan, regardless of what they claim, are guilty of dividing society instead of uniting it. They do not differ from each other in anything but name. For example, during elections, their statements boil down to the idea that it is enough to replace people in power to transform society for the better. But they don’t explain what a ‘better’ society ought to look like. Not such a long time ago there were three unofficial communist parties in Azerbaijan, all of which went by the same name. I was a member of the one headed by Telman Nurullayev, once as a Komsomol and party official. Since the mid-1990s, these parties have achieved nothing and had no intentions of doing anything worthwhile. May Day demonstrations are pretty telling about the strength of the left movement. Personal ambitions of the leaders of these parties prevented the Azerbaijani left from uniting even on that day. Each party organized its own separate rally in different parts of the city and at different times. As a result, these ambitions prevented the parties espousing the same ideology to act collectively, which only alienated potential supporters. Recently, my comrades and I have created a Marxist society that got some attention from young people who reached out to us. However, it is not only reading the classics that they want. They are waiting for action, and it is something we cannot offer.

A.M.: Our Democracy 1918 movement was founded in 2013 as a centre-right movement, but with the coming of a new team in 2021 it adopted more left-wing positions. Social liberalism and democratic socialism became an integral part of our platform. It so happened that in Azerbaijan many opposition organizations have no ideology. Instead, they try to attract people of all political persuasions and all walks of life. That is, they attempt to be what one calls a “big tent,” uniting all those who are dissatisfied with the current regime. In the aftermath of the Azerbaijani independence, left-wing ideas, which were associated with the Soviet past and the Russian occupation, were unpopular. However, today more and more young people are interested in the concept of social justice. Among those who approached us were even those who had never been involved in politics before. We sought support from two traditional categories of left-wing sympathisers—the working class and the intelligentsia, including students, artists, and people of liberal professions.

T.V.: Around 60 per cent of public activists consider themselves left-wing. Of course, it must be noted that this is a rather wide category, including both Stalinists and left-wing liberals. Moreover, many of them have a shallow and simplistic understanding of ideologies. I was an activist as far back as my student years but only became involved in politics in 2015 when I joined the ReAl party.

[ReAl (“Republican Alternative Party”) is a political party in Azerbaijan that was established in 2009 as a political movement and transformed into a party in 2014. It was founded in the aftermath of a referendum that amended the constitutional law concerning the number of terms, for which a person can be re-elected as president.“ The founders of the party saw this as the destruction of the republic and set out to restore it. The party’s leader Ilgar Mammadov, who wanted to run in the 2013 presidential elections but was sentenced to seven years in prison for organizing mass riots, was released in 2018 and acquitted by the Supreme Court in 2020. That same year the ReAl Party was officially registered as a political party, and its representative Erkin Gadirlu was elected to the Parliament. Since then, the party hardly does anything in opposition to the current regime.]

It was a centrist party back then, but it was open to people with different political views. There were many leftists in it. Being a member of the party allowed me to participate in political life and develop my ideas and projects. Among other things, I served as an election observer, collected signatures, and prepared documents concerning social issues. One of the most important things that I did was to introduce into the party’s programme a demand to lower the retirement age. In 2019, however, the party leadership adopted pro-government positions. As a result, I felt obliged to leave the party. In the same year, Bayram Mammadov was released from prison by an official pardon. Some left-wing activists, including myself, began to gather around him. We considered ourselves Marxists. At that time, the left movement was scattered, and people worked in various small media and public organizations. There were about 10-15 people in our group.

[Qiyas Ibrahimov and Bayram Mammadov, known as “prisoners of the monument,” were left-wing students. In 2016, they graffitied anti-government slogans on a monument to Heydar Aliyev, the former President and father of President Ilham Aliyev. They were arrested for drug possession and imprisoned for 10 years. They were pardoned in March 2019. Bayram was found dead in Istanbul on the 4th of May, 2021. Qiyas continues to be politically active.]

We decided to participate in the parliamentary elections, which was possible due to the relative liberalization of the regime. Eventually, we put our efforts into one constituency, where I was nominated as a candidate. Our election campaign was very dynamic—perhaps the most dynamic in the country. At the peak of the campaign, our team consisted of 70 people. This could potentially transform into a full-fledged political movement. Our goal was not to win but rather to campaign and attract supporters. Nevertheless, our defeat, especially given that we demonstrated good results, left our activists disappointed. When in 2020 the pandemic led to the imposition of quarantine, it became impossible not just to hold public and personal meetings but to continue any kind of activism at all. As a result, many people lost interest and returned to their everyday lives. The final split that divided the left occurred over the issue of a military solution to the Karabakh conflict. Many activists supported the war: some voluntarily went to the front, and some even adopted nationalist positions.

What is the current state of the trade union movement?

This year marks the 120th anniversary of the trade union movement in Azerbaijan as well as its first and one of the most important victories—namely, the conclusion of a collective agreement between oil producers and field workers in 1904. This document, which went under the name of the “Mazut Constitution,” was the first collective agreement in the Russian Empire. Currently, Azerbaijan has relatively liberal legislation on trade unions and strikes, but in reality, it has no power. The Confederation of Independent Trade Unions, which unites nearly 30 industry unions, is independent in name only. In essence, however, just like in Soviet times, it is a bureaucratic organization closely cooperating with the administration of enterprises. Strikes happen mostly spontaneously, without any organization, and attempts to create genuinely militant independent trade unions are suppressed.

A.M.: Two years ago we participated in the establishment of an independent trade union confederation that we named “Worker's Table.” Its purpose was to protect the workers’ labour rights. The couriers union, which was part of it, protested against low pay and bad working conditions. Eventually, its leaders were arrested on unfair charges. As activists, we are now fighting for their release and the continuation of trade union work. We also consider it important to protect the rights of ethnic minorities, religious groups, and LGBTIQ+ people. Our organization introduced gender quotas so that at least one-fourth of the seats in the decision-making bodies are reserved for women. I consider this a correct approach.

T.V.: There was an attempt to create a delivery couriers’ union, but I only know about it from activists and not from the couriers themselves. The latter were practically unaware of it, as no one conducted any activities aimed specifically at them. My colleagues and I interviewed 200 couriers and only a few of them knew about the union. Personally, I don’t believe that unions can be organized on a “top-down” basis. It would be much harder to destroy a truly mass organization if the demand for a trade union had emerged from below.

A.R.: The Free Trade Union, founded by my comrades and myself, is not a classical trade union, but rather a public organization for the protection of workers' rights. The idea is that it is almost impossible to organize workers into a trade union, just like it is difficult for them to organize themselves into a union. For example, British Petroleum (BP), a British oil company operating in Azerbaijan, had a special system to prevent the workers from organizing for the collective defence of their rights: the company used to create temporary brigades at its sites, which were disbanded after certain periods and reshuffled. However, once the company could see that the workers didn't even try to organize, it discontinued this practice. The Free Trade Union helps people to solve problems with employers. However, we can only provide individual assistance rather than organize people for collective action.

Is political transformation possible in Azerbaijan?

Just a few years ago, the Azerbaijani left was moderately optimistic about the future. Today, however, they have a darker vision of the possibility of positive changes in the country and the movement.

T.V.: There is certainly a demand for left-wing ideas. For example, videos on social media, which depict social problems, gain a huge number of views. In fact, social issues interest people the most. This does not mean, however, that one can follow the same principles that activists did at the beginning of the 20th century. Although the left often suffers from this approach, it is necessary to study the current structure of society in order to understand what our times require.

Today, with the arrests and all other things happening in Azerbaijan, I am pessimistic about the future. Some changes will occur if there is a considerable economic crisis, as it would lead to a social explosion. However, the ‘public sector’ and political movements are not ready for it. It must be admitted that the government, on the contrary, does its best to maintain its stability and avoid escalation. For example, although the environmental protests in the village of Söyüdlü were suppressed in a very harsh manner, in their aftermath officials in other regions started to pay more attention to the interests of local communities.

A.R.: There is no left-wing movement in Azerbaijan and, most likely, there won’t be one. If we had not had Russians, Armenians, Jews—that is, a mixed group—working in oil fields in 1920, we would not have had a revolution. Despite 70 years of Soviet power, the most important thing in our people's lives is their families, and this makes it easy to pressure anyone. That's the end of the story. Moreover, our people are ready to stand up for justice for themselves (and their families), but not for justice for others. This individualism and lack of solidarity make both the collective defence of one’s rights and political action impossible. In order to change something in the country, be it in accordance with left-wing ideals or other principles, we need an impulse from the outside. Generally speaking, people from another country or maybe from another planet must come and light the fire of change.

A.M.: Although I am not a communist, I believe that nothing but a revolution can change Azerbaijan for the better. Reforms are not enough.

