Parties' Existential Politics
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Asenior leader of the CPN-UML, Pradip Nepal, recently wrote an opinion piece in the TRN’s sister publication, the Gorkhapatra daily, in which he categorically said that all the political parties were devoid of the ideology and principle on which their parties were founded. Citing examples of how all the political parties were inconsistent with the cherished principles and ideology, he portrayed a picture of how Nepal’s politics is heading towards a gamble for power and position. Nepal is one of the most prolific writers of contemporary Nepal, who regularly writes columns in the different newspapers, besides having several books to his credit. He is quite right in his evaluation of Nepal’s political parties and their ideological orientation.
Unpredictable parties
None of the political parties practice what they preach. This inconsistency in principle and practice, and rhetoric and action has made it hard to predict what course of action the parties and leaders will take. When principle, ideology and moral authority cease to guide the parties and leaders, anything is possible, and that makes the parties and leaders unreliable and unpredictable. This is the problem of Nepal’s contemporary politics. The present protracted crisis that has engulfed the nation can be attributed to this tendency of the parties and their leaders.
Existential politics is what has made the parties unreliable and unpredictable. The parties, instead of standing firmly for the cause and ideals they fought for, take decisions that serve the immediate interests of particular leaders and their coteries. It is definitely a difficult task to stick to one’s principles at least in the present situation marked by market politics. Market politics denotes the move made as per the demand of the market, like the quick and immediate gains in a market economy.
Let us take a look at the individual political parties. Let’s begin with the largest party in the Constituent Assembly, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, or UCPN-Maoist. This party was founded long ago, but its activities became more visible only after it launched an armed insurgency. The decade-long armed insurgency, which the party calls the ‘people’s war’, established it as the largest party in Nepal.
The party was founded on the principle of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism. This principle propagates continued revolution through which a communist state is established. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism does not believe in peaceful and competitive politics but wants to capture power through an armed revolution. Guided by this principle, the armed insurgency was launched in which they partially succeeded. The 238-year-old feudal institution of the monarchy was abolished, and the UCPN-Maoist proved its supremacy even in electoral politics. In the elections held to form a Constituent Assembly, the UCPN-M emerged as the largest party in Nepal, although it is short of a comfortable majority.
But viewed from the ideological perspective, the party seems to be deviating from its cherished principle of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism. Marx, Lenin and Mao never advocated peaceful and competitive politics to go to power. An electoral process is bourgeoisie democracy, in which a true communist does not believe.
The Maoist party is currently in a dilemma as to whether it should continue with the course of politics it has adopted right after it joined the peace process or go back to the earlier approach of an armed revolution. Although the party still believes that the ultimate goal is to capture power through a revolution, the issue concerning peace and constitution are its tactical policies to achieve its strategic goal.
The party has already adopted the policy of launching a people’s revolt, which is also contradictory to its ideology. The revolt is something akin to a bourgeoisie revolution but not a communist revolution. The revolt is generally understood as a peaceful public protest aimed at overthrowing the existing regime. The Maoists have not clearly stated what would be the nature of the revolt and what would be its ultimate goal. Will it be similar to the insurgency that it waged in the past? Or will it just be an urban protest like the one launched in Jana Andolan II?
At the same time, there should be clarity as to what the Maoists really want to achieve through the revolt. Does the UCPN-Maoist believe that a revolt would be able to establish a ‘people’s republic’? Or is it just a pressure tactics to go to power? These questions are being raised both within the circle of Maoist workers and in the streets.
The fissures seen within the Maoists regarding the future plan of action have given enough room to the people to doubt about the intention and policy of the party. Three distinct lines surfaced in the Maoist party at the recent Palungtar plenum. Party chairman Prachanda and senior vice chairman Mohan Vaidya stood firmly in favour of a ‘people’s revolt’ aimed at achieving the goal of a ‘people’s republic’ as the present trend does not provide hope for writing a progressive constitution.
However, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, who is also a vice chairman, differs with Prachanda and Vaidya on launching such a revolt immediately. Bhattarai is of the view that the party’s first priority should be to write a progressive constitution and a revolt is to be launched only when the efforts for peace and constitution are blocked.
These differing views have created confusion among the people. The party has to make its position clear to the people on these issues and its priorities. If the party sticks to its ideology it has championed for, the UCPN-Maoist has to go for an all out revolt and seek to establish a ‘people’s republic’ that means a political system that is akin to what Mao Ze Dong established in 1949 through a protracted revolution.
