The two major parties in Nepal are in the unification process. In this occasion, it is important to analyze the effect and consequence of unification and what does it imply.
After the election, the country has definitely moved towards the new era with lots of hope for prosperity and development. How the new era was possible is the result of the continual political process of past ten years participated by all the major political parties with the support of people through constitution assembly election. The whole political process was ignited by 2006 people’s movement against the direct rule of King Gyanendra, which was again participated by all the major political parties. In fact, that uprising was possible through the support of each Nepali irrespective of political inclination.
After all the great past, we witness the morning of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal and our country is on the verge of getting the communist leadership. Are communists credible for this? They might be equally credible as are other forces behind the whole process. But, as we go through the past, there were a great many occasions where United Marxist Leninist (UML) has championed anti-federalism, anti-ethnicity, and anti-progress cause. Federalism was felt not necessary. Ethnicity was unidentified. The stand of UML was such that they didn’t believe in the participatory model of democracy. The fear still lies! On the other hand, Maoists can be credited for the latest development in the country as federalism, proportional representation, secularism et cetera were their agenda.
Now the question arises, is the alliance or unification justifiable? Although it seems rational that two communist parties are uniting, is that the only alternative? Isn’t there the possibility of an alliance between Maoists and Congress? If possible, what does it imply? It’s the last opportunity to think upon these questions because once the unification of leftists is complete, a whole new dimension would develop and the political course of the country would change forever; let’s hope for much better for all.
It has been over two months since the historic election of the country, where leftists emerged victoriously. The pre-poll alliance between the separate leftists with the promises of unity after the election and stable government worked out very well. In fact, it did so much better than results were unexpected even for those who orchestrated the alliance. Out of the several factors responsible for the result, one of the factors is the short period of a gap between the local elections and subsequent election for federal assembly and parliament. The voters in the last election remained intact, except the few cases. The result of the local level election was in favor of leftists, although they were not united then; the same result transformed into the comfortable win for leftists in the following elections.
Amidst speculation by so-called democratic force that alliance wouldn’t work and their vote as a separate party wouldn’t accumulate into deciding vote; the formula of a pre-poll alliance of leftists did work. While democratic force believed that two leftists in the alliance would be a single force only; with all kinds of dissatisfaction amongst the cadres and confusion of voters; their alliance wouldn’t produce synergy effect.
But, we all know, what the results were. There are many questions which remain unanswered. Only time can unravel what lies in the future. At the present, it seems that leftist alliance is moving towards materializing the promise of unity but it has many challenges. As the results were unexpected, there weren’t any kinds of specific plans or so, about unification plans beforehand.
We can certainly say that; leftists are stuck in a ship which is going to sink if some kind of repair is not done. And, the repairing has to be done by themselves. This looks bizarre but this is how the politics work. After the results, leftists came under immense pressure to fulfill their promises as the election verdict had mandated that. The people who voted for them would be betrayed if unification doesn’t materialize. Whatever the reasons, they voted leftists for; if the condition of unity and stability along with development is not fulfilled, it would spread distrust and dissatisfaction amongst the voters of leftist parties. And, leftist leaders must have understood this very well. Any kind of deviation from their pre-poll ideals can be devastating for themselves and the country.
We assume all the leftists to be hardliners. But, there is an ironical situation in Nepal. In case of our country; obvious hardcore must be the one which has carried out most gruesome or ruthless means to fulfill their political agenda.
