Parties in existential crisis

Yuba Nath Lamsal

The political developments for the last four years are illustrative of the fact that Nepal’s parties are in serious existential crisis. The political parties are in serious internal turmoil and this internal struggle is slowly snowballing and reaching a point of explosion. The UCPN-Maoist was already split with Mohan Vaidya faction breaking the relationship with the mother party and announcing a new party called CPN-Maoist.

After the split, the Prachanda-led UCPN-Maoist and Mohan Vaidya-led CPN-Maoist have already got involved in mudslinging and trading charges against one another. UCPN-Maoist has termed the newly formed party as a group dominated by dogmatists and communist sectarians, who split the party to weaken the communist movement and revolution in Nepal at the behest of imperialists, capitalists and their agents in Nepal. However, the party led by Vaidya has defended its move saying that the ideological deviation in the UCPN-Maoist forced to break relationship with it and form a new revolutionary party. Whatever the claims and accusations against one another, the split in the UCPN-Maoist is a stark reality.

In the similar vein, a Madhes-based party was also split recently. Sarat Singh Bhandari and his pack walked out of Bijaya Gachhadar-led Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (Loktantrik) and formed a new party with resolve to address the problems and plights of Madhesi and other backward and marginalized communities not only in Terai but also across the country. In the process of fragmentation, Madhesi parties are ahead of other parties. Initially, there was a single Madhes-based party—Nepal Sadbhavana Party. Gajendra Narayan Singh had formed the Sadbhavana Party right after 1990 political change with its said objective of establishing and advocating the rights and interests of the Madhesi people. The Nepal Sadbhavana Party has split many a time and there are almost half dozen parties that claim to be the successor of Gajendra Narayan Singh’s Nepal Sadbhavana Party. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, which came into being after the Jana Andolan II, has now been divided into four parties and the process of fragmentation continues even in different newly created parties.

Although fragmentation is more with the Madhesi parties, other parties are also not immune to this political malady. All existing parties in the country, in a way or the other, are in the process of fragmentation. The internal feud in most of the parties has taken an ugly turn, which may ultimately lead to formal split.

Why are the parties being torn apart? Is the split and internal feud in the parties is motivated by political and ideological imperatives or is there something else behind the split? Answer of this question must be sought in order to analyze the course of Nepal’s politics. The often cited reason for the split in the parties is external hands or meddling. It has now to be ascertained whether foreign hand is behind the recent split in the Maoist and other parties. It is true that the Madhesi parties are the creation of external forces in order to control Nepali politics. But the fragmentation in the Madhesi parties needs to be thoroughly analyzed and evaluated to ascertain why and how Nepal’s parties are divided.

The process of fragmentation has intensified in Nepal’s political arena since the new political process (peace process) began. As political game has taken a sharp twist and turn, the role of political actors, too, has changed and they have not been able to adjust their role in the new changed context. It is clear that the parties are still guided by their old thinking and perception despite changes taken place in political and social spheres. People are thinking differently and expectations have changed.  People now expect more from the parties and their leaders. But the parties have not changed, which has created confusion and problems both inside and outside the parties. From this state of confusion, unscrupulous elements both at home and abroad have tried to take advantage, which has not only created rift in the parties but also invited external meddling in Nepal’s internal affairs. With the change in the context, situation, both at home and abroad and also change in thinking and perception of people, young and new leaders are emerging in different political parties. The young leaders are better educated and more exposed to outside world and have better vision for the change and development of the country. But in the top echelon of the party leadership are the old guards who are always rigid and are not willing to change their old working style which may not suit in the present national and international situation. This has created perceptional and positional differences among the old and young leaders which is one of the fundamental reasons behind internal conflict in all major parties of the country.

The political scenario in Nepal is fast changing, so are the political actors. But the old guards in the party who are in the decision-making level are hesitant to change their behavior, thinking, style and function. The leaders often talk of democracy and democratic ideals. But their democratic overtures hardly match with their working style and function. The leaders have the tendency of clinging onto leadership and power forever and do not want to hand over power to the new generation. Despite tall talks, parties and their working style are not democratized. One may show is what the norms of today in all political parties.