Translation: Vladlena Zabolotskaya
Reflections on the Palestinian and Kurdish Resistance: History, challenges and solution perspectives

Cemil Bayık
Duran Kalkan
Mustafa Karasu
27 June, 2024


This brochure is a compilation of four interviews analysing the Kurdish and Palestinian resistance. The huge solidarity shown worldwide in the face of the genocide against the Palestinian people has drawn the attention again to the Middle East. In the midst of this chaos and genocide, a strong historical consciousness is needed to find long-term solutions. These interviews give an insight and analysis on the political situation in the Middle East, and share possible solutions for the Kurdish and Palestinian quests for freedom.

Download pamphlet in PDF format here.

The US dollar and the pound sterling: The role of currencies in the uneven process of decline of hegemonic imperialist powers

Michael Pröbsting
27 June, 2024


We have repeatedly dealt with the historic decline of U.S. imperialism — the hegemonic power among capitalist states since 1945 — and the rise of new rivals, mainly China and Russia. While the US is still a leading power it is no longer an absolute hegemon that dominates the world economy and politics.1

We have also pointed to the uneven character of this process of decline. On one hand, the US is no longer first, or is closely rivalled by China, in global output, manufacturing, trade, top corporations or the number of billionaires. (See tables in Appendix below.) On the other hand, there are fields where Washington still has a strong lead. This is, for example, true in the military field where the US possesses the largest number of foreign military bases as well as the strongest navy. However, when it comes to nuclear missiles, Russia is similarly strong. Furthermore, China is rapidly expanding its armed forces (including nuclear weapons) and is already second in military expenditures behind the US.2

Challenges to Western-dominated financial institutions

Furthermore, Washington’s rivals are starting to challenge long-time US hegemony in these spheres. In response to the accelerating US policy of imposing sanctions against rivals, other powers have started to build independent systems for payments settlement. Russia created the ruble-based SPFS, China its CIPS (where domestic and international payments are done in Chinese RMB), and India has built its UPI. In addition, European powers have created INSTEX to facilitate trade between Europe and Iran. Russia and China have already started the process of linking their respective international payment systems.

One can therefore only agree with the following remark of an economist: “There is still a long way to go before there is a real threat to the dominance of the dollar, but the trend toward the fragmentation of the global financial system cannot be reversed now.”3

In addition, there are serious efforts within the China/Russia-led BRICS+ alliance to establish a new international currency, called the Unit, as an alternative to the US dollar. The Unit would be anchored in gold (40%) and BRICS+ currencies (60%). It is said that the concept for this new currency has already received backing by the BRICS+ Business Council and is on the agenda at the ministerial meetings in Russia in the coming months.4

In fact, the past two years have shown that the new imperialist powers, China and Russia, have been able to challenge Western hegemony even in the financial sphere.5 Despite unprecedented sanctions by the NATO states, Russia’s economy not only withstood this pressure but continued its vast trade relations with many non-Western countries.

The Economist, mouthpiece of the Anglo-Saxon neoliberal bourgeoisie, noted in a recently published special survey: ”To a Muscovite banker, globalization is not dead. It simply no longer involves America and its allies. [This] case suggests an epochal shift in the global financial system. This report will argue that an array of forces – some long-standing, others newer – have combined to reduce the system’s dependence on Western capital, institutions and payment networks, and on America in particular.”6

In the past decade there has been an intense debate among Marxists about the decline of US imperialism. Our opponents rejected the thesis of the rise of Chinese and Russian imperialism and claimed that we exaggerate US decline.7 To substantiate their thesis they refer not only to Washington’s military strength but also ongoing US domination of global financial institutions.

In response, we have argued that the financial position of a state, important as it is, does not accurately reflect its role within the capitalist world economy and politics. This is because it only reflects indirectly and in a delayed manner changes in the process of capitalist value production. Hence, the position of the US currency is much stronger than its position in the productive sector of the world economy. This is because such changes do not take place simultaneously but with an interval. We stated that the current position of the US Dollar in the global currency market does not represent the actual economic strength of Washington but rather reflects its past strength. Hence, it is only a matter of time until the position of the currency adjusts to the position in the real economy.

In this article we would like to discuss a precedent for such a process — the decline of British imperialism and the role of its currency, the Pound Sterling before World War I.
The uneven decline of British imperialism in the first half of the 20th century

In the early period of the imperialist epoch, Britain was the hegemonic power. It possessed by far the largest colonial empire, the largest navy, was the largest capital exporter etc. However, Britain faced emerging imperialist rivals, most importantly Germany and the US. The result was an uneven process of decline, as can be seen from several figures that reflect the relation of forces between the imperialist powers shortly before World War I.

In capitalist value production, Britain had already lost its leading position in the years before 1914. Germany had a higher share of global industrial production and the US’ share was nearly double the British. When it came to world trade, Britain was still first but only slightly ahead of its rivals. (See Table 1)

Table 1. Great Powers’ Share in Global Industrial Production and Trade, 19138

Industrial Production World Trade

Britain 14% 15%

United States 36% 11%

Germany 16% 13%

France 6% 8%

However, in the spheres of military, capital export and currency, London was still by far the dominating power — similar to the position of US imperialism today. Britain’s overseas investments were as large as the combined share of the next three powers: Germany, the US and France. (See Table 2)

Table 2. Great Powers’ Share in Global Capital Export, 1913 9

Britain 41% (44%)

France 20%

Germany 13%

United States 8%

We see a similar picture when we compare the maritime strength of the Great Powers. In contrast to its economic decline, Britain was able to keep its dominating naval strength among the European powers. (See Table 3)

Table 3. Warship Tonnage of the European Powers, 1880 and 1914 10

Country 1880 1914 (1) 1914 (2)

Britain 650,000 2,714,000 2,205,000

Germany 88,000 1,305,000 1,019,000

France 271,000 900,000 731,000

Russia 200,000 679,000 328,000


The very slow decline of the Pound Sterling

Similar to the US today, Britain also retained the leading role of its currency, the Pound Sterling. According to economist Barry Eichengreen, “between 1860 and 1914 probably about 60 percent of world trade was invoiced and settled in sterling.”11

Likewise, the Sterling was by far the dominant currency in known official foreign exchange assets at the turn of the century. Although its share declined, it was still in a leading position before the beginning of World War I. (See Table 4)

Table 4. Shares of Currencies in Known Official Foreign Exchange Assets, 1899-1913 12

End of 1899 End of 1913

Sterling 64% 48%

Francs 16% 31%

Marks 15% 15%

Other currencies 6% 6%

It is remarkable that the Sterling remained a leading foreign currency after World War I and even for some time after World War II, as in 1950 over 55% of foreign exchange reserves were still held in Sterling. By then, Britain was clearly no longer the hegemonic power — neither economically, politically nor militarily.

Catherine R. Schenk, an economic historian, writes: “In the 1950s the sterling area (thirty-five countries and colonies pegged to sterling and holding primarily sterling reserves) accounted for half of world trade, and sterling accounted for more than half the world’s foreign exchange reserves. In the early post-war years this share had been even higher; the IMF estimated that official sterling reserves, excluding those held by colonies, were four times the value of official dollar reserves and that by 1947 sterling accounted for about 87 per cent of global foreign exchange reserves. It took ten years following the end of the war (and a 30 per cent devaluation of the pound) before the share of dollar reserves exceeded that of sterling.”13
Concluding remarks

Our brief historical comparison has shown that the law of uneven and combined development in history applies also to the process of decline of a hegemonic power.14 We saw this in the early period of the imperialist epoch when Britain was no longer the dominating power and challenged by emerging imperialist powers such as Germany and the US. Currently, there is a similar process underway as US imperialism — hegemon among capitalist countries since 1945 — experiences a process of decline while China and Russia are rising as new Great Powers.

However, such a process of decline takes place in an uneven and contradictory way. Britain was no longer the leading industrial producer or trading power, and, more fundamentally, it could no longer dominate world politics. However, it still possessed by far the largest navy, which allowed it to control global oceans and, hence, world trade. Likewise, it owned nearly half of the world’s foreign direct investments and the Pound Sterling was the dominating currency on the world market.

The evolution of the US’ decline has many similar features. China has already surpassed, or is closely behind, the US in terms of capitalist industrial production, trade, leading global corporations, billionaires, etc. At the same time, Washington still has the strongest armed forces and dominates global financial institutions. This is also reflected in the leading position of the US dollar in the global currency market. However, such a leading position does not reflect so much the current but rather the past strength of the declining hegemon.

