Unlike in bourgeois parties, differences within communist parties are also ideological in origin and nature and they are often violent. As engagement in pluralistic and democratic politics gradually liberates sensible and better educated among the ‘revolutionaries’ from the cocoons of their dogma, the radical ones’ backlash for ‘ideological deviation’ is no pardonable a sin in the world of communists. This is what happened in UML yesterday and this is what is happening in Unified Maoists today. However, communists are as much prone to personal weaknesses and disputes as bourgeois politicians are because the forces of human psychology are stronger than that of revolutionary doctrines. Hence, differences and divorces among politicians should pose no problem; problem occurs when some of them, instead of solving their conflicts through rule of game and social contract, resort to revenge or violence.
When UML split some 15 years back, the two groups launched grubby propaganda wars against each other through their mouthpiece weeklies accusing each other of everything from corruption to adultery. A senior leader of UML was blamed of having extra-marital affairs with the widow of a revered party leader. Similarly, a huge party rally was organized just to declare Bam Dev Gautam, the leader of the splinter CPN-ML group, as the most corrupt politician of the country. Ideological differences between hardliners and moderates and personal ambitions of leaders like Gautam and Mainali brothers (CP and Radha Krishna) were cause of the split and the ensuing defamation race. Reasons will be no different as and when the party splits again; they will be partly ideological (such as whether to align with the Maoists or with the NC) and partly personal/factional (Madhav Kumar Nepal/K P Oli alliance versus Jhalanath Khanal/Bam Dev Gautam alliance).
Ideological differences within Maoists now are far more acute and irreconcilable than that within UML in any given time. Strangely but strategically Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and Party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, fierce contenders for premiership, have for the moment suspended their rivalry and joined hands to counter the offensive launched by the hard-line faction of Mohan Baidya. The day UCPN (Maoist) will split –it is only a matter of when, not whether – walls across the country will be full with bombardments of accusations like revisionist, petit-bourgeois, rastraghati (traitor), bisarjanbadi (abandonees) and counter accusations like jadasutrabadi (dogmatists), ugra bampanthi vadkaw (ultra-left deviation) and so on. Violent clashes may ensue. As if to rehearse, some have already taken place during the past few months.
Ideological, factional, or personal, whatever be the nature of their disagreements, communists at first defend them saying that it is an exercise of antarik janabad (internal democracy), or that antarsangharsha (internal struggle) is part of communist movement as much as barga sangharsha (class struggle) is, or that it is dui line ko sangharsha (struggle between two different lines) which they claim as modus operandi of communist parties. However, text-book lexicons coined by Lenin a century ago cannot save the party from split; his prognoses may have worked yesterday and worked in one-party communist dictatorships, but it is a different world today. Communists politicking in freer societies and democratic regimes of today have choices that were never available to their predecessors before; anytime they can part ways with their fellow comrades to form a party of their choice, without fear and/or restriction.
In case of non-communist, non-ideological parties, the reasons for and impact of scuffles and splits are fundamentally different and non-violent. Mostly the fight is either for acquisition of power or for control over party funds or both. Clash of interests, egos, personal chemistry and personalities between top ranking leaders as well as cronies and close relatives of those leaders also fuel the disputes. Feud between the NC troika Ganesh Man Singh, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Girija Prasad Koirala was a mix of all. The one between Sher Bahadur Deuba and Party President Sushil Koirala is to secure an upper hand in the power sharing of the party and, if possible, to capture it. Deuba’s extreme lust for power and Koirala’s inept handling of dissent aggravated on both sides by their respective cronies and/or families have only intensified their mutual distrust. Similarly, fight between Deuba and Ram Chandra Poudel is for the future leadership of the party and the government.
The split in RPP was result of the personality clash between Surya Bahadur Thapa and Pashupati Shumsere, as both RPP and the breakaway Rastriya Janashakti Party have no ideological or political differences of any kind. Ideological but non-communist parties such as Madhesis that keep on splitting one after another have no political or policy differences of any kind among them. The ever increasing plethora of Madhesi parties that join different coalition governments at different times is proof of the fact that their championing of the ‘Madhesi’ cause, whatever it is, is just for public consumption and that only wealth, power and position and nothing else matter to their leaders, except for a few like Mahantha Thakur.
Personal and partisan differences are phenomena neither new nor avoidable in applied politics. Only enlightened, able and liberal leaders having enough self-confidence such as B P Koirala are capable of accommodating and winning their rivals. He included in his cabinet stalwarts and potential adversaries like Subarna Shumser and Surya Prasad Upadhyaya as deputy prime minister and home minister respectively and even tried his best to win and mobilize the ambitious and talented but unreliable Tulsi Giri. But we cannot always have B P Koiralas, and instead have to contain with the likes of Girija, Deuba and Dahal.
It is true that even in matured democracies, selfish leaders do exist. However, when it comes to larger national interests, they demonstrate statesmanship and unite putting aside their personal and partisan agendas. See how the bitter contenders of yesterday Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are successfully working together in a team today. Here in Nepal too, rule-based rivalries or healthy skepticisms between inter- and intra-party leaders would have been no reason to disappoint people had they worked together for nation building. Unfortunately, our poorly educated and quarrelsome leaders offer no hope, at least, for a long time to come.
Related story
It is not my fault!
