After the restoration of democracy in 1990 UML emerged as the second largest party. Despite the achievement, its leader Madan Bhandari, who was closely observing the post-90 fall of communism, was quick to realize that time was not on their side. Therefore, he initiated ‘People’s Multi-Party Democracy’ (PMD), a program of political reform intended to transform eventually the party into a democratic left force. PMD, although passed by the 5th General Convention of the party and later adopted as the guiding principle became orphaned and disoriented with the untimely demise of Bhandari. His successors lacked vision, direction and leadership qualities to chart the course properly. They advanced centrist policies—on political, economic and foreign relation fronts— but lacked matching efforts to change or educate the hard-liners in the party. The built-in contradiction gradually paved way for party split, with a sizeable chunk of its workers and some mid-ranking leaders later joining the Maoist bandwagon.
Although much water has flown in Narayani, CPN-UML still favors a communist identity for itself as manifested in its official documents and resolutions. However, if its actions, attitudes or election manifestos are anything to go by, it is not much different from Nepali Congress—the mainstream of liberal democrats. Maoists have been constantly and successfully exposing and capitalizing on this mismatch.
Bhandari was aware that his vision posed risk; he also knew that his aim would not be achieved quickly. The brainwashed cadres were strong enough forces to resist or to slow the changes. Though dogmatic, majority of them were dedicated, hard-working and disciplined lot, which the party leadership didn’t want to lose. On the other hand, there were forces and factors that constantly pushed the party to change. For example, the collapse of global communism, the changing profiles of communist rules in countries like China and Vietnam, geo-politics, shifting power balance within the country and the democratic nature of the 1990 constitution which the party helped to write.
Time has come for the CPN-UML to choose one clear path whether on national issues or on its own ideological/organizational direction. Playing the game of ambiguity and contradictions won’t work anymore.
UML has already split once before reuniting. Now after 12 years, for all practical purpose it is a split party again—the break is just a matter of when, not whether. Every now and then the majority of the parliamentary party comes up with fresh demands of resignation of its prime minister including the demand of a national unity government (which implies handing over the coalition leadership to the Maoists). The campaign is openly spearheaded by senior leader Bam Dev Gautam allegedly at the behest of the Maoists and is covertly supported by no other than the party president Jhala Nath Khanal himself. On the other hand the majority of party central committee is in favor of continuation of the present government, a line initiated and supported by the heavyweight leader Krishna Prashad Oli. There are sharp divisions within the party over the kind and nature of party’s relationship with the Maoists. When the party first split 12 years ago, the breakaway group claimed that the party leadership had sold out to India by signing the Mahakali treaty. They made the ‘anti-national’ treaty as the main reason for the split.
Whether Mahakali or Maoists, they are only the symptoms and not the root cause of the problem. CPN-UML won’t reverse its ideological shift but it wants to downplay the change; it wants to continue the transformation but it doesn’t want to define and discuss it. This very paradox is its real disease. Although two opposite forces, advocating liberal and classical adaptation of Marxism are constantly in conflict, at times leaders join or lead groups different from their likings for tactical and strategic reasons. For instance JN Khanal, basically a liberal person, is trapped into the conservative camp. As his adversary KP Oli hijacked the leadership of the anti-radical/anti-Maoist stream and as someone who owes a great deal to Maoists for his victory in the election for the post of party president against Oli, Khanal is bound to forge ties with Maoists despite his inner distrust toward them.
When Maoists remained underground, inherent ideological and factional contradictions were no big deal for UML. The gap between its communist schooling and not-so-communist practices with regard to the political system, socio-economic changes and foreign policy issues, especially in respect to the relationship with India did not pose much of a threat before. However, with Maoists emerging as the mainstream communist, things have changed. As nucleus of the communist world, Maoist’s gravitational force has been affecting the position of other communist forces including that of the UML. Using both carrot and stick strategy the Maoists have been wooing and stealing UML cadres to their fold. Except for educated and white collar professional groups, UML has during the last few years lost its traditional support base to Maoists comprising of workers, poor and weaker and marginalized segments of the society.
UML cannot avoid its break-up now; at most it can reduce the size and impact of the break. Nonetheless, UML’s bad days will continue. As no two parties can remain at the top in a communist world, the war for identity and existence will continue till either of them is annihilated or transformed. In the battle to achieve or retain the “mainstream of communist movement” franchise, UML is no match against the Maoists. Therefore, in the long run, UML has only one choice— either to change into a social democrat party or to merge with the UCPN-Maoist.
If UML decides to transform itself into a democratic party, it can emerge as an alternative to the liberal mainstream NC as the latter has been getting weaker by the day. UML cannot choose the second option at least before the ‘extreme left’ changes into a civilian party. Twenty years ago CPN-UML too was as radical as the Maoists are today. Even at that time UML didn’t have an army or militias of its own the way Maoists have today. Therefore, comparison or meeting between the two is simply not possible. However, there are advantages and disadvantages in both options. UML should be prepared to lose something to gain something. It cannot present itself as real communists to its communist constituency and at the same time project itself as democrats to non-communist forces, both internal and external and enjoy the benefits of both options. Time has come for it to choose one clear path whether on national issues or on its own ideological/organizational direction. Playing the game of ambiguity and contradictions won’t work anymore.
jeevan1952@hotmail.com
Related story
High-profile corruption cases pending at Supreme Court for two...