In fact, the old Western-dominated global order of the capitalist world economy is close to collapse in the face of the new imperialist powers. The Economist recently warned in an editorial: ”For years the order that has governed the global economy since the second world war has been eroded. Today it is close to collapse. A worrying number of triggers could set off a descent into anarchy where might is right and war is once again the resort of great powers.”15

For all these reasons, we oppose the thesis advocated by some Marxists that the US is still the dominating hegemon and its rivals, such as China and Russia, are not imperialist powers. We are no longer in a world dominated by a single hegemon but rather one that is characterised by an accelerating rivalry between old and new imperialist powers. As developments in the second decade of the twentieth century have demonstrated, a strong military or dominating currency do not guarantee the hegemonic role of a declining Great Power.

In such a historic period, it is crucial for Marxists to recognize the imperialist nature of all Great Powers — the Western (U.S., Western Europe and Japan) as well as the Eastern (China and Russia) — and to intransigently oppose all of them!

Michael Pröbsting is a socialist activist and writer. He is the editor of the website http://www.thecommunists.net/ where a version of this article first appeared.
Appendix

Table A. Top Six Countries in Global Manufacturing, 2000 and 2022 16

Rank Country Share 2000 Share 2022

1. China 9.8% 30.7%

2. U.S. 23.7% 16.1%

3. Japan 10.2% 6.0%

4. Germany 6.4% 4.8%

5. South Korea 2.5% 3.1%

6. India 1.4% 3.1%



Table B. Leading Exporters in World Merchandise Trade excluding intra-EU Trade, 2023 17

Rank Country 2022

1. China 17.5%

2. EU 14.3%

3. U.S. 10.4%

4. Japan 3.7%

5. South Korea 3.3%



Table C. Top 10 Countries with the Ranking of Fortune Global 500 Companies (2023) 18

Rank Country Companies Share (in%)

1 United States 136 27.2%

2 China (without Taiwan) 135 27.0%

3 Japan 41 8.2%

4 Germany 30 6.0%

5 France 23 4.6%

6 South Korea 18 3.6%

7 United Kingdom 15 3.0%

8 Canada 14 2.8%

9 Switzerland 11 2.2%

10 Netherlands 10 2.0%



Table D. Top 5 Countries of the Forbes Billionaires 2023 List 19

Rank Country . Number of billionaires

1 United States 735

2 China (incl. Hong Kong) 561

3 India 169

4 Germany 126

5 Russia 105



Table E. Top 5 Countries of the Hurun Global Rich List 2022 20

Rank Country Number of billionaires

1 China (incl. Hong Kong) 923

2 U.S. 691

3 India 187

4 Germany 144

5 United Kingdom 1341

Our most detailed works on the Marxist theory of imperialism are two books Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry. The Factors behind the Accelerating Rivalry between the U.S., China, Russia, EU and Japan. A Critique of the Left’s Analysis and an Outline of the Marxist Perspective, RCIT Books, Vienna 2019, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/anti-imperialism-in-the-age-of-great-power-rivalry/; The Great Robbery of the South. Continuity and Changes in the Super-Exploitation of the Semi-Colonial World by Monopoly Capital Consequences for the Marxist Theory of Imperialism, RCIT Books, 2013, https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/great-robbery-of-the-south/
2

Michael Pröbsting, "Inter-imperialist rivalry and the specter of de-dollarization: On the decline of the US Dollar since the start of the Ukraine War," LINKS, 12 May, 2023, https://links.org.au/inter-imperialist-rivalry-and-specter-de-dollarization-decline-us-dollar-start-ukraine-war
3

Alexandra Prokopenko: "How the Latest Sanctions Will Impact Russia—and the World", Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 20, 2024, https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2024/06/finance-sanctions-russia-currency
4

Pepe Escobar: De-Dollarization Bombshell, 13 May 2024, https://www.unz.com/pescobar/de-dollarization-bombshell/
5

See e.g. Michael Pröbsting: "BRICS+: An Imperialist-Led Alliance", 30 August 2023, LINKShttps://links.org.au/brics-imperialist-led-alliance
6

The Economist: "Special Report: Deglobalisation of finance", 11 May 2024, p. 3
7

See on this Michael Pröbsting: “Imperialism, Great Power rivalry and revolutionary strategy in the twenty-first century”, 1 September, 2023, https://links.org.au/imperialism-great-power-rivalry-and-revolutionary-strategy-twenty-first-century; Michael Pröbsting: “‘Empire-ism’ vs a Marxist analysis of imperialism: Continuing the debate with Argentinian economist Claudio Katz on Great Power rivalry, Russian imperialism and the Ukraine War”, 3 March 2023, https://links.org.au/empire-ism-vs-marxist-analysis-imperialism-continuing-debate-argentinian-economist-claudio-katz; “Russia: An Imperialist Power or a ‘Non-Hegemonic Empire in Gestation’? A reply to the Argentinean economist Claudio Katz”, New Politics, 11 August 2022, at https://newpol.org/russia-an-imperialist-power-or-a-non-hegemonic-empire-in-gestation-a-reply-to-the-argentinean-economist-claudio-katz-an-essay-with-8-tables/
8

Jürgen Kuczynski: Studien zur Geschichte der Weltwirtschaft, Berlin 1952, p. 35 and p. 43.
9

Paul Bairoch and Richard Kozul-Wright: "Globalization Myths: Some Historical Reflections on Integration, Industrialization and Growth in the World Economy", UNCTAD Discussion Papers No. 113, 1996, p. 12. The late Eric Hobsbawn gives the figure of 44% for Britain’s share in foreign investment. (E. J. Hobsbawm: The Age of Empire, Vintage Books, New York 1989, p.51)
10

Figures for the columns 1880 and 1914 (1) are taken from Paul Kennedy: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, Unwin Hyman, London 1988, p. 203; figures for the column 1914 (2) are taken from Niall Ferguson: The Pity of War, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, London 1998, p. 85.
11

Barry Eichengreen: Sterling’s Past, Dollar’s Future: Historical Perspectives on Reserve Currency Competition, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 11336, p. 4. see also Peter H. Lindert: Key Currencies and Gold 1900-1913,” Princeton Studies in International Finance No. 24, International Finance Section, Department of Economics, Princeton University, (1969); Violaine Faubert: Learning from the first globalisation (1870-1914), Trésor-Economics No. 93, October 2011
12

Ibid, p. 28
13

Catherine R. Schenk: The Decline of Sterling. Managing the Retreat of an International Currency, 1945–1992 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2010, p. 30
14

On the law of uneven and combined development in history see Michael Pröbsting: "Capitalism Today and the Law of Uneven Development. The Marxist Tradition and Its Application in the Present Historic Period", in Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory (Volume 44, Issue 4, 2016), pp. 381-418, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03017605.2023.2199592
15

The Economist: "The new economic order", 11 May 2024, p. 7
16

Figures for the year 2000: APEC: Regional Trends Analysis, May 2021, p. 2; the figures for Germany and India in the first column are for the year 2005 (UNIDO: Industrial Development Report 2011, p. 194); figures for the year 2022: UNIDO: International Yearbook of Industrial Statistics Edition 2023, pp. 36-37
17

WTO: Global Trade Outlook and Statistics, April 2024, p. 40
18

Fortune Global 500, August 2023, https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/2023/ (the figures for the share is our calculation)
19

Forbes: Forbes Billionaires 2023, https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2023/04/04/forbes-37th-annual-worlds-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures-2023/?sh=23927e7477d7
20

Hurun Global Rich List 2021, 2.3.2021, https://www.hurun.net/en-US/Info/Detail?num=LWAS8B997XUP
ANC’s crushing electoral defeat: A nightmare of coalitions, splits and neoliberal crisis

Gunnett Kaaf
29 June, 2024

MastodonFacebookTwitterEmailShare


First published in Socialist Project.

South Africa is in the throes of a deepening political and social crisis. The precipitous electoral loss of the African National Congress (ANC) by a whopping 17 percentage points, from 57% to 40% in general elections held on 29 May 2024, was a signal of this deepening political and social crisis. It was a decisive rejection of the ANC by voters, following the ANC’s political dominance for 30 years, during which the ANC presided over a neoliberal economic development that wrought dire development outcomes such as a high level of unemployment, massive poverty, huge income and wealth inequality, rural and urban underdevelopment and poor delivery of basic public services by the state. This was accompanied by a widespread corruption within the state, leading to a decline of confidence in public institutions.

The voters have rejected the ANC for its neoliberal development project and its wide spread corruption within the state in the last 30 years. But voters did not vote for a party to succeed the ANC as a ruling party; even worse, they did not vote for parties that will help exit the deepening neoliberal crisis. The viable alternatives that are needed to exit the neoliberal crisis cannot be found among mainstream parties. That’s why South Africa is in the throes of a deepening political and social crisis.

