These gestures of integrity, austerity and simplicity resonate well with people fed up with being ignored and humiliated by corrupt, self- seeking, double-talking politicians. Many Nepalis are hoping that under his leadership, some real progress in constitution-drafting and good governance – two of the main priorities of the Bhattarai government – will be made. But a look at Bhattarai’s Maoist baggage and the first month of his administration provide little confidence that there are any grounds for this new-found optimism unless Bhattarai is able to fundamentally change his world view and act with extraordinary courage.
The Maoist leadership, including Bhattarai, agrees that constitution drafting and army integration have not progressed because of the lack of trust between the Maoists and opposition parties. There is a crisis of confidence caused by, besides Maoists foot dragging in complying with the twelve-point agreement signed six years ago, the Maoists’ routine double talk and their relentless past adventures to usurp power through extra-parliamentary means (“from the street”) and establish the so-called “New Democracy” or “People’s Republic”.
Bhattarai was not only at the front and center of these adventures but also contributed to the widening of the confidence gap by his own double talk. For example, he regularly talks about his party’s commitment to multiparty democracy and competitive politics to Nepali audience but as recently as October 2009, he said to an interviewer of the World Peoples Resistance Movement (Britain): “In the next few months when the contradiction will sharpen among the reactionary forces while making the new constitution, during that time this new movement will arise when the people will finally come to revolt and complete the New Democratic Revolution”.
On the question of multiparty election, he told the same interviewer: “After the revolution in a New Democratic or socialistic framework, where there will be certain constitutional provisions whereby the reactionaries, imperialists and criminal forces will not be allowed to participate. Only the progressive forces, the democratic forces and people will be allowed to compete”.
A multiparty democracy such as Bhattarai describes is not inclusive and is not different from the multiparty election in China where only candidates approved by the communist party are ever elected beyond the village level. Such authoritarian democracy goes against the spirit of Janaandolan II.
Bhattarai’s blind adherence to a discredited communist ideology and dependence on Madeshi parties for survival are the major handicaps to his ability to advance the peace process and to deliver good governance. His current personal popularity is not enough for him to usher in the peace and prosperity he aspires toward.
There is no doubt Bhattarai’s tone has become significantly more moderate after the collapse of the infamous indefinite strike in May 2010. But his recent attempt to present the Maoists as “freedom fighters” by urging the UN to differentiate between “freedom fighters” and “terrorists” indicates he has yet to shake off the dream of “New Democracy” and the mindset which justifies terrorizing innocent civilians for political purposes. One wonders whether his talk of moderation and commitment to multiparty democracy is sincere or just posturing to win support in the parliament.
On the surface, Bhattarai’s personal integrity and honesty render some hope of delivery of the promised good governance, but a close examination of his cabinet and his performance in the last one month leaves ample doubt that this will happen. His cabinet is filled with political leaders who are widely believed to be corrupt. Corrupt people have priorities other than transparency or good governance.
Bhattarai recognizes this and knows that the most effective way to minimize corruption is to stop political interference in the conduct of bureaucracy and make bureaucracy accountable. When he became prime minister, he announced that there will be no interference in the bureaucracy for at least one month. However, in his first test, Bhattarai conceded to pressure from his deputy prime minister for the transfer of Leela Mani Paudyal, a highly respected secretary untainted by corruption. Paudyal had reportedly refused to bow down to political pressure from the deputy.
Bhattarai characterized this transfer as a “special situation,” but never explained what the situation was; then changed his tune while talking to reporters in New York. In New York the “special situation” turned into a “simple matter”. Bijaya Kumar Gachchhedar, the deputy, won and Bhattarai lost.
Take another example. Recently, it was reported that a police report claimed that Bhattarai’s Land Reform Minster Prabhu Shaha was involved in a murder case. Elsewhere in the world, after such a serious allegation, the minister would resign on his own volition until the case is closed or if he did not, the prime minister would fire him. Surprisingly, a meeting of UCPM (M) and Madhesi Front leaders on October 3 concluded that the murder charge against Maoist politburo member Prabhu Shaha is unfounded and that the case must be dismissed. This “conclusion” was made following government’s attorney general’s announcement some days ago that “all politically motivated and baseless cases against Maoists will be withdrawn, including cases against leaders and cadres of Madhesi parties”.
The government has gone as far as requesting clemency for a convicted Maoist murderer – Bal Krishna Dhungel. These are clear interferences in the course of enforcement of law and blatant attempt to undermine the power of judiciary and the rule of law. Whatever Bhattarai’s intentions may be, his assurances of improving law and order are meaningless if his government continues to dismiss alleged unlawful acts and political highhandedness by his cabinet colleagues and seek pardon for convicted murderers.
Bhattarai’s blind adherence to a discredited communist ideology and dependence on Madeshi parties for survival are the major handicaps to his ability to advance the peace process and to deliver good governance. His current personal popularity may help him to get over some of these handicaps in the short term, but it is not enough for him to usher in the peace and prosperity he aspires toward. This will require a fundamental change in his world view.
He needs to muster enough courage to embrace modern democratic principles and push for complete compliance with the terms of the twelve-point accord; fight the hardline opponents inside his own party; take decisive action to stamp out corruption, whether it originates close to home or in his cabinet or in the bureaucracy; stop the politicization of bureaucracy and education and enforce policies to stop extortion of industries (mostly carried out by his comrades). These actions will enhance his public support and provide him the strength necessary to marginalize his hardline opponents and rein on his defaulting cabinet colleagues.
If he does not, despite his personal integrity and honesty, not only will his current popularity vanish, but Nepalis’ dream for a new constitution and good governance will be pushed to an uncertain future and he will go down in history as just another prime minister—in line with Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhalanath Khanal.
Related story
Let’s live in peace and embrace diversity
-1778746562.webp)
