We have a parliament that is not able to perform its primary function, which is to elect a prime minister. Similarly we have a constituent assembly where bickering between and among parties has made it virtually dysfunctional since the last few months. Naturally, Nepali people are confused and worried at this show of irresponsibility by the major parties of the nation.
How do we explain the present gridlock and inaction? To answer this question, it is necessary to understand that when there is a lack of clarity between the ends and means in a system, there is tension and the possibility of conflict gaining ground over time. At present, the main objective of the nation is to promulgate a constitution that is democratic, inclusive and consistent with the progressive hopes and aspirations of the people. The institutional means to achieve this goal is the CA where the three major parties, namely the UCPN (Maoist), CPN-UML and Nepali Congress, are the main actors. However, the fact remains that the promulgation of a new constitution is not the priority of political parties. Their focus is primarily on state power. The non-Maoist parties want to lead the government while the Maoists cannot get rid of the idea of "capturing the state" because of their ideological predisposition.
We Nepalis are good at temporary salvage-type solutions: We may still come up with a skeleton constitution with some vital parts to be implanted at a later date. Purists will deplore it but realistically this may be the best that we could hope for.
For the Maoists, their combatants are their great political and military asset and they are determined to keep it under the defacto control of the party even when it is integrated with the national security forces. They want the modality of integration to be in line with this objective. Other non-Maoist parties are determined to make sure that the modality of integration does not allow for this possibility. The ensuing struggle has deflected the focus from constitution-drafting to struggle for power. Worse still, inside all the major political parties that are aspiring for power, personality clash has become intense with the result that the whole objective of drafting a new constitution has taken a backseat. Struggle to be the next prime minister inside the party and between and among parties has created an atmosphere of cynicism and skepticism regarding the capability or willingness of the major political parties to complete the task in time.
Personal ambition inside each party and ideological difference among the parties has made a mockery of democracy in the nation. For the Maoists following Lenin, any possibility of dividing other parties or applying similar other divisive tactics is not only normal but necessary for getting rid of what they claim as a bourgeois system. Lenin´s famous dictum that "morality is that which serves to destroy the exploitating society…” (Selected Works vol. xvii pp. 321-323) remain the basis of Maoists’ tactical shifts that is so frequent and obvious. However, in defense of their strategic intent, the Maoists are on record claiming that their offensive is still on. What has changed is the tactics since a people´s war is not a linear projection of military action. It is non-linear in the sense that there are other political and non-political factors that are equally as important as the military.
Nevertheless, in Maoist thinking, the control of the military is the most important component of the new revolution. They consider their combatants as one of their finest achievements and are determined to insure that they can use this asset when they want. Thus, they find it hard to accept the idea that their combatants remain non-political and be a part of national military. Their effort constantly has been to use the integration of two forces as a way of gaining control of the Nepali military under the direction of the Maoist communist party. This remains the crux of the problem. Unless there is a change or some flexibility in this thinking, the current political confusion is likely to remain.
International revolutionary left criticism of the Maoist party has centered on the idea that the party is gradually loosing its revolutionary moorings and is becoming like an overweight wrestler who is past his prime and thinking of a retired and comfortable life under the influence of bourgeois culture while remembering once in a while his past glory. In their response, the Maoists have consistently argued with their international left colleagues that they remain true to their objectives of capturing the state and establish Nepal as a new bastion of revolutionary left movement in the 21st century. They claim – at least one very important section whose front man at the moment is the voluble and still charismatic ‘Prachanda’ – in their international dialogue that the present struggle is with the "internal bourgeois and feudal elements supported by India and other imperialist forces".
The struggle in the coming days is again going to focus not on constitution but on the leadership of the government. The hard-line section of the Maoists knows that the new constitution if and when it is drafted is not going to reflect their dreams of a People´s Republic. So, drafting of the new constitution is logically not their first priority. The main focus is on the government. Once there is a Maoist-led government or even a government that is under Maoist influence, it will open new opportunities for party control of various organs of the state, the most important being the military. Whether or not this will materialize remains to be seen. The international environment is not supportive of this ambition and the mood of the people of Nepal is for peace and reconciliation rather than revolutionary rhetoric that is increasingly loosing its steam in the face of rank opportunism among all the political parties including the Maoists.
For the Maoists, the need to maintain a revolutionary image in the face of increasing ideological wrangling inside the party cannot be ignored. On the other hand, the national and international environment is definitely not too anxious for a new one-party authoritarian regime. The interplay of both these forces means that the constitution-drafting process is not likely to be completed by May 2011. But, we Nepalis are good at temporary salvage-type solutions: We may still come up with a skeleton constitution with some vital parts to be implanted at a later date. Purists will deplore it but realistically this may be the best that we could hope for.
Writer is the co-chairman of the Rastriya Janasakti Party
Related story
Women’s World Cup security heightened ahead of opening match fo...