Going into this election, it was largely expected that ANC was to fall below 50%. That is a big dynamic of this election because it implies the break of the ANC’s 30-years-long dominance of electoral politics, since the official fall of apartheid in 1994.
Political shockwaves

Most survey polls before the elections were putting ANC at 45%, tending toward 40%. But then the general expectation was that the ANC was going to get anything between 45% to 50%. In that case, forming a coalition government would not be such a nightmare because they would simply pick up small parties to patch up to get 50% plus. Now that the fall is so steep at 40%, shockwaves have been sent throughout the political system in South Africa.

Another big shocker of this election was the spectacular performance by former President, Jacob Zuma’s uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party [not to be confused with the military wing of the ANC], just after six months after its formation. MK won 14.58% of the national vote, and received 45% in Kwazulu-Natal province, which is the second largest province where some 20% of the SA population lives. They also registered significant electoral victories in Gauteng, the province with the largest share(24%) of the population, and in Mpumalanga where they won 17% of the provincial vote, bringing the ANC down from 70% to 51%. MK’s surge definitely happened at the expense of the ANC, because they share the same electoral base with the ANC. MK is a splinter party that was formed by Jacob Zuma, a former president of the ANC and the country, who enjoys large popularity among ANC members and supporters, despite being corrupt and conservative.

This article analyses the political and social dynamics that set the context for the ANC’s crushing electoral defeat and the implications of the election results for the realignment of political and social forces.
Why did the ANC dominate for 30 years, without a challenge?

The first democratic election of April 1994 was a victory of the national liberation struggle over apartheid. Led by Nelson Mandela, the ANC won the 1994 election by a landslide victory of 62 % and earned the mantle of being the sole party of national liberation, with a mandate to lead the people to the promised land of a truly liberated South Africa, where there is “a better life for all.” The ANC earned the sole mantle of being a party of national liberation because other liberation movements that fought in the struggle against apartheid, alongside the ANC, had significantly weakened by 1994 and never revived the post-apartheid South Africa.

From the 1980s into early 1990s, the ANC succeeded in inserting itself within and allying itself with major mass movements of the anti-apartheid historical bloc, organised around the United Democratic Front, which included hundreds of affiliates drawn from the youth and students movements, the civics, trade unions, the women’s movement, church organisations, sports organisations etc. In a way, the ANC succeeded in establishing itself as the leader of a powerful anti-apartheid historical bloc going into 1994 and beyond. So, for the first 15 years, even up to 20 years, of the last 30 years, the ANC enjoyed large active support, deriving from the legitimacy it had as a governing party of national liberation, following the fall of apartheid. Thus, it was difficult to effectively challenge the ANC from outside.

However, these mass movements allied to the ANC were autonomous and often challenged the ANC leadership when it was necessary. For instance, the Congress of South African Trade Unions(Cosatu) fiercely challenged the ANC when it adopted a neoliberal macroeconomic policy, Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) in 1996. It was GEAR that significantly consolidated the neoliberal restructuring of the economy in post-apartheid South Africa from a coherent policy framework.

By 1999, the ANC succeeded in co-opting a considerable number of the leading personnel of mass movements into government and business positions, through affirmative action and black economic empowerment schemes. Civics were no longer independent social movements of residents organised within the South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO), they had now joined the ANC led alliance with the South African Communist Party and Cosatu, to make it tripartite plus one. Once the leadership of mass movements was co-opted by the ruling ANC, and their autonomy was lost, these mass movements eventually collapsed into the ANC fold, leading to the dissolution of the anti-apartheid historical bloc in the early 2000s.

Thirty years is certainly a long enough period to fail, trying to pursue a development strategy and trying again, and again, until you succeed. But with the ANC, the failure has been dismal because they were not committed to any sovereign radical development project. Instead, they succumbed fully to the dominant neoliberal development philosophy that allots a decisive role to market forces.

As the neoliberal crisis, of dire development outcomes combined with widespread corruption within the state, was reaching maturity around 2009, the ANC’s legitimacy started to seriously erode. At this stage, the transformation of the of the ANC from a leftist national liberation movement into a centrist neoliberal party had come full circle, with the ANC fully established as an agency of neoliberal economic development and a link to international finance capital. To this you add the widespread corruption of the ANC that was already running very deep within the state.

Thus, from 2009, when Zuma who is associated with the worst forms of corruption, ascended to presidency, the ANC electoral decline has been irreversible. They declined from 69.69% in 2004 to 65.90% in 2009, to 62.10% in 2014, down to 57.50% in 2019. As you can see though the decline has been a solid trajectory, it was with smaller margins of 3.79 and 3.80 to 4.60 percentage points. That is why this election’s crushing defeat of 17 percentage points, from 230 seats to 159 seats in the National Assembly, has shocked them to the core. It caught them off guard; whilst dreaming in their slumber about their self-convinced eternal dominant might; “the glorious movement” as they are fond of referring to the ANC.

What could have halted and reversed this decline, is a genuine renewal of the ANC to rid itself of corruption and pursue a genuinely meaningful social transformation that fulfils the promise of a better life for all, by redistributing income and wealth in favour of the black majority, extending social wage to include a basic income, pursuing a sovereign industrial policy and improving the delivery of public services such as health, education, housing, public transport, etc.
ANC engaged in a fake renewal

But sadly the ANC instead engaged in a fake renewal process; they have been pretending to be engaged in a renewal process to self-correct, since Jacob Zuma left the ANC presidency in 2017. This sham of a renewal process has made matters worse for them because they claimed they were ditching corruption and embarking on a radical economic transformation; to restructure the Reserve Bank, implement a radical land reform, and redistribute wealth and income for the benefit of the poor black majority. None of this happened, because they were never committed.

Now they are more discredited, even worse than in the Zuma years, because they don’t have a Zuma and other discredited corrupt elements to scapegoat for their mess. If you want to see that did they did nothing about corruption, look no further than their list of members of parliament due to be sworn in following this election. You will see many of those implicated by a statutory commission of inquiry into state capture and corruption (the Zondo Commission). The minster of sports and culture was arrested just a week after elections, on charges of receiving bribes worth R1.6-million ($89,000) from a business man who received government contracts worth R400-million ($22-million).

Worse even, their current President, Cyril Ramaphosa, whose ascent to high office was based on an anti-corruption ticket, has a big cloud hanging over his head: the Phala Phala scandal that involves the theft of a stack of cash of more than half a million US dollars from his Phala Phala farm, of which the real source remains unexplained.

In November 2022, the ANC used its majority in parliament, to block the impeachment inquiry arising from serious violations and crimes by the President at Phala Phala, as established prima facie by the Independent Panel of two retired judges and one senior advocate. The formal reason they advanced when they were quashing the recommended parliamentary inquiry was that the President had taken the report of the Independent Panel on review in court. Once the ANC parliamentary majority voted down the report, the President went back to court to withdraw his review on grounds that the report of the Independent Panel had become academic since parliament had rejected it. Those were pure monkey tricks of the ANC to evade accountability!

The matter of Phala Phala has now been taken to the Constitutional Court by Economic Freedom Fighters, to challenge the irrational decision of parliament by ANC majority. The EFF application has been set down for hearing in the coming months. If the court rules that parliament acted irrationally on the Phala Phala matter, and refers it back to parliament conduct impeachment inquiry that will destabilise the new Government of National Unity(GNU). More about the GNU below.

The arrest of the speaker of parliament following a R4.5-million($25,000) bribe scandal in April 2024, during an election period, also added fuel to the flames.

Unemployment, low growth rates, low investment levels, inequality, poverty, the poor delivery of public services including health, education and housing, and the deterioration of public infrastructure have all gotten worse since Ramaphosa took over at the 2017 ANC conference, on the back of a radical economic transformation that was going to improve the lot of the poor black masses. There are no radical policy interventions that have been put in place since Cyril took over. So both the proclaimed anti-corruption stance and radical economic policies, which are the twin pillars of the sham ANC renewal, have fallen flat.

On the contrary, we have witnessed heightened neoliberal austerity of budget cuts in important public services, including health, education, housing and roads, and on government workers’ wages. Austerity has also extended to the reactionary, tight monetary policy of increasing interest rates. This is supposed to fight off inflation. But that inflation that did not come from the oversupply of money as a result of wages increases or a high consumer spending, but came from price increases by monopoly corporations and from imports due to breaks in global supply chains, following the Covid slump. This fiscal and monetary austerity has worsened the cost of living for poor families, workers and the middle classes.
The neoliberal crisis and the rise rightwing forces such as MK

The neoliberal crisis tends to polarize societies through inequality and other exclusive development outcomes such as unemployment, precarious labour, poverty, underdevelopment and the squeezing of the middle classes. Add to this, the discredited ruling classes (both the political and economic), a declining democracy, and the absence of a coherent radical sovereign development project to exit the impasse of the neoliberal crisis. This social decay has set the stage for the far-right and neofascist forces to rise and mobilise on the basis of social exclusion and blaming others; mainstream parties and institutions, including foreigners and other racial groups.