The leaders have failed to cope with the changes that have taken place in Nepal’s politics. Nepal has undergone changes in every decade or so. The first political change took place in 1951 that brought an end to the century old Rana oligarchy. Similarly, another political turn took place in 1960 that reversed the swindle of the history thirty years backward. The then king summarily disbanded the multi-party political system and imposed his own style of authoritarian Panchayat rule denying all basic and democratic rights of the people. Protests and revolts took place on different occasions against the king’s absolute regime but they were all crushed brutally by the king’s army simply because the opposition parties and movement against the Panchayat had been fragmented. The 1990 popular uprising jointly spearheaded by the Nepali Congress and the communists succeeded in overthrowing the Panchayat regime, thereby, replacing it with a multi-party political system. The change was brought about with massive support of the people because the mass was fed up with the working style, policies and programmes of the old Panchayat regime which was self-centric and monolithic. The people took to street and brought about change in Nepal’s political equation and scenario. The change marked a sharp reduction in the power of monarchy and made the parties powerful actors in the politics of Nepal. The king became a ceremonial head whereas prime minister to be elected from parliament held executive power. The dominant role of the monarchy was reduced whereas the parties that had earlier been in the oblivion became the crucial actors in the newly emerged political scenario. The royalists that had enjoyed power and perks during king’s absolute regime were badly marginalized. The principal players during the movement against the Panchayat regime proved their worth and prowess as they became dominant forces. But no significant change was felt by the people in their life even after political change. Instead, more pains and plights were added which made the life of the people difficult and unbearable. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, which were the catalyst forces to bring about change in 1990, failed to comprehend and visualize the situation, instead they were locked in confrontation just to grab power and retain it. This gave rise to height of political instability and uncertainty out of which different vested interests including the royalists tried to reap benefit.

The Maoists analyzed that the tangible change they wanted was not possible under multi-party system, which they called a bourgeoisie democracy. A revolutionary communist party believes that only armed revolution can achieve its political goal—be it for socialism or new democracy. According to revolutionary communists, multi-party polity is the capitalist and bourgeoisie system that exploits and cheats the people under the façade of democracy and protects the interests of only a group of elites, capitalist and feudal elements but not the large mass of the people, majority of who are poor, downtrodden and backward. Thus, the Maoists, who did not believe in multi-party system, found the sordid state of parliamentary system during this period as a best example to justify their political logic. The Maoists then abandoned the electoral politics and launched armed insurgency against monarchy and parliamentary system.

The failure of parliamentary parties to deliver services had caused disenchantment among the people, on the one hand, Maoists’ popular slogans of patriotism and guarantee of basic needs had a strong appeal to the people especially from the lower strata of society, on the other. As a result, the insurgency grew and developed so fast that the entire rural areas came virtually under the Maoist control. The insurgency began from strategically defensive position developed into the state of strategic equilibrium and finally reached the strategic offensive state, which made the Maoists virtually in the position of dictating terms to the king and also the political parties.

At the same time, the Maoists were also trying to strike a deal with the parties in which they became partially successful. The Maoists had been demanding the constituent assembly to write a new constitution, federal system, abolition of monarchy and secularism, among some others. India then came to intervene in Nepal’s political forces and helped broker a deal between the parliamentary parties and the Maoists, which is known as 12-point agreement. The 12-point deal was the basis for working unity among the communists and parliamentary parties, which provided the basis for a new political process or the peace process. As a result, the multi-party political system was restored, peace agreement was signed thereby ending the civil war and the monarchy was abolished.

In fact, Nepal’s politics entered a new era following the signing of the Comprehensive peace accord. This definitely brought about epochal change in Nepal. The political change also changed the role of the parties. The current internal imbroglio within the political parties is a product of party’s changed role and their differing ideological perceptions. The parties have found it difficult to adjust their role in the newly emerged situation. They had never visualized the present political situation. The parties are now trying to find their space in the present politics, the course of which is uncertain.

The Maoists are definitely finding it difficult to adjust in the present political situation because their cherished ideology does not provide any space in this political set up.  Their avowed ideology seeks to topple the system through violent revolution. As a result, the Maoists are facing a great political dilemma. The other parties mainly the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are also facing serious internal feud and factionalism which is expected to burst one day. This is because of their confusion what course they are to adopt in the present situation. This may cause the formal split in these parties as well. The process of fragmentation has intensified in Nepal because of parties’ failure to determine their positions.

The split in any political party is unfortunate. But sometime split is necessary in order to cleanse the politics. The current fragmentation process that has taken place in Nepali politics is expected to pave the way for a clear polarization. The polarization is necessary to draw demarcation line between the patriotic forces and traitors’ gangs. Now parties must clear their position which side they would belong.