– It is a significant ideological-political debate that has been ongoing within the communist movement for many years — whether to utilize parliamentary elections or to boycott them? The working class must not only reject parliamentary elections and parliament as pure illusions; it must have a concrete vision that the capitalist state machinery is the weapon of the entire exploiting class, and thus the elections within it are merely auxiliary tools. The working class cannot decorate the state through parliamentary elections, but elections can be used in the course of spreading political consciousness, building organization, and exposing reactionaries. Engels argued that the labor party in Britain and Germany must utilize elections — as it can become a legal ground for building the political unity of the working class. The parliament has not brought about socialism through its own strength and will not do so; revolutionary action is unavoidable.
Simply boycotting parliamentary elections for being “bad” is childish “left opportunism.” Depending on the circumstances, both use and boycott can be correct. The parliament is a platform for capitalists, but the same platform can be used to expose the working class’s song. An example of election use is when Lenin instructed the Bolsheviks to go to the Duma and fight elections from 1912 to 1917 because it was the best legal means to propagate among workers and peasants. The reactionary character could be unveiled. But after the revolutionary situation matured (October 1917) – the primary task became not elections, but a vigorous uprising. Therefore: “The use/ boycott of elections is determined by the state of class struggle — not by theory.” Initially, only use: the electoral platform was used to expand Bolshevik organization in Russia. Once the power of the working class is established, there is no need for capitalist-style competitive elections, as the power of the working class will have already been established. Elections become just a process of socialist democracy, not class competition. Under such circumstances, there can never be an “invariable policy” of boycotting parliamentary elections by the labor party — therefore the character of the election, class structure, and nature of the state determines policy. “Where the reactionary class uses elections to cover up its own class dictatorship, revolutionary armed struggle is the real path instead of the use of elections. In the semi-feudal semi-colonial condition of Nepal, there is no space for the party in electoral politics — hence, armed struggle becomes the main form. The real power of the people is not in the parliament that sets conditions, but in the construction of people’s power. A united front can be built, and a “limited legal platform” can be used. The use of elections is possible, but under the reactionary state structure, the “boycott” and armed struggle of the people’s uprising are inevitable. The use of elections is a fundamental understanding of the means of consciousness-organization-propaganda, when the parliament becomes a tool for spreading illusion, then parliamentary elections become auxiliary and revolution becomes decisive. “Elections are not an alternative to revolution; but if circumstances allow, it is a useful front.” “Universal suffrage” or “parliamentarism” is a cycle created by the capitalist class— where the system itself being a weapon of the exploiting class, in many cases, parliamentary games become an anti-revolutionary trap. Where elections become merely a way for the same capitalist factions to exchange seats or to renew their power. Where it becomes impossible to build an independent party of the working class due to legal constraints. Where elections propagate anti-revolutionary pacifism (reformism). Under such circumstances, participating in elections only legitimizes capitalism. “Parliamentary illusion” is a great danger for the labor movement. If the parliament is merely a facade for deception, a false democracy — then elections are not the people’s decision, but merely a game of the print-capital-power “owners.” Where the labor party is completely suppressed. Where parliament is always a tool of class oppression and participating in it legitimizes the reactionary forces. In revolutionary circumstances, when the people’s uprising is advancing, the people’s anger is high, the state structure is collapsing, and opportunities to overturn the system are opening up. At such times, going to the elections would serve to stop the rebellion. When elections are completely under the control of the reactionary class. Opposition is removed, every seat is predetermined by the ruling class, elections are merely held to confuse the people.
When parliament itself has become an obstacle to revolution. If parliament uses the excuse of “legitimacy” to hinder or delay the people’s uprising, then boycotting elections is the correct decision. “When elections obstruct the path of rebellion and strengthen reaction, boycotting them is the revolutionary duty.” In capitalist countries, where elections are merely a “mask democracy,” the labor party is suppressed, elections become a farce of the capitalists. In such situations, a boycott becomes a means to build organization and intensify class struggle. After a socialist state is established: recognizing competing capitalist parties would be akin to opening the gates to the class enemy. Thus, the boycott of such “multi-party elections” = defense of the socialist state. In a semi-feudal + semi-colonial + reactionary system, boycotting elections becomes necessary. When elections become a means to suppress the people. Vote-buying, control by rapists-gangsters-feudals. In such circumstances, going to elections is an act of legitimizing reaction. When “people’s uprising” is being constructed, going to elections serves to stop the armed people’s uprising and the building of people’s power. When the reactionary class is legitimizing its power through the elections, “the real power of the people comes from the barrel of a gun, not from the paper elections of the reactionaries.” When elections are not for the people, but a charade of the ruling class. When elections become tools to halt the momentum of revolution. When participation becomes a means to grant legitimacy to capitalist/feudal powers. When the possibility of people’s uprising is rising and elections divert the movement.
In Marxism, a boycott is not a moral outcry; it is a scientific decision of class struggle. When elections weaken the struggle — it is the boycott that supports the revolution. The actual reality of Russia at the time Lenin directed the Bolsheviks to participate in the Duma was especially between 1907-1912. This was a time: after the failed revolution of 1905, the reactionary regime was very strong, the labor-peasant movement was fragmented, and the party was underground and disorganized. In this situation, the Duma (the then parliament) was not the people’s parliament, but a limited legal platform controlled by arbitrary power. However, this small legal space was becoming the only open door for revolutionary propaganda and organization expansion. Why did Lenin say “we must go to the Duma”? Because it was the only legal place for direct political propaganda among laborers and peasants.”