The lower voter turnouts over the past two elections is a sign of a declining democracy, where the voter turnout was 66% in 2019, dropping from 73% in 2014 and dropping further down to the low of 58% now in 2024.The voter turnout is has always been in the 70’s, except for 1999 where it was 89%. This is worse when you include the fact that 15 million eligible voters did not bother to register to vote. This means that out of 42 million eligible voters, only 16 million turned up to vote in this election, which puts the actual voter turnout at 38%.

It is in this context of the social decay and crisis of neoliberal capitalism that rightwing populist parties such as MK, tend to gain the center stage by blaming the ruling ANC without presenting any viable alternative. Even though they use an anti-capitalist and the radical economic transformation, they don’t really mean it, they only do it to mobilise the working classes and poor communities who constitute their base.

Apart from exploiting the neoliberal crisis without posing a positive vision, MK was riding on the popularity of corrupt and reactionary Jacob Zuma within the ANC base. MK tends to be more strong in the KZN and two other provinces with a significant size of Zulu ethic communities, Gauteng and Mpumalanga. This is because Zuma is steeped in Zulu nationalism politics and cultural identity/symbolism.

However the decisive factor in MK’s spectacular electoral performance is Zuma’s popularity within the ANC’s electoral base. That is why ANC’s demolition from 54% to a low of 16.99% in KZN can only be attributed to the spectacular rise of MK, which got 45% in KZN. MK acquired a large electoral support in KZN by dispossessing the ANC because of Zuma who is popular among ANC supporters.

Despite MK’s posture as a leftist party, in their manifesto, they openly declares support of conservative ideas such as giving more constitutional power to unaccountable traditional leaders and even making elected politicians subordinate to traditional leaders. They also declare that they will abolish the checks and balances that come with the current constitutional order, and replace it with an unchecked order of a parliamentary supremacy wherein “the majority” will rule unconstrained by the checks from the judiciary. They also make it clear that they will bring back the apartheid era military conscription to instill discipline in our youth.

The other rightwing populist party that was on the rise in this election is the Patriotic Alliance that won 9 seats in the National Assembly. PA is led by two ex-convicts who mobilise the mixed race communities(who make up 8.2% against the 81.4% black African) on a racialised communitarian ideology that combines with a crude ferment of xenophobia that openly calls for the expulsion of all foreigners, irrespective of their legal status.
Dilemmas of forming coalition government for the ANC

Now that the ANC got 40% of the vote, the shortfall to form a government is too big. Unlike the expected 45%, in which case they would simply ask small parties into a coalition, and they would be spared the drama that comes with big parties. The three big parties-DA, EFF and MK – bring drama into coalition negotiations because of their diametrically opposed ideologies and policies.

Democratic Alliance (DA) is a liberal conservative party that is openly steeped in neoliberal policy positions that include: fiscal and monetary austerity, privatization, free trade, flexible exchange rate, cuts in public spending, tax reductions for corporates and high-income earners, deregulation of business activities, liberalisation of capital controls, labour market flexibility. They also don’t support transformation policies that in the context of South Africa that are aimed at bringing about substantiative social equality that do away with the legacy of apartheid and colonialism and mitigate the effects of the neoliberal crisis. These include affirmative action, land reform that transfers land to black communities, national minimum wage, workers rights, national health insurance, basic income grant.

The transformation policies that the DA opposes are mandated in the country’s Constitution, so as to realise Bill of Rights and the substantive social equality through the progressive realisation of socio-economic rights.

The social base of the DA is the white community that makes up only 7.3% of the SA population(4.7 million whites out a total population of 62 million), yet they remain most economically and socially privileged and powerful racial group, 30 years after the official fall of apartheid because genuine social transformation measures that redress past imbalances and advance a better life for all, were never implemented after 1994.

The option of a coalition with the DA was initially rejected by the mass base and the left wing of the ANC, in its National Executive Committee, by the SACP and COSATU. But it was the preferred option by the ANC establishment, so they found a way to impose it from above.

The difference between ANC’s neoliberalism and DA’s is that the DA is open and actively committed in its articulation of neoliberal policies, whereas the ANC’s embrace of neoliberalism is because their lack of a sovereign development strategy and bourgeois capitulation out of pressure from big business and finance capital. That’s why the ANC still has a leftist National Democratic Revolution political strategy, even though it is inadequate, and a social wage to protect the poor from extreme poverty, even though it gets limited by budget cuts stemming the austerity fiscal policy they pursue.

The ANC could go into a coalition with Economic Freedom Fighters. The EFF has made it clear that it will not go into a coalition that has DA, this is despite their backing of the DA in local governments, following 2016 election results that did not produce outright winners, like in this 2024 elections. On the other hand, DA has also made it clear that they will not go in coalition where EFF is also a partner. This made it difficult for the ANC to have both the EFF and DA in one coalition government at the same time, thus the ANC chose the DA.

The EFF is a leftist nationalist organisation that is led by the charismatic Julious Malema, who was ANC’s youth league in 2012 when he was expelled in 2012 for advocating the nationalisation of mines and expropriation of land without compensation. He, together with his fellow youth league comrade, Floyd Shivhambo, with whom he was expelled from the ANC, formed the EFF in 2013. The EFF is typical bourgeois parliamentary party that is only interested in political office. Though they sound more radical than the ANC, they are cut from the same cloth as the ANC and are trapped in old, exhausted national liberation ideological framework. They don’t have a clear left vision of challenging the neoliberal capitalism that has been developing in South Africa over the last 30 years. They are stagnating around 10% of the vote, for two successive elections now. And because they have their eyes on government office, they are becoming fatigued and frustrated with voters and venting in a way that shows the strategic limitations of left politics that purport to advance the social demands of the popular classes. The other day, Malema said they will no longer support poor communities that do not vote for them.

MK does not seem willing to participate in a coalition with the ANC. There is just too much hostility between the two.

A better coalition option for the ANC that could succeed without drama of big parties, would be working with small parties. But the ANC is not inclined toward this option. They did not go for this option because they thought ignoring the DA when it was such a highly preferred choice of big business and finance capital would be suicidal in the context of their own sworn neoliberal ideology that they have been committed to over the last 30 years.

But if the ANC was prepared to ditch neoliberalism, as their own renewal process promises, they would embark on building a sovereign economic project that would be so robust so as to withstand the shocks coming from the backlash of capital and financial markets, at least in the medium to long term. In that case the effect of the backlash would only be a temporary setback. The option of working with small parties, without the DA, remains unattractive to them but not because it can’t work. It can work if they changed their economic policy and thinking, but they have no courage nor the inclination to ditch neoliberalism and move toward a sovereign development project that delinks from the neoliberal global capitalism. That’s why the political and social crisis is going to get worse. The ANC is simply not capable of resolving it.

The ANC has announced that they are forming a coalition with the DA as the main partner. They call this coalition a Government of National Unity. This so called GNU does not have clear a purpose or criterion of establishment distinct from an ordinary coalition, unlike the GNU which was constitutionally prescribed in 1994, and had a clear purpose of managing the transition from white minority rule to a democratic dispensation. The 2024 GNU is all about deals between parliamentary parties. The negotiations for this so called GNU are conducted in a veil of secrecy, the public only gets to know of the deals once they are finalised. Twenty-five days after voting the composition of national government was yet to be announced. This has never happened before.

Alongside the GNU, they have called for a National Dialogue process – involving political parties, civil society, labour, business, and other sectors – to discuss critical challenges facing the country and develop a national social compact to enable the country to meet the aspirations of the neoliberal National Development Plan (NDP). This National Dialogue is already a nonstarter, a failure, because it seeks to enforce a neoliberal consensus based on an already failed neoliberal development strategy, the NDP itself.

In all honesty it is not a GNU, but a coalition based on a neoliberal pact that is already on shacky grounds because it cannot address the very social and political crisis that gave rise to it, within the framework of neoliberalism.

