Plenum’s Impact on National Politics

Yuba Nath Lamsal

The seventh extended central committee meeting of the Unified CPN-Maoist or the plenum is underway in Kathmandu, which is expected to come up with a new ideological and tactical tools to cope with the newer challenges that have cropped up in the contemporary Nepal and also in the international arena. The seventh plenum is being held first time after the party split. A section of the party headed by Mohan Vaidya broke the relationship with the mother party and announced a separate party called the CPN-Maoist. After the vertical split in the party, the UCPN-Maoist has faced a real political, ideological and organizational challenge. The Vaidya faction has accused the principal leadership of the UCPN-Maoist of being deviated from the fundamental philosophy of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism that the party championed as a guiding principle since it was created. Now the UCPN-M leadership has to prove the Vaidya group wrong and give continuity to its earlier image among the people.

Ever since the party joined peaceful politics after signing the 18-point agreement, certain deviations have definitely occurred in its working style, organizational structure and even ideological ground. But Prachanda and his team are not the sole responsible of this deviation. The leaders who have now formed the new party are also equally responsible for the deviation in the party and they cannot just escape by putting all the blames on Prachanda.

The party adopted the tactical line of peace and constitution in order to serve its strategy. The fundamental strategy and goal of the UCPN-Maoist continues to be the establishment of new democracy through a revolution. Motivated by this spirit and guided by MLM principle, the party launched a decade-long armed insurgency or ‘People’s War’ in which it reached the state of equilibrium in terms of power. A large swath of rural territory had virtually been under the control of the Maoists during the period of insurgency. The presence and control of the government was confined only to district headquarters and urban centers. In urban areas too, the influence of the Maoists was growing slowly. This was the situation when neither of the two sides was in the position to overpower the other. The government was unable to retain its control over the rural areas whereas the Maoists were not in the position to capture and retain their control in district headquarters and urban areas. In this state of equilibrium, there was a compulsion to negotiate and strike a deal which was agreed upon in the form of 12-point agreement as a basis for Jana Andolan II and later Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) after the success of the popular uprising.

The 12-point deal and the CPA were the products of necessity, which marked the beginning of the peace process. The peace process was also a doctrine of necessity. The tactical line of peace and constitution was adopted by Chunbang meeting unanimously and there was no single voice against it. However, some leaders of the Vaidya camp started criticizing the tactical policy of peace and constitution only four years after the peace process began. There is yet another ethical and moral issue behind this criticism. While the leaders, on the one hand, have taken full benefit of the tactical policy of peace and constitution, they also continue to criticize the same policy as ideological degeneration to reformism and revisionism, which can be termed as a double standard. Only CP Gajurel and Mohan Vaidya were not present in the Chunbang meeting as they were in Indian prison. But they, too, became party to this decision by taking benefits from the political deal made on the basis of Chunbang meeting’s tactical line.

In the political report presented in the plenum, chairman Prachanda has dubbed the accusation of Vaidya camp as dogmatist propaganda. In the report, chairman Prachanda has frankly acknowledged the mistakes and weaknesses made by the leadership especially after the party entered into the peace process. It is true that the UCPN-Maoist, despite overwhelming support of the people, has definitely not been able to live up to huge popular expectations.  This has definitely created people’s apathy towards the party and the leadership. The Vaidya camp is just trying to reap benefit out of this frustration and apathy of the people.

It would not be wise to claim that party leadership was absolutely flawless. The principal leadership committed many mistakes in the past which gave rise to the present situation that led to the party split. In the name of internal democracy in the party, Vaidya group took every issue to the street and defied all legitimate decision of the party. The internal democracy allows dissenting voices and criticism only in the legitimate forums and committees of the party. Internal democracy does not mean open defiance of party decisions and condemnation of the leadership in public. Any issues concerning ideological, political and tactical policies should be raised only in the party committees and forums. However, the dissenting group openly took the issues to the streets and public forums whereas the party leadership also failed to strictly implement the principle of democratic centralism. Under democratic centralism, anyone who violates the party discipline and system is liable to action. But the principal leadership, in the name of maintaining unity in the party, became too liberal and tolerated everything when party discipline, methods and systems were openly defied. Here lies the fundamental weakness of the principal leadership.

The party, now, has multiple challenges to face in the situation. Being the largest party UCPN-M has a big role to play to steer the country out of the present state of political crisis. Similarly, Chairman Prachanda, being a signatory to the Comprehensive Peace Accord, has the responsibility to complete the peace process and herald a new era of peace, stability and prosperity in Nepal. But chairman Prachanda had to be more preoccupied with the internal problems and conflict of the party. As a result, he has not been able to give much time and energy to resolve the country’s political problem. The failure of Constituent Assembly to deliver a complete constitution was also a failure of the Maoist party and also its leader Prachanda. In the failure of writing the constitution in time and concluding the peace process, several factors and players had their own role. Ordinary citizens, voters and the international community had expected much from Prachanda, the leader of the largest political party in the Constituent Assembly and the failure of producing a constitution was linked to the failure and incompetence of the UCPN-Maoist. Their conclusion may have been partially correct but not wholly. In fact, there was an inherent design to fail the Constituent Assembly both at home and abroad. In this design, domestic reactionaries and regressive elements including the royalists and some international forces were involved in rendering the Constituent Assembly unsuccessful and incompetent so that a new kind of uncertainty and chaos would crop up in Nepal out of which they may reap political benefits. The recent overtures and activities of former king is evident of this move.

The international reactionaries including capitalists and imperialists were against the institutionalization of the achievements of Jana Andolan II and also against the promulgation of the new constitution. The promulgation of the new constitution would institutionalize the agendas like republican set up, federalism, secularism, inclusive representation in all decision-making bodies, which are originally Maoist agendas. Institutionalization of these agendas would further establish the Maoist party and strengthen its position in the mass of the people, which was not of their liking. The international forces, therefore, played through their lackeys at home to fail the Constituent Assembly with the purported plan of not letting the Maoists’ agenda to be established and institutionalized.

Against this background, the UCPN-Maoist and its principal leadership have a big test and trial to sail the ship the party smoothly to its destination.  The immediate challenge of the party is the split, which has further complicated the situation. Accept it or not, the split has definitely sent a negative message among the rank and file of the party. In terms of number, the split may not have significant impact on party’s organizational life as only 15 to 20 per cent cadres and supporters may have deserted the party and joined the newly created CPN-Maoist headed by Mohan Vaidya. Overwhelming majority of the cadres, workers and supporters are still with the UCPN-Maoist. But the split has caused a huge psychological damage. The leadership has, now, a big challenge to overcome this psychological problem in the party and revive its earlier organizational potency. The present plenum of the UCPN-Maoist is, thus, being watched keenly by all in both positive and negative light. This is so because the entire political course of Nepal would largely depend on the decisions and moves to be taken by the Maoist party.