40 SOCIAL SCIENTIST But as soon as independence is declared, far from embodying in concrete form the needs of the people in what touches bread, land and restoration of the country to the sacred hands of the people, the leader will reveal his inner purpose: to become the general president of that company of profiteers impatient for their returns which constitutes the national bourgeoisie . . . His contact with the masses is so unreal that he comes to believe that his authority is hated and that the services he has rendered his country are being called in question. The leader judges the ingratitude of the masses harshly, and every day that passes ranges himself a little more resolutely on the side of the exploiters ... The leader pacifies the people . . . The leader, because he refuses to break up the national bourgeoisie, asks the people to fall back into the past and to become drunk on the remembrance of the epoch which led up to independence. The leader, seen objectively^ brings the people to a halt and persists in either expelling them from history or preventing them from taking root in it. During the struggle for liberation the leader awakened the people and promised them a forward march, heroic and unmitigated. Today he uses every means to put them to sleepy (Emphasis added). Politics of Discontent Compatible or not e 'with the spirit of representative democracy'^ the actual line or strategy of political action is in the final analysis determined neither in advance and in abstraction nor in terms of some so called absolute 'moral5 or 'ethical' principle (all morality is class morality, serving specific class interests) but by the totality of the concrete, objective situation at a particular time; and the oppressed and the exploited masses have an inalienable right at any time to change the government, to borrow Malcom X^s phrase, "by any means necessary"—isn't the government seeking to remain in power by any means necessary ? Then, contrary to our rulers' view, there is also nothing inherently wrong in exploiting popular discontent for 'political^ objectives as the discontent is itself rooted in economic-political factors: the crucial point is which forces (fascist or left revolutionary) do exploit this discontent, and by no logic can it be said that any and every opposition party which takes advantage of popular discontent is necessarily fascist and anti-democratic. Has not the ruling party exploited popular discontent for its power objectives ? Also to be stressed is the point that it is only when the left revolutionary forces are weak or hesitant that the fascist and anti-revolutionary forces are able to step in and take advantage of popular discontent. As such, by trying to weaken and suppress the left revolutionary forces the government has itself cleared the decks for the right reactionary and fascist forces in the country. This however is nothing surprising, for governments act according to their specific class character; and as history shows, the dividing line between the bourgeois 'democratic' rule itself and fascism does not always remain very sharp. It is by no means easy to pinpoint and comprehend JP^s political