If the party chooses the course of peace and constitution, it would be tantamount to deviating from its revolutionary path and the UCPN-Maoist would be following the course that the CPN-UML has taken. In such an eventuality, the UCPN-Maoist and the CPN-UML will have to merge as they follow identical policies and approach. If the UCPN-Maoist wants to keep its distinct image, it has to continue with the revolutionary course.
As far as the Nepali Congress is concerned, it, too, has markedly deviated from the ideology it cherished. The ideological ground upon which the party was built is democratic socialism. But the Nepali Congress has adopted ultra capitalism which is in sharp contrast to socialist policies. Given Nepal’s social and economic ground reality, ultra capitalism is, definitely, detrimental. The ultra capitalism and rightist policies of the Nepali Congress are mainly responsible for the present sorry state of Nepal’s economy and social structure, which provided a fertile ground for the rapid spread of the Maoist insurgency in the past.
Similarly, the CPN-UML, too, has rapidly deviated from its original ideology and philosophy. The party was created as a revolutionary communist party based on Marxism, Leninism and Mao thoughts. In course of time, the UML abandoned Mao’s thoughts and retained Marxism-Leninism as its guiding principle. In the name of ‘People’s Multi-Party Democracy’, the UML gave up many of the cardinal principles of Marxism and Leninism, too. The ‘People’s Multi-Party Democracy" has totally abandoned the revolutionary path and instead chosen the parliamentary approach to go to power.
Marx and Lenin never supported the parliamentary approach. They described the parliament as a forum to deceive the people. Although CPN-UML still claims to be a communist party, it no longer remains so in practice.
Inconsistency
Similar is the case with other existing parties - big or small. The marked inconsistency in rhetoric and action of the parties is the root cause of the present political crisis in the country. As a result, the parties are bigger than the country, politicians are more important than the people. Similarly, power and position are of more importance for the parties and leaders than the interest of the country. Here lies the fundamental flaw which must be rectified by the parties if the country is to move ahead towards the path of peace, prosperity and stability.
Asenior leader of the CPN-UML, Pradip Nepal, recently wrote an opinion piece in the TRN’s sister publication, the Gorkhapatra daily, in which he categorically said that all the political parties were devoid of the ideology and principle on which their parties were founded. Citing examples of how all the political parties were inconsistent with the cherished principles and ideology, he portrayed a picture of how Nepal’s politics is heading towards a gamble for power and position. Nepal is one of the most prolific writers of contemporary Nepal, who regularly writes columns in the different newspapers, besides having several books to his credit. He is quite right in his evaluation of Nepal’s political parties and their ideological orientation.
Unpredictable parties
None of the political parties practice what they preach. This inconsistency in principle and practice, and rhetoric and action has made it hard to predict what course of action the parties and leaders will take. When principle, ideology and moral authority cease to guide the parties and leaders, anything is possible, and that makes the parties and leaders unreliable and unpredictable. This is the problem of Nepal’s contemporary politics. The present protracted crisis that has engulfed the nation can be attributed to this tendency of the parties and their leaders.
Existential politics is what has made the parties unreliable and unpredictable. The parties, instead of standing firmly for the cause and ideals they fought for, take decisions that serve the immediate interests of particular leaders and their coteries. It is definitely a difficult task to stick to one’s principles at least in the present situation marked by market politics. Market politics denotes the move made as per the demand of the market, like the quick and immediate gains in a market economy.
Let us take a look at the individual political parties. Let’s begin with the largest party in the Constituent Assembly, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, or UCPN-Maoist. This party was founded long ago, but its activities became more visible only after it launched an armed insurgency. The decade-long armed insurgency, which the party calls the ‘people’s war’, established it as the largest party in Nepal.
The party was founded on the principle of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism. This principle propagates continued revolution through which a communist state is established. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism does not believe in peaceful and competitive politics but wants to capture power through an armed revolution. Guided by this principle, the armed insurgency was launched in which they partially succeeded. The 238-year-old feudal institution of the monarchy was abolished, and the UCPN-Maoist proved its supremacy even in electoral politics. In the elections held to form a Constituent Assembly, the UCPN-M emerged as the largest party in Nepal, although it is short of a comfortable majority.