The GNU minimum programme that has been announced does not herald a break with the neoliberalism of the past 30 years. It’s all neoliberal business as usual. Only revolutionary measures can help us to exit the neoliberal crisis. The ANC-DA government cannot meet that challenge. Even if the coalition will finally include EFF and more parties in the final deal to make it a grand coalition, for has long as neoliberalism is not abandoned, and replaced with audacious measures, the deep social crisis will persist and get worse. It is up to the left and popular classes to pose a radical political challenge. Without revolutionary measures such as income and wealth redistribution, state-led sovereign industrialisation with a corresponding macro-economic management that delinks from neoliberal global system, the deal-making of the political elites will deepen the social crisis instead of building national cohesion and unity.
The way forward from a left perspective: Prospects for a left renewal in South Africa

The left was absent in this election because it is too weak as a political force. Of course there are small left parties such as the Bolsheviks Party of South Africa and African People’s Convention that participated but performed way dismally, did not get a seat in the national assembly or any of the provincial legislatures. The left will be absent in all future elections if does not rebuild strong political and social forces to pose radical alternatives on the electoral terrain and beyond. The left has to rebuild by intensifying mass struggles that advance social demands of popular classes as they build formidable mass movements. These demands are easy to articulate because the deepening neoliberal crisis has accentuated them in the dire developmental outcomes it has produced; high levels of unemployment, massive poverty, huge wealth and income inequalities, underdevelopment in rural and urban areas, the energy crisis, and the ecological crisis.

Popular classes and the left must organise and wage struggles for pressing social demands which include the basic income grant, permanent employment in public sector schemes and industries, and the delivery of quality free basic services such as housing, sanitation, water, electricity, roads, education, health, transport, and communication. These can be easily sacrificed by a version of national unity that will require respect for the markets and investors. The ANC-DA coalition means that workers, poor communities and the unemployed must develop the capacity, means and tools to sustain their vigilance against.

The ANC crisis has become an intrinsic part of the neoliberal capitalist crisis deepening in our country and globally. A meaningful exit out of this crisis is not to renew or reform the ANC. That is not possible. The ANC has to be transcended by a social revolutionary advance in order to exit from the deepening neoliberal crisis. Mass movements waging mass struggles and registering decisive victories must be built urgently. Of course, that has to be done outside elections but then exert political weight on elections, on the basis of political victories scored before elections, not after. Failure by the left and popular classes to live up to this task and challenge will perpetuate the ruinous crisis as it gets worse. •


Gunnett Kaaf is a Marxist activist and writer, who is with Zabalaza Pathways Institute, South Africa.
Smartphones and dance-moves: How the anti-people legislation in Kenya was beaten by the people

Angela Chukunzira
4 July, 2024



First published at Review of African Political Economy.

In May, there were public discussions on the Finance Bill and although concerns were raised on taxation of essential services and other issues connected it, public participation became a facade and concerns of taxpayers were ignored. This was further fuelled by the arrogance of the ruling class and their loyalty to President William Ruto as voting was along party lines. Although this has had some direct consequences on some of the businesses of those supporting the legislation being looted, this serves as a stark reminder to foreground public participation and that parliament should serve as a representative of the will of the people. The current regime has constantly and consistently bowed to western imperialism as observed recently with the ‘peacekeeping’ mission sent to Haiti, and the Finance Bill which was written to offset Kenya’s debt to the Bretton Woods Institutions by imposing heavy taxation on a citizenry that is facing economic hardships.

Gen-Z powered protests

The controversial bill sparked nationwide protests over the past two weeks. The Bill itself was just a tip of the iceberg. There were several underlying issues that have been escalated anger among the citizens and more so, leading the youth into despair. This hopelessness was enough to mobilise across class and ethnicities. Armed with smartphones and dance moves, the youth took to the streets to redefine Kenyan protest culture. A creative mix of the old and new. TikTok met the streets creatively worded placards were raised, and fearless youth turned out in their massive numbers. The plunder, rot and destruction of Kenyan society could no longer be hidden.

The role of education became apparent and crucial in raising consciousness among this generations. Some of the books that were studied in high school literature served as a reminder and an inspiration of the events of the country. Indeed, the role of literature cannot be underestimated in the struggle. It has made legislators think of the education system and revealed how the new imperialist-backed curriculum is indeed a ploy to control and de-radicalise the coming younger generations.

Protests were led by the fearless Gen-Z (those born between 1997 and 2012). We witnessed a new crop of protesters. They irritated and shook power to its core specifically because it became difficult to divide them, especially across class. So much so that a legislator criticised them for using Ubers to get to the protests, recording on their iPhones and eating KFC fast foods after the protests. It was a mockery to divide the protestors across class lines, but it had the opposite effect, of strengthening cross class solidarity. It was also ironic to mention Apple, Uber and KFC, global corporations as players in a protest taking place in the Global South.

One thing that struck me was the identity that the protestors chose. Many opted not to self-identify as activists. While this may seem baffling as anyone who advocates for social change could be termed as an activist, but this attitude is rooted in the history of NGOisation of struggle in Kenya. Where resistance has become a career. So, Gen-Z has witnessed those who speak truth to power only to retreat and become apolitical with age. Instead, the new protestors remained defiant, with constant references that they want to fix their own country, not because someone is paying them to be ‘activists’ and in the streets.

The need to fix the country and the extraordinary anger we have seen is also because of the futile capitalist dream that was sold to us by the older generations and the education system has proved to be utterly hollow – the lie that if you study and get a decent higher education, you will secure a job and enjoy a degree of material success. Now that these dreams have stubbornly refused to materialise, the young face multiple crises, as Kenya faces capitalist and imperial plunder. The protest served as a space to vent these deep grievances.

Ruto’s regime has been insistent on youth exportation of labour to solve the issue of unemployment locally. The young challenged this notion demanding that they want to work in their own country, and decent work should be created locally. There has also been a narrative that digital jobs are lucrative, yet it is the very expansion of capitalism behind technology which has created a more precarious workforce.

The role of social media and new technologies cannot be downplayed either. They have played an important role not only in mobilising but also in spreading information. On one hand, Artificial Intelligence played a major role in the creation of images and songs that were used in mobilising for the protests. On 22 June, there was a 10-hour long conversation on X(Twitter) that was used to mobilise and inform on the finance bill. There were translations of the Finance Bill in other Kenyan languages and sign language on Instagram and TikTok. Traditional media was also used in mobilising the symbols of the Kenyan flag at the protests, in songs and pamphlets.

From local to global solidarity

Due to police brutality, protestors were heavily teargassed and live bullets were used to disperse crowds. For those who died and were injured a solidarity fund was quickly set-up to help their families manage their medical and funeral expenses. The fund, on 28 June 2024, raised slightly over KES24, 000,000 which is approximately US$186,000. The distribution of the money to the families is being accounted for with digital receipts being posted for public accountability on X. While this culture of pulling resources together is applauded and has been inherent in our culture since the early years of independence, it has also exposed the failure of our government with the collapse of social services. Specifically, the collapsed of the public health system.

One of the more positive outcomes of the protests is how younger people are coming to the realisation that neoliberal institutions of justice and human rights exist only to serve the interests of capital. Reflecting from what has happened in Palestine, Sudan and Congo being ignored by the international community, has exposed where their interests lie. These conversations were mostly taking place online when questioning why the international community did not come to our aid with solidarity statements that condemn the use of force by the state.

Although Ruto withdrew the Bill on 26 June, it was part of a strategy to demobilise the protestors. The military was deployed on the streets on 27 June and the numbers of protestors were significantly reduced due to fear of having witnessed deaths and fatal injuries during the earlier protests. However, we cannot downplay the role that the youth-led movement has played in raising awareness on fundamental issues affecting the country. Whether or not the movement will continue mobilising beyond this week, there have been victories and a rise of youth-led protests once again. We celebrate this.

Angela Chukunzira is an activist based at the Ukombozi Library in Nairobi. Her research interests include social movements, the uses of technologies and food sovereignty.

Ukraine at a turning point: Imperialism, national liberation and solidarity

Ilya Budraitskis
Hanna Perekhoda
Simon Pirani
3 July, 2024

What are the global ramifications of Putin’s bloody effort to erase Ukraine’s right to self-determination, and what political and ideological challenges does it pose to those who seeking to solidarize with victims of imperialism and neocolonialism?

These and related questions are addressed by socialist activists from Ukraine, Russia, and the United Kingdom in this event sponsored by Haymarket Books and Ukraine Solidarity Network.

Ilya Budraitskis is author of Dissidents Among Dissidents: Ideology, Politics and the Left in Post-Soviet Russia. He writes on politics, art, film, and philosophy for openDemocracy and Jacobin and is co-founder of Posle (“After”), a network of Russian intellectuals in exile.

Hanna Perekhoda a native of Ukraine, is a researcher at the University of Lausanne, studying political imagination in Russia and Ukraine. She is a founder of Swiss-based Committee of Solidarity with the Ukrainian People and a member of the Ukrainian left organization Sotsialnyi Rukh (The Social Movement).

Simon Pirani is a historian and researcher at the University of Durham whose books include The Russian Revolution in Retreat 1920–1924: Soviet Workers and the New Communist elite and Burning Up: A Global History of Fossil Fuel Consumption and is active in Ukraine solidarity work in the UK.


