We are going to have an election, most likely without Mohan Baidya’s CPN-Maoist. Meanwhile, the Baidya Maoist has become an easy prey for Kathmandu’s intelligentsia and the Big Four. They label it a radical outfit bent on disrupting the democratic process. If the election does not take place on November 19, they all can point their finger at Baidya. But much less is being talked about the factors that fuel radicalism that Baidya embodies. This article will briefly evaluate the evolution of radical politics, its repercussions in recent political development, and suggest some remedial measures. [break]
Republica
Politics seems to have gone back to mid-1990s. The actors and time are different, but the driving forces are the same. A brief look at the mid-90s to set the background. During the mid-90s CPN Unity Center led by Prachanda was a radical outfit committed to “people’s war” to bring about a new democratic revolution. The party went underground after deciding to boycott November 1994 midterm election.
To justify its extremist position, the Unity Center, later renamed Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), defined Nepali Congress as reactionary and regressive, CPN-UML as “revisionist reactionaries” protecting feudalism, imperialism and expansionism and Masal “rightist neo-revisionist.” On February 4, 1996, Baburam Bhattarai submitted a 40-point demand to Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. But before Deuba could do anything, the Maoists launched armed attacks at various government installations. The rest, as we know, is history.
Mohan Baidya is acting much like Prachanda and Baburam did during the mid-90s. Following its split from UCPN (Maoist) last June, Baidya has been spewing vitriol against NC, UCPN (Maoist), and CPN-UML with the same old epithets. He has owned the demands of Bhattarai, with thirty more points added to the charter, and made them an integral part of his agenda.
Of course, many things have changed in the last 20 years. But the elements that fuel radicalism have not. Back then, CPN (Maoist) espoused the cause of the poor, the marginalized and the jobless to justify a revolution. It invoked the lavish lifestyles of leaders in power, growing corruption, and leaders’ tendency to capitulate to foreign powers, especially India, as other reasons for armed revolt. Baidya is cashing in on the same rhetoric now. But will it help him? Will his party garner wider support from the poor and the deprived as in the past?
Perhaps it is too early to answer, but some speculations can be made. By now, it is almost certain that Baidya won’t join the election process. He is cornered from all sides—international community has snubbed his radicalism, and the great majority of people see Baidya and his acolytes as troublemakers. Besides, his own followers are sharply divided over whether to join the election bandwagon.
The immediate possibility is that many Baidya cadres will return to UCPN (Maoist) and participate in election. Thus, there is little chance of Baidya launching another armed revolt. Nor will it be able to significantly disrupt polls, as Nepal Army is likely to be mobilized for poll security. All this may seriously weaken Baidya for the moment, but it won’t defeat his radicalism.
Make no mistake. Mohan Baidya and Netra Bikram Chand as persons are not the problems, the radical ideology they have embraced is. Their school of thought thrives amidst misrule, poverty, weak governance, unemployment, and excess foreign meddling. Often, radicalism makes inroads when democratic forces distance themselves from the grassroots after they reach the corridors of power.
This is exactly what is happening now. Before UCPN (Maoist) shed its radical ideology, it was seen by vast majority of the poor as their messiah, a force determined to create a classless society. But with UCPN (Maoist) formally endorsing parliamentary politics, it created a void in the radical space. Baidya fills that void. If he did not, some other force like Matrika Yadav’s CPN (Maoist) would have.
Baidya will wage his battle against the establishment from this space. He will project the establishment as a stooge of India, raise issues of border encroachment, national sovereignty, livelihood problems and joblessness—issues that matter the most to the people. The left parties have always capitalized on these vulnerabilities. CPN-ML had done so in 1980, as did CPN-UML in early 1990s and CPN (Maoist) in 1996-2006 and as Baidya Maoist is doing now.
If the new regime fails to contain them, and worse, if new CA fails to draft the constitution, it will help establish Baidya. We will be pushed into a vicious cycle of instability which will benefit only a handful of wily politicians. Had it not been for instability, we would not have had four prime ministers, about a dozen deputy prime ministers and hundreds of ministers in just five years.
Things would have been different if post-2008 order had taken a few measures to address the issues that create fertile ground for radicalism. But in the name of transition, political leadership promoted misrule and ill governance. In the pretext of constitution writing, service delivery and rule of law were shelved. At the end, we could get neither a stature nor a semblance of good governance. If the new dispensation repeats the same mistakes, Baidya-path will become more aggressively assertive. What should be done then?
Conventional wisdom is enough to tame radicalism. We need to get to the bottom of the causes that embolden radical politics. The next few years are going to be crucial for this but the parties can start the process right now. NC, UML and UCPN (Maoist) need to accommodate some of Baidya’s genuine demands in their manifestoes. They need to have a clear foreign policy on how they will settle the issue of border encroachment in Tarai amicably.
They need to bring a clear road map on reforming public education system to make it more employment-oriented. Besides, they need to come up with workable policies to address livelihood problems, skyrocketing inflation, widespread unemployment, lawlessness, and corruption. The parties need to prove through both their policies and actions that things can change for the better without resorting to Baidya-path. It is not in the nature of radicals to change. It is the responsibility of the moderates to prove through deeds that radicalism is the worst option.
Once the parties start implementing these policies when in power, radicals will be defeated. The likes of Baidya and Chand will have no option but to be the part of the change.
mbpoudyal@yahoo.com
Related story
Bangladesh detains 1,600 suspected radicals to end attacks
-1200x560-1776666120.webp)
