National democracy is a Marxist–Leninist theoretical concept that chiefly encompasses three processes: the national liberation struggle, the national democratic revolution and the national democratic state. The first process focuses on the establishment of a state formation through a national liberation struggle. The second process covers the national democratic revolution, how revolutionaries seize power in the newly-independent state. The last process deals with how a national democratic state can transition the society it controls from the pre-capitalist or capitalist mode of production to the socialist mode of production, in a bid to establish a communist state formation known as the socialist state.
The national democratic theory has also spawned concepts unique to certain states. For example, the official ideology of the African National Congress in South Africa is the national democratic revolution.
Theoretical origins
After World War II, the Western world was divided into two blocs: a capitalist bloc led by the United States and a communist bloc headed by the Soviet Union. In response to the decolonisation of the Third World and the rise of national liberation movements in the post-World War II era, Soviet theorists aimed to develop a coherent ideological and policy framework to address these developments. During the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in 1952, the initial ideas that would evolve into the theory of national democracy were introduced. At this congress, party leaders informed the delegates that the world was divided into three blocs: a communist bloc, a capitalist bloc, and a third bloc of uncommitted states. For the world revolution to be successful, the communist bloc needed to bring the uncommitted states to their side. Four years later, during the 20th CPSU Congress in 1956, Nikita Khrushchev, the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, announced that the communist bloc had united with the group of non-aligned nations to create a "zone of peace."
The policy change led the Soviet Union to concentrate on fostering positive relationships with states they viewed as anti-imperialist and bourgeois nationalist. This included Gamal Abdel Nasser's Egypt and Jawaharlal Nehru's India. The Soviet Union prioritised these diplomatic relationships over assisting local communist parties in those countries in their efforts to gain power. During the 21st CPSU Congress in 1961, Khrushchev criticised these states for repressing communist activities. He stated that even with this problem, the Soviet Union would persist in offering foreign assistance to those states.
In the late 1950s, the CPSU Central Committee established a special group led by , an official in the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee. The group drafted party policies and speeches for key leaders concerning the national liberation struggle in the Third World and national democracy. They submitted these drafts to the CPSU Secretariat, the highest executive organ of the CPSU Central Committee, for approval. Once approved, they became official party line. It was not until 1960, at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties, held in Moscow, that the term national democracy became official policy of the Soviet-led world communist movement. By the 1970s, national democracy had developed into a coherent theoretical system. Several academic research institutes studied Soviet national liberation theory and how it worked in practice, according to scholar Irina Filatova. They produced hundreds of books, thousands of theses, and many articles on different aspects of this topic.
National democracy is closely related to two other concepts: revolutionary democracy and socialist orientation, also referred to as a "non-capitalist way of development”. The Soviet academic journal, Africa: Problems of Socialist Orientation, defined revolutionary democracy as a social group that represented the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, democratic, and socialist goals of various working people in states at the pre-capitalist and early-capitalist stages of development. Socialist orientation was introduced in 1960 at the Moscow summit. It refers to a way of development that is not based on capitalism. This concept is seen as a first step toward socialism in countries where people reject capitalism but where the material conditions are not yet ready for a socialist revolution.
National liberation struggle
Soviet theorists viewed the national liberation movements that participated in the national liberation struggle as reflections of the material base, the natural and economic foundation of the given society, present in their societies, in accordance with the Marxist–Leninist materialist interpretation of history. Soviet theorists posited that numerous countries in the Third World were in the early stages of establishing class societies, meaning economically advanced societies. , deputy head of the CPSU International Department, argued that these societies displayed a pre-capitalist and primarily pre-feudal social structure. This underlying structure was superficially concealed by bourgeois relations, which mainly developed in the areas of commodity production and money circulation.
Karen Brutents agreed with Ulyanovsky, highlighting that these societies were founded on family and tribal connections, caste biases, and religious affiliations rather than class relations. This posed a significant problem, as individuals exhibited a stronger attachment to what Brutents considered outdated social ideas, such as tribes, instead of recognising the real, shared material conditions they were experiencing. While admitting that traditional class categories lacked relevance in the context they were used, it is clear that Soviet theorists strongly favoured classical Marxist terms—such as national bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, intelligentsia, peasantry, and proletariat—when studying the material base of the colonial state.