STUDENT UNIONS AND THE STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACY

Continued absence of student unions and repression of student voices in Pakistan has become all the more glaring. So who is afraid of student unions?
Published June 30, 2024

April 21, 2024, was a beautiful spring day at the American University (AU) campus in Washington DC. Yet, there was palpable tension in the air as the university’s student union was about to vote on one of the most contested topics ripping apart the political discourse in the United States — the issue of the horrific, genocidal violence unleashed by Israel on the Palestinian people.

The resolution called for supporting the Palestinian civil society’s call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, which in practice meant severing ties between AU and Israeli institutions. This was a contentious topic, as the university has a long history of deep ties to the Zionist project, as well as to the military-industrial complex that sustains American support to Israel.

Since October 7, 2023, the American University campus had witnessed a number of protests, by both by pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups, with each side accusing the other of being aligned with violent, regressive forces in the Middle East. Under the spotlight of the local media and the watchful eye of the university administration, this tension finally found its way into the student union, where the elected student representatives had to make a choice on the future orientation of the union with regards to the crisis in the Middle East.

On the day of the debate, I accompanied my wife, Tabitha Spence, an active member in the pro-Palestine movement on campus, to the room where the student union meeting was convened. The room had almost no space to sit as eager students, some wearing keffiyehs while others waving the Star of David, awaited to see how their elected representatives would respond to one of the most pressing moral challenges of our times.

In front of a packed audience, student leaders debated the controversial topics of settler colonialism, US imperialism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and the efficacy of BDS. After over an hour of intense debate on the pressing historical, economic and ethical questions, the motion was put to vote. Twenty-one students voted in favour of the resolution, two voted against it, while two students abstained.

This year marks 40 years since student unions were banned in Pakistan by dictator Gen Ziaul Haq. As student activism in the West over the issue of Palestine is highlighted and celebrated in political and public discourse, the continued absence of student unions and repression of student voices in this country has become all the more glaring. So who is afraid of student unions?

This was a miraculous outcome. One of the most stridently pro-Israeli universities was witnessing its student body indict the Zionist state of committing genocide, an act reminiscent of the BDS movement on US campuses against apartheid South Africa.

Students and activists chant slogans demanding the restoration of student unions during a protest rally in Islamabad in 2019: there has been a revival of the debate on student unions, heralded by the Student Solidarity Marches that began in 2018 | AFP

The response of the administration was hysterical, as expected. Within an hour, the president of the university sent out an email refusing to accept the verdict of the student body, highlighting the contradictory logics with which the administration and the students, the old and the young, viewed the world.

It is this impasse that triggered the pro-Palestinian “encampments” on university campuses across the US and beyond, where students are taking a bold stand against genocide in the midst of intense media hostility and severe repercussions from the administration.

While these students became symbols of hope across the world, it forced me to think of the context that provided them with the confidence to debate controversial issues. One of the pillars of this confidence is the regular student union elections, as well the debates that take place within the unions on key policy issues related to campus, with topics often tied to national and global issues. One cannot but lament that this basic building block of democracy is denied to students in Pakistan.

Having taught in Pakistan, I could only imagine the kind of spirited debates that our brilliant students would engage in if they were provided the opportunity to elect their own representatives on campus and provide a moral compass to our decaying society.

Forty years ago, in 1984, a military dictator imposed an unconstitutional and antidemocratic ban on student unions in Pakistan, robbing us of this possibility. The global student revolts under the banner of the Palestinian flag are an opportunity to re-examine the history of student unions in this country and to consider paving the way for their return on our campuses.

My thesis is that Pakistan’s student movement must be situated in the global context of anti-imperialist student uprisings across the globe, while the ban on them should be read as part of a global counter-revolutionary effort to wipe out revolutionary fervour amongst the youth and force them to assimilate into the dominant order.

These campaigns for the pacification of students took place simultaneously in the Global South and the Global North, with Pakistan standing out as the most successful example of a counter-revolution, which managed to wipe out all traces of revolutionary organisations on campuses.


Mohammad Ali Jinnah chatting with members of the Muslim Students Federation in 1947: the Quaid was a big proponent of involving young students in politics | Dawn Archives

STUDENTS AND THE GLOBAL REVOLUTION

The 1980s are remembered as a period that laid the foundations for the global defeat of the Left and progressive forces. From Latin America to the Middle East to Asia, many countries were firmly placed in the grip of pro–US and right-wing military dictatorships, pushing their societies into a vortex of authoritarianism and terror.

These regimes were counter-revolutionary, ie dedicated to the violent elimination of revolutionary organisations, the distortion of their memory and the complete discrediting, if not criminalisation, of their ideology. This counter-revolution was a direct response to the insurgent decades of the 1960s and 1970s, when mass uprisings, from Paris to Mexico City, from Los Angeles to Lahore, shook a defaulting status quo and heralded the arrival of a new political subject on to the stage of history.

This subject was the figure of the ‘student’, hitherto considered an elite vocation removed from the turbulent contradictions engulfing society. The convergence of global anger against the brutal Vietnam War, the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) active opposition to national liberation struggles in Africa and Asia, and the growing consciousness of the links between universities and the ruling system, propelled students to become a leading vanguard of progressive movements.

Their power was most potently demonstrated in the famous “May ’68“ uprisings in Paris, where a mass student revolt brought French President Charles De Gaulle’s government to its knees. From this point onwards, students became an integral part of the rebellion against the system, turning universities into a hotbed of subversive ideas and political action.

Student revolts placed the entire Western system in an acute state of crisis. French philosopher Louis Althusser demonstrated the central role played by universities in the production of ideology of the ruling class.

Beneath the claims of promoting “free speech” and “critical thinking”, the primary function of the university was to produce a professional managerial class that could be integrated into the capitalist system without questioning its fundamentals. This ideological function was disrupted by the student uprisings that transformed universities into sites for new ideas, and fuelled the anti-war, anti-racist, feminist and worker movements on a global scale.

As a reaction, the ruling classes mounted an unprecedented effort at restoring the power balance on campuses, by defeating the challenge posed by insurgent student politics. Philosopher Gabriel Rockhill has recently shown how pacifying university students required a gigantic effort that included the mobilisation of corporations, the CIA, domestic policing as well as shrewdly devised concessions to the student movement.

One of his fascinating insights is how the CIA was directly involved in promoting postmodern thought on university campuses, as a substitute to more radical and directly political texts that were dominating the student movement in the 1960s.

Similarly, the US intelligence apparatus invested heavily in promoting ‘cultural exchanges’ and conferences through organisations such as the Asia Foundation in the global South, to promote its narrative in the unfolding Cold War against the Soviet Union.

However, ideological arguments and monetary inducements were insufficient tools of pacification in the Global South. Eventually, the counter-revolution could only be secured through military coups throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America, which aimed to eliminate all leftist elements in society.

The shocking nature of brutality stemming from these coups can be gauged by the example of Chile, where leftist leader Salvador Allende was propelled to power as a result of mass mobilisation by students and workers. On September 11, 1973, General Augusto Pinochet overthrew the government of Allende in a CIA-backed coup d’état, rounding up 4,000 leftists and shooting them in a stadium.

Many were former student leaders whose dreams of a different world were drowned in blood by ruthless counter-revolutionary forces. Similar massacres of students were staged in Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, South Africa and a number of other countries, where the youth refused to be a mere footnote in the imperialist calculus of complete global domination.


Members attend a meeting of the Democratic Students Federation (DSF) at Dow Medical College in 1951: the DSF and the Communist Party of Pakistan were banned in 1954 | Dawn Archives

COUNTER-REVOLUTION COMES TO PAKISTAN

From the nation’s birth, the Pakistani ruling elites looked towards the US for their survival rather than charting out a sovereign path for national development. The signing of US-led military pacts, such as SEATO and CENTO in the 1950s, cemented the country’s place firmly in the anti-communist and anti-Soviet camp during the Cold War.

This fateful decision created many political distortions, including the elevation of the military as the primary arbiter on international and domestic issues, and the concomitant centralisation of state power. Such authoritarianism both fuelled dissent across the country, often led by the youth, while also triggering violent responses from the state, which had increasingly begun viewing any form of agitation through a myopic national security lens.

The 1951 language riots in Dhaka and the student movement in Karachi in 1953 were some of the earliest examples of the coming clashes between an uncompromising authoritarian state and a rebellious youth refusing to surrender.

The language riots stemmed from the imposition of Urdu on the Bengali population, while the 1953 movement began with a charter of demands presented to the government by the Democratic Students Federation (DSF), only to see their procession gunned down by the police, which murdered 27 people. A year later, the DSF, an affiliate of the Communist Party of Pakistan (CPP), was banned along with the CPP, as a ferocious anti-communist fervour took hold amongst the ruling classes in Pakistan.

