Predictably, the leading revolutionary party wins the largest number of seats in parliament, while the other parties, including the Maoists, who played a minuscule role in the revolution, are placed at distant second, third, and fourth positions in the seat count. The defeated parties accustomed to having a perpetual hold on power are not comfortable with the ascendancy of the revolutionary party—however legitimately it has gained access to power.
Then, the losing parties start to conspire and maneuver using all available means to get back to power in which they eventually succeed. After gaining the control of government, the defeated parties pledge to lead the revolution and fulfill the dreams of prior revolutionaries even though the pseudo-revolutionaries had nothing to do with it and, in fact, they had opposed the revolution from the beginning.
For making the intent of above scenario relevant and transparent, let us assume that Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and their 20 co-parties in current coalition were the ones credited for forcing the change—from monarchy to a republic—and that they had won the largest number of seats in parliament while Maoist and its co-parties who were indifferent or opposed to the revolution had been wiped-out. How then the scenario would have unfolded if the defeated Maoists had maneuvered a cop out and captured power, pledging that they are now prepared to lead the revolution without the democratic parties, who were real victors in the election?
It is not difficult to see that such a forceful grab of power by the defeated parties, comprising Maoists, wouldn’t have survived even for a day—if it would ever had come into existence at all. There would have been legitimate concern for the defeated Maoists’ grab of power against the will of the people expressed through Constituent Assembly (CA) election. There would have been an international outcry to oppose the hijacking of democracy, followed by an Indian blockade, UN sanction, suspension of foreign aid, and ostracism of all types from international community until the Maoists quit power under pressure. Maoists’ power grab would have been unacceptable and unsustainable at home and abroad because it would have violated the norms of democracy!
Given that Maoists are the only group of people credited for conceiving and spearheading the revolution, why is it that they are now sidelined from decision-making role and even labeled as enemies of revolution? This would be similar to Bolshevik Revolutionaries in Russia being overtaken by Czarist goons.
Turn this scenario around and we will see why the new politics in the country looks so muddled, directionless, and purposeless, ready for a descent into anarchy. The main problem is the illegal and unethical grab of power by the defeated pseudo democrats who, in fact, have very little credibility for democracy and, certainly, are alien to the revolution. They have entered into an unholy alliance with other parties for no other purpose than to benefit from international hostility toward Maoists and Maoists’ otherworldly ideology that makes them unfit to govern, even if they get a public mandate to do so.
The reverse side of this antipathy towards Maoists is that non-Maoists elements are tolerated – even promoted – by forces that had opposed the Maoist revolution from the very start and now they refuse to accept defeat when Maoists have succeeded, winning the hearts and minds of people as demonstrated by the outcome of CA election, contested in a free and fair manner.
COALITION OF LOSERS
We then must recognize the basic contradiction underlying the current situation in the country, when revolution is being led by the non-revolutionary forces, against the expressed will of the people. Additionally, given the fact that the main flag bearer of this coalition has been rejected by the people not once but twice and many other luminaries in this government have been defeated in the election or are unelected, how can they be qualified to lead a democratic government, much less a revolution they had nothing to do with and were even opposed to it?
Admittedly, this coalition of losers claims legitimacy on the basis of numerical strength – that they have got a majority vote in parliament. However, a larger number does not make their claim to govern more legitimate than of a group of vandals banding together to share and divide up the loot for which it did not plan for or contribute in anyway; someone else left it there and these vandals happen to be there and to grab it! With the attraction of being paid for something not earned or deserved would attract any number of fortune seekers, be it a street thug or a member of CA, especially in the political culture of Nepal where money-grab is almost the sole purpose of being in politics. It would be a serious challenge for anyone to figure out what has brought this hotchpotch of 22 parties together except for the sharing of undeserved loot.
Calling the success of Maoist Revolution loot is certainly not correct and is not meant to be derogatory about Maoists’ achievements. Rather this is meant to convey the underlying interests of most of the coalition partners who were vehemently opposed to the revolution to begin with, and were ready to annihilate Maoists given the chance.
Also, the public is aware of the spectacle created by former King Gyanendra after his takeover of government in 2005 when he called for application from all deserving candidates for the position of prime minister whose first task will be to face-off Maoist insurgency. Reportedly, many people applied for this job, including the current Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal. Now how can it be morally correct for these men who were prepared to crush the Maoists and nip the revolution in its bud to become the captains of revolution?
LOOKING AT HISTORY
By any measure, Maoist Revolution in Nepal can be termed as being more substantive and having far more significance than, for example, Lenin’s in Russia, Mao’s in China, and Khomeini’s in Iran. The main difference in Nepal’s case is that monarchy for most people had not meant just a political entity – similar to the ruling dynasties of other countries – but that monarchy was woven into the social and cultural fabrics of day-to-day living, in a way that it looked inconceivable to think of Nepal without the king.
Given that Maoists are the only group of people credited for conceiving and spearheading the revolution, why is it that they are now sidelined from decision-making role and even labeled as enemies of revolution? This would be similar to Bolshevik Revolutionaries in Russia being overtaken by Czarist goons; Chiang-Kai-shek’s men taking the lead in implementing Mao’s Revolution in China; and Shah’s courtiers taking charge of Khomeini’s Revolution in Iran. All these imaginary possibilities sound absurd and ridiculous but that is what is now happening in Nepal!
Maoist revolutionaries must then be credited for keeping cool and managing their frustrations in the face of historic injustice they have suffered at the hands of democracy-goons who have every intention to maintain the status-quo and, worse, scuttle the revolution. At the same time, Maoists are helpless fighting back to get what is truly theirs. Disappointing outcome of the May Day demonstrations proves the futility of non-violent means of achieving Maoists’ goals – of putting their revolution back on track. However, the outlook for a Maoist revival remains grim, given that feudal forces have had time to re-group and army leadership is now convinced that it cannot co-exist with a Maoist government. Also, international environment remains hostile for the Maoists for them to takeover by force, however fair and justified that option may look.
Maoists thus seem to be stuck in a muddle from which they have few easy ways to extricate themselves. At the same, it would be fair to say that much of the current helplessness facing Maoists is of their own-making, especially their uncalled for row with the army and Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s hasty decision last year to resign rather than fight. At the same time, Maoists’ helplessness is not something the current coalition partners should feel elated about. They do not hold the moral high ground for drafting a new constitution and setting new directions for the country to move forward.
For gaining any measure of credibility, a workable transition will require Maoists’ initiative and support, not just as a partner but for them to lead the effort which, unfortunately, seems unlikely. The prospect then is for an unending conflict, spreading unrest, and disappearance of government authority beyond the confines of police stations and military barracks. The government will not disappear but it will become irrelevant and meaningless in the eyes of most people.
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
Infomerics Credit Rating Nepal receives operating license as co...