National bourgeoisie Soviet theorists posited that the national bourgeoisie in the Third World had distinct characteristics compared to the classical bourgeoisie found in Western societies. Understanding these differences, they posited, could provide valuable insights into the material base of these states. They reasoned that the national bourgeoisie differed from the Western bourgeoisie in that they were not capitalist owners and, therefore, were not exploiting the working masses.
The national bourgeoisie worked mostly in trade, services, money exchange, and lending; what Soviet Marxist–Leninists would often call nothing more than petty bourgeoisie tradesmen. Soviet Marxist–Leninists believed they took a role akin to the petty bourgeoisie tradesmen in the West. They concluded that the low level of historical development in these states was a significant factor. Additionally, the fact that the largest enterprises were owned and operated by Western capitalists diminished the influence of the local bourgeoisie and marginalised it as a class.
The dominance of foreign capital over the means of production hindered the national bourgeoisie from establishing itself as a separate social class, as Western capitalists typically exploited their limited resources. The discriminatory policies enforced by the colonial state also made the national bourgeoisie more positive towards the idea of national liberation. Soviet theorists maintained that due to oppression by foreign capital and the colonial state, the national bourgeoisie, rather than upholding the existing order, became active participants in the struggle for national liberation.
However, there was still widespread disagreement within the Soviet foreign policy establishment on how one should understand the motives of the national bourgeoisie. Vadim Zagladin and Fedor Ryzhenko, two theorists, believed that they took part in the national liberation struggle since they did not want to share their profits with foreign imperialists. Although this was the more conservative viewpoint, most others held a more moderate position. Ulyanovsky believed that the national bourgeoisie had a vested interest in the struggle, but they often linked national liberation to their own class interests. Bobodzhan Gafurov, who headed the Oriental Institute at the USSR Academy of Sciences, argued in a paper, prepared under the guidance of Pyotr Fedoseyev, that the revolutionary potential of the national bourgeoisie was merely an illusion. He claimed that this class acted solely for its own benefit. Due to its small size and perceived self-interests, many Soviet analysts overlooked the national bourgeoisie as a social class.
Nevertheless, the official party line remained as articulated by Brutents, who reasoned that the national bourgeoisie faced a contradiction. On one end, they aimed to improve their material and political conditions by establishing an independent national state, enhancing economic conditions, creating a national market, and gaining control of it. However, their desires conflicted with the goals of the colonial state. This contradiction determined the national bourgeoisie's involvement in the fight for liberation, Brutents believed.
Petty bourgeoisie The petty bourgeoisie, unlike the national bourgeoisie, was seen by Soviet ideologues as having revolutionary potential. However, Soviet theorists never reached a common understanding of what the petty bourgeoisie was, according to scholar Galia Golan. Some theorists placed the petty bourgeoisie within the intermediate strata, while others proposed that the intermediate strata were an internal group within the urban petty bourgeoisie. Furthermore, some theorists regarded the rural petty bourgeoisie as part of the intermediate strata as well, while others saw all these class categories as related yet separate.
As noted by Ulyanovsky, the misclassification arose from early Soviet theorists who categorised the left-leaning intelligentsia and the military as part of the national bourgeoisie. Brutents highlighted a similar but distinct anomaly, where earlier Soviet theorists classified small traders and independent farmers as a pre-capitalist phenomenon rather than as part of the petty bourgeoisie. Yevgeny Primakov, the head of the Institute for World Economy and International Relations at the USSR Academy of Social Sciences, noted that earlier classifications grouped clerks, intellectuals, and military personnel with traders, artisans, and small producers. However, he opined, these groups had different relationships with the means of production and could not, therefore, be members of the same class. Primakov argued that the intermediary strata and petty bourgeoisie were distinct groups, believing it was incorrect to merge these two categories.
Soviet theorists believed that the petty bourgeoisie, which includes tradespeople, small business owners, artisans, and minor producers, often earned low incomes. In some cases, these individuals were even worse off financially than the proletariat. Consequently, they believed that this group was inherently against imperialism. According to Brutents, the petty bourgeoisie joined the struggle because of colonial oppression, exploitation, and damaging competition from foreign countries. They also faced pressure from wealthy compradors and moneylenders.
Even with these advantageous characteristics, the petty bourgeoisie, as part of the bourgeoisie, were perceived to possess a dual nature. In contrast to the proletariat, which had an inherent tendency to resist capitalism and imperialism, the petty bourgeoisie, due to their connection with private capitalist property, developed a bourgeois mindset and social values that justified capitalism.