To promote ‘pro-state’ sentiments among students, the government facilitated the formation of the National Students Federation (NSF) in 1955. However, this soon proved to be a clumsy decision, as the group was quickly infiltrated by leftist elements who rebranded it as a major progressive student organisation. Incidentally, the organisation first showed its muscle in 1962, when it led a protest against the CIA-backed overthrow of the Congolese revolutionary government led by the charismatic Patrice Lumumba.

The protests resulted in severe backlash by the Ayub Khan-led military government, triggering a mass student movement that became one of the most significant protest movements against the military junta at the time. Throughout the 1960s, the NSF gained momentum as the foremost student body in the country, only rivalled by the right-wing Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba (IJT).

Indeed, the crescendo of this organisation arrived in 1968, when a student-led movement erupted against the Ayub dictatorship, disrupting his celebration of a “decade of development.” Students inspired workers, farmers and professional classes to openly air their grievances against the junta, eventually forcing the US-backed military dictator to resign in the midst of a popular upheaval. It was these student agitators, reviled today in revisionist history, who paved the way for the first general elections in the country, thus becoming the forebears of democracy in the country.

A number of groups sprang up in the 1970s that contested against each other in annual elections of the student unions. Campuses became hotbeds for debates on the place of Islam, secularism, socialism, democracy, women rights and minorities in society. The archives show the rich literature, both Islamist and socialist, that was produced, circulated and widely read by students on campus as they tried orienting themselves in a complex socio-political environment. These archives belie the contemporary narrative around student politics that portrays this past as a series of mindless violent acts, a distorted narrative that only serves those in power.


The cover of a radical leftist Urdu magazine in 1968 showing the National Students Federation (NSF) leader Rasheed Hasan Khan being led out of a military court: in 1968, a student-led movement erupted against the Ayub Khan dictatorship, disrupting his celebration of a “decade of development” | Dawn Archives

Gen Ziaul Haq’s martial law in 1977 must be viewed in the context of this increasing power of labour and student unions, which had slowly begun outflanking even the self-proclaimed revolutionary government of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Zia’s counter-revolutionary regime aimed to discipline both labour and students by dismantling their organisations and discrediting their ideology.

The military junta drew its support from the US, which needed Pakistan as a base to launch its “jihad” against the socialist government in Afghanistan. This proxy war destroyed the entire region. Once again, the main bulwark against the completion of the counter-revolution was the organised student unions, the forebears of democracy who were now its final line of defence.

Apart from leading resistance for democracy when the country’s political leadership melted away to exile or went underground, student unions also became the most potent expression of the rejection of Zia’s agenda of authoritarianism and ‘Islamisation’. For example, in the student elections of 1981, 1982 and 1983, progressive forces gained massive victories on campuses across the country, despite the repression and state-led propaganda against them.

It was a sign that ideologically charged students were more difficult to control than career politicians, and hence had to be demobilised. Alongside increasing repression on campuses against left-wing student groups, the military junta played its final card. On February 9, 1984, it announced a complete ban on student unions, depriving the youth of the only form of representation available. The counter-revolution appeared complete.

THE FALSE LOGIC OF REPRESSION

As is often the case with authoritarianism, its rationale eventually finds support among broad layers of society who often tend to absorb the propaganda emanating from the highest echelons of power. A similar fate was meted out to the discussions of student unions in Pakistan, where a number of shallow, patronising and factually absurd arguments were forged and popularised to become the national ‘common sense’ arguments against the restoration of student unions.

In this sense, the counter-revolutionary aim of discrediting progressive ideology ended up discrediting the very idea of campus democracy and constructing a manufactured memory of the past to suit the unconstitutional and autocratic decisions made by the military junta.

Let us confront two of the most common myths against student unions.

The first includes how student unions were responsible for violence. As suggested earlier, this is a reductive understanding of the broad role played by student groups in cementing democracy and promoting a vibrant culture of intellectual engagement on campuses. Violence is a part of this story, but not merely between competing student groups. The worst forms of violence perpetrated on students were by the state itself, the self-appointed guardian of students in revisionist history.

Let’s assume that the state under Zia (who was promoting war across the region) was actually serious about promoting peace on campus. Has the ban on student unions helped in this regard? Anyone familiar with campuses knows that it is hardly the case. The incident of Mashal Khan’s lynching, the sexual harassment scandals at Balochistan University, the repeated tensions between student groups and administrations at Punjab University, and the sedition cases against students at Sindh University for demanding clean water, are a few of the many examples of the violence that pervades university campuses despite the ban on student unions.

The difference is that this violence is now detached from any ethical or ideological considerations and becomes part of petty turf wars between different factions of the administration, as exemplified by the tragic lynching of Mashal Khan.

One can add to this another misunderstanding that obfuscates the issues at stake. It is pertaining to the common confusion between student groups and student unions. Critics often give examples of IJT and other right-wing student groups as proof that student unions continue to promote violence. Yet, the problem stems from the conflation between organisations and unions. Student organisations are bodies formed by a group of students of a particular ideological/political orientation, while student unions are elected by students in elections that are held on campus. As a result, these are representative bodies of students that negotiate on their behalf with the administration. Since there are no elections on campuses, there are no unions in Pakistan.

Second, it is argued that educational institutions should be kept away from politics. This is a vacuous moral statement since education has always been a deeply political endeavour. Despite the erasure of student unions, politics plays out in each and every corner of universities in Pakistan, from the appointment of vice chancellors to the promotions of the clerical staff.

Similarly, the deep state continues to play a central role in monitoring university campuses, including keeping a close eye on the curriculum, so that it poses no threat to “Pakistan’s ideology.” I personally am witness to the calibre of these men when I was fired from FC College, Lahore. A security agency official had informed my university to remove me from teaching because I discussed politics in the classroom. At the time, I was teaching courses in political science.

The only politics that is suppressed is the politics of the oppressed, the students who simultaneously happen to be the most important and most excluded stakeholders in education. In the last 40 years, our universities have failed to compete with universities in South Asia, let alone across the world. All other countries of South Asia, as well as around the world, have student unions.

The reason for our dismal performance lies elsewhere, but the scapegoating of unions provides a useful veneer to cover up the failures of our system. There cannot be a bigger indictment of a system where VCs and administrators regularly convey to the government that they have no faith in the ability of their students to act responsibly if student unions are restored.

One should then ask that if, despite the increasing costs of education, universities are unable to inculcate basic virtues of citizenship among their students, would it not be correct to hold university administrators accountable for this incredible failure? Yet, in a perverse logic, accountability is only meted out to the victims, who must suffer the consequences of a defunct education system in suffocating silence.


Supporters of the Progressive Students Alliance during a student union election at Karachi University in 1973: a number of groups sprang up in the 1970s that contested against each other in annual elections of the student unions | Dawn Archives


REFUSING TO BE SILENCED

It is impossible, however, to turn young people into unthinking zombies. Hundreds of thousands of young people are entering the education system every year, only to see their hopes being shattered by a system that punishes critical thinking and promotes sycophancy.

It is pertinent to remember that hundreds of the brightest students, mostly Baloch and Pashtun, have been the subject of the odious policy of enforced disappearances at the hands of the state. A state that imposes physical violence to drill its own version of nationalism and religion into the youth is an insecurity state that will rule by fear but will never command the respect of its citizens.

This suffocating environment has led to a revival of the debate on student unions, heralded by the Student Solidarity Marches that began in 2018. Students who were taught to accept state narratives in silence built bonds across religious, ethnic and gender divides to bring together marchers in 54 different cities across the country, signalling popular unity from below when those at the top fuelled divisions in society. Students spoke out against the corruption scandals of university administrators, cases of sexual harassment, the militarisation of campuses and the increasing costs of education, as they demanded the restoration of student unions.

The response of the state to these demands was excessive, even by its own standards. Displaying a lingering hangover from the Cold War era, the students were castigated as anti-Pakistan and foreign agents. Many participants, including the author, were charged with sedition, while some were abducted and tortured. This violence was indicative of the fact that the state continues to view students as a law and order problem, and seeks to criminalise them when they demand rights.

Yet, the burgeoning global revolt of students on the Palestinian question shows that this generation cannot be intimidated into silence. Pakistani students are as capable as their counterparts around the world in determining their own path forward.

Our ruling classes will obstruct this development to their own peril, as history bears witness that even the mightiest empires cannot withstand the wrath of an agitated and united youth.

The writer is a historian, academic and political organiser. He is the founder and general secretary of the Haqooq-e-Khalq Party. X: @ammaralijan

Published in Dawn, EOS, June 30th, 2024