But viewed from the ideological perspective, the party seems to be deviating from its cherished principle of Marxism-Leninism and Maoism. Marx, Lenin and Mao never advocated peaceful and competitive politics to go to power. An electoral process is bourgeoisie democracy, in which a true communist does not believe.
The Maoist party is currently in a dilemma as to whether it should continue with the course of politics it has adopted right after it joined the peace process or go back to the earlier approach of an armed revolution. Although the party still believes that the ultimate goal is to capture power through a revolution, the issue concerning peace and constitution are its tactical policies to achieve its strategic goal.
The party has already adopted the policy of launching a people’s revolt, which is also contradictory to its ideology. The revolt is something akin to a bourgeoisie revolution but not a communist revolution. The revolt is generally understood as a peaceful public protest aimed at overthrowing the existing regime. The Maoists have not clearly stated what would be the nature of the revolt and what would be its ultimate goal. Will it be similar to the insurgency that it waged in the past? Or will it just be an urban protest like the one launched in Jana Andolan II?
At the same time, there should be clarity as to what the Maoists really want to achieve through the revolt. Does the UCPN-Maoist believe that a revolt would be able to establish a ‘people’s republic’? Or is it just a pressure tactics to go to power? These questions are being raised both within the circle of Maoist workers and in the streets.
The fissures seen within the Maoists regarding the future plan of action have given enough room to the people to doubt about the intention and policy of the party. Three distinct lines surfaced in the Maoist party at the recent Palungtar plenum. Party chairman Prachanda and senior vice chairman Mohan Vaidya stood firmly in favour of a ‘people’s revolt’ aimed at achieving the goal of a ‘people’s republic’ as the present trend does not provide hope for writing a progressive constitution.
However, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, who is also a vice chairman, differs with Prachanda and Vaidya on launching such a revolt immediately. Bhattarai is of the view that the party’s first priority should be to write a progressive constitution and a revolt is to be launched only when the efforts for peace and constitution are blocked.
These differing views have created confusion among the people. The party has to make its position clear to the people on these issues and its priorities. If the party sticks to its ideology it has championed for, the UCPN-Maoist has to go for an all out revolt and seek to establish a ‘people’s republic’ that means a political system that is akin to what Mao Ze Dong established in 1949 through a protracted revolution.
If the party chooses the course of peace and constitution, it would be tantamount to deviating from its revolutionary path and the UCPN-Maoist would be following the course that the CPN-UML has taken. In such an eventuality, the UCPN-Maoist and the CPN-UML will have to merge as they follow identical policies and approach. If the UCPN-Maoist wants to keep its distinct image, it has to continue with the revolutionary course.
As far as the Nepali Congress is concerned, it, too, has markedly deviated from the ideology it cherished. The ideological ground upon which the party was built is democratic socialism. But the Nepali Congress has adopted ultra capitalism which is in sharp contrast to socialist policies. Given Nepal’s social and economic ground reality, ultra capitalism is, definitely, detrimental. The ultra capitalism and rightist policies of the Nepali Congress are mainly responsible for the present sorry state of Nepal’s economy and social structure, which provided a fertile ground for the rapid spread of the Maoist insurgency in the past.
Similarly, the CPN-UML, too, has rapidly deviated from its original ideology and philosophy. The party was created as a revolutionary communist party based on Marxism, Leninism and Mao thoughts. In course of time, the UML abandoned Mao’s thoughts and retained Marxism-Leninism as its guiding principle. In the name of ‘People’s Multi-Party Democracy’, the UML gave up many of the cardinal principles of Marxism and Leninism, too. The ‘People’s Multi-Party Democracy" has totally abandoned the revolutionary path and instead chosen the parliamentary approach to go to power.
Marx and Lenin never supported the parliamentary approach. They described the parliament as a forum to deceive the people. Although CPN-UML still claims to be a communist party, it no longer remains so in practice.
Inconsistency
Similar is the case with other existing parties - big or small. The marked inconsistency in rhetoric and action of the parties is the root cause of the present political crisis in the country. As a result, the parties are bigger than the country, politicians are more important than the people. Similarly, power and position are of more importance for the parties and leaders than the interest of the country. Here lies the fundamental flaw which must be rectified by the parties if the country is to move ahead towards the path of peace, prosperity and stability.
Comments
Post a Comment