Progressive Coalition At Work

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Nepal has witnessed some new twists and turns in the political spectrum that have resulted in the formation of the Jhalanath Khanal-led government with the backing of the UCPN-Maoist. This is a positive signal that has heralded a new chapter in Nepal’s political history. The new development that saw Khanal’s victory in the prime ministerial race has demonstrated that the Nepali people are capable of determining their destiny and do not seek external meddling and interference in Nepal’s internal affairs and politics.
External powers were openly and blatantly interfering in Nepal’s internal politics and were active in imposing conditions and terms on the Nepali political parties in the formation of the new government. There could have been genuine concerns from some friendly countries that want peace, stability and prosperity in Nepal. These countries are genuine friends of Nepal and want to make meaningful contribution to the development of Nepal.
Foreign Interference
But there are some countries which, in the name of friendship, are making efforts to extract maximum benefit by squeezing Nepal through various means. To serve their interest, they often dictated terms and conditions on our government. Worse still, there are countries that seek a direct role in every decision taken by Nepal.
They even want to see a government of their choice. The deadlock and delay in the formation of the new government for a period of over six months was mainly because of external meddling and interference in our domestic politics. This was definitely unfortunate for the Nepali people. But more unfortunate was the case when some of our own political parties and leaders not only acted as agents of the foreigners but did everything to fulfill their interest than our own national interest and needs.
The formation of the Khanal-led government is a big and serious blow to the external forces that had been directly meddling in Nepal’s political process. Some external forces were of the misguided notion that a government cannot be formed without their support. This particular external force that was directly interfering in Nepal’s internal politics wanted an alliance between forces other than the Maoists. The external element had adopted the policy of not allowing the Maoists to be in the government of any kind. This factor played a key role in keeping the Maoists out of power for a long time simply because the Maoists refused to toe its line and accept its domination and dictation.
The external powers and their agents in Nepal often talk of a democratic alliance against the Maoists. This is an absurd position with no justification whatsoever. What do they mean by a democratic alliance? According to this school of thought, which is often backed by some external hegemonic power, the anti-Maoist alliance in Nepal is the democratic alliance.
Then what is the UCPN-Maoist? Is this not a democratic party? If a name is any yardstick to determine whether a particular party is democratic or not, there are other parties including the CPN-UML, which continue to have the communist tag in their name. If a particular party toes the line of a particular country or countries, it is certified as a democratic party no matter what its name or policies. But if any party does not toe the line of the external forces, it is described as an authoritarian party.
Look at their view of the CPN-UML. As long as the CPN-UML joined hands with the rightist parties, including the Nepali Congress, it was a democratic party, and once it gave up its alliance with the Nepali Congress and other rightist parties, the CPN-UML was suddenly described as a communist authoritarian party.
In the past, there was a government headed by the CPN-UML leader, in which the Nepali Congress and some other parties were in. This government was described as a democratic coalition simply because it could keep the Maoists out of power. Now there is an alliance between the CPN-UML and the Maoists, which is being dubbed as communist polarisation by the rightist parties and elements. This is flawed thinking.
The right to decide whether a particular party or government is democratic or not solely rests with the people of a particular country. This is not the business of foreigners. Moreover, the Maoists in Nepal took part in the election which was certified as being free and fair by international observes and emerged as the largest party in Parliament. How can a party that takes part in a competitive, free and fair election and wins popular support be branded as an anti-democratic party?
This is exactly the case with the Nepali Maoists viz-a-viz its position with the external forces and other rightist parties in Nepal. The Maoists took part in the Constituent Assembly election held under the laws and conditions formulated by the interim parliament in which the Maoists were in a minority. The Maoists accepted these conditions and contested the elections in which they emerged as the largest party.
Perhaps the anticipation and assumption of the other parties, mainly the Nepali Congress, and some external forces were that the Maoists would not be able to gain so much strength. But they were shocked by the election results, which gave the Maoists an upper hand even in open and parliamentary politics. The election result was a popular endorsement of the Maoists and their policies.
In a democracy, people are supreme, and their verdict is final. But any attempt to misinterpret and disregard popular verdict and mandate in itself is an anti-democratic step. The Maoists are the largest force in Parliament, having won the largest number of seats. Since the people of Nepal have accepted them as a mainstream democratic party and given them the mandate to lead the government as well as lead the constitution-writing and peace process, what right do the external elements and their agents in Nepal have to make statements whether a certain party is democratic or not? This is purely an expansionist and hegemonic position of the external power and reactionary and anti-democratic policy of the domestic forces.
If one believes in the universally accepted cardinal principles of democracy, he/she must respect the verdict of the people. Similar is the case with the present coalition government headed by CPN-UML Chairman Khanal. The international community in general is happy with the formation of the new government, which has broken the nearly seven-month-long political deadlock and stagnation.
The formation of the new government has once again revived the hope that the constitution might be written in time, and the peace process concluded. But certain external powers and elements that want to keep Nepal under their political and security ambit are trying to discredit the Khanal-led government, and they have, right from the beginning, started hatching an ugly conspiracy against it.
This is an alliance between the two major parties in Parliament - one is the largest party and the other the third largest party. Other fringe parties have either joined or backed this alliance. Thus, this alliance is a patriotic, democratic and progressive alliance. Some have even raised the possibility of polarisation of politics in Nepal as the alliance between the CPN-UML and the Maoists would ultimately create two political poles - communist and non-communist camps.
Polarisation a necessary evil
Some have described the non-communist front as a democratic alliance while the leftists and progressive groups see them as reactionaries. According to the leftists, polarisation between the progressive (communist) forces and reactionary (non-communist or democratic) forces is necessary to complete the task of the present political transformation of Nepal more successfully.
Whatever the logic and counter logic, the present coalition is not against any political group or any particular country or group of countries. As long as the external forces and countries continue to have friendly relations based on the principle of equality and mutual respect, refraining from interfering in another’s internal affairs, the coalition government and its partners will be happy to exchange meaningful cooperation with all countries on the world. But interference under any pretext and cover would be unacceptable for the government as well as the people of Nepal.

Comments