In that sense, we consider Maoists to be the hardliners. But, are they so? After their emergence into the peaceful politics, their ways seem very opposite than what we contemplate hardliners to be. Except for some unsettling behavior in the parliament and political stunt by Prachanda, they seem very much liberal, empathetic and progressive. The political nature of Maoists has been extrovert; its motives clear and they seem to possess no hidden agenda though there have been various speculations about their true intentions. The biggest opportunity for such speculations was provided by Prachanda government’s (inclusive of UML) decision of firing then Army Chief Rookmangad Katuwal in 2009, which was not approved by President. This event led to the resignation by Prachanda from the post of prime minister. Unlike Maoists, it is very difficult to comprehend United Marxist Leninist (UML) and the motive of the party. Their agendas are ambiguous and not transparent. At one point in time, they did resort to violence to establish their political agenda; but not much so. They have practiced parliamentary politics for almost three decades now and surprisingly, it still remains guarded. Nonetheless, they have secured hardliner status for themselves. Despite its immense self-limitation and introvert ways, it has climbed all the way to the top of the politics. From fervent verbal attack upon Maoists when it landed in a peaceful process to opposing the federalism and most of the present achievement, it slowly climbed to the position of self-declaring itself — “the protector of nationalism”.
The unofficial Indian blockade during unrest in Madhesh provided ample opportunity for then prime minister (also the current prime minister) and chairman of UML, KP Oli to experiment with nationalism and the cadres of UML were out in the street with “I am with KP Oli!” placards. The blockade turned KP Oli into the nationalist figure overnight, with just the speech and promises. UML, under the leadership of KP Oli, has totally entered into the new era of partisan politics, also characterized by bigotry and dubiousness. For instance, after KP Oli reached to power, he was unwilling to let it go despite the power-sharing agreement, which shows the longing and greed for power. If we look into the history, UML hasn’t enjoyed as much of a time in power after 1990. It has led an alliance government and that too, for a very little time. Hence lies a desperate power-grasping attitude within the ranks of UML and that can be found in their cadres up to the ground level. The entry of KP Oli has just increased the power hunger within UML. In the case of Nepal, hardliners are those who under the mask of nationalism and in the name of communism; carry out populist activities which divides the people; they are the main resistance for change and portray themselves as the protector of underprivileged people. And, as long as poverty and unemployment exist in our country, there will remain the divide and UML will remain as the hardliner.
In the present time; whatever the election result and chemistry; the present leftist alliance is unholy in the basic ground of who is progressive. Those whom we can take as progressives are eligible to run our country. Progressives would cater to the actual needs of the people. They would formulate the realistic programs and policies; reducing the gap between the rich and poor and promoting the participatory form of governance. Also, the healing of the wounds of conflict is necessary. Who are progressives in context of Nepal? In determining the progressiveness of parties, we must evaluate the contribution of parties in modern Nepal. When we evaluate from this perspective, we can find that UML has remained status-quo from the time of its emergence in the multi-party democracy, even reducing its scope for actually serving the people and country as it seems to rely on populism. Under their leadership, the country can spiral down towards the path of Oligarchy. When it comes to democracy, Congress has been leading from the front for its protection, promotion, and preservation. However, Congress has shown tremendous weakness in running the country on several occasions. The misuse and greed of power have seriously hampered the image of Congress. But, there still remains hope from Congress as it is an ideal party when we think of democracy and the change in leadership or serious discourses can still bring it to the right path. Similarly, Maoists is the other progressive force. Despite the blood-shaded past of the party in the form of guerrilla warfare, with many unanswered questions about the credibility of the war; Maoist still championed and established several revolutionary agendas which have turned our country into the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. Is there any possibility of two progressive forces together? The last election which is totally against the alliance of progressive may contain a clue on future of the progressive alliance. Baburam Bhattarai could orchestrate in bringing Congress and Maoists together. He is himself a progressive who brought a visible change in the country when he was an executive or part of the executive.
In last years of armed conflict conducted by Maoists, Prachanda had ordered the detention of Baburam because he articulately believed that it was time for Maoists to take steps towards the participation in peaceful politics as the cause of their struggle could be fulfilled more through it than violence. Ultimately, it was Baburam’s thought that prevailed. This time too, Maoists are in the critical stage. They might have benefitted from the alliance, but the question is: Is the country benefitting in future? Perhaps, it’s too late to think about bringing progressives together! Maybe, that opportunity has already been lost!
