State, Revolution And Authoritarianism

Yuba Nath Lamsal

The state is in itself an authoritarian institution. The state can never be democratic—whether it is in Nepal or elsewhere including Europe and the United States that boast to have the best democratic system and institutions. The nature of the state usually is to rule on people and make people obey its decisions and diktats quietly and in a docile manner. It is said that the state can never act for the interests of the general mass. But it is the popular movement and pressure that make the states accept and respect people’s rights and freedom.

Nowhere in the world has there been any example where rulers have voluntarily relinquished power. Only popular pressures have forced the tyrants to bow down paving the way for participatory democracy in the world with full realization of individual liberty and rights in participating in governance and decision-making of the state. Rights and freedom do not come without sacrifice and costs. People must make sacrifice for their rights and freedom.

The history tells us that nothing can be achieved without costs. People must pay certain costs for rights and liberty. History is witness that changes have never been brought about peacefully. The French Revolution which is a standard bearer of the Western and capitalist model of political change, too, was violent that saw the use of force. In England too, much sacrifice had to be made by its people. Even a king was beheaded in England for rights and liberty. The United States would not have been created without the American War of Independence, which was a declared war by the American people against the British occupiers. A large number of people were killed and injured in this war, which ultimately came in favor of the struggling people of America who attained independence from the British colonial rule. This newly found freedom of the United States came with a huge price tag and sacrifice of the people. But nothing is comparable to human liberty and self-rule. With winning the American War of Independence, American people charted out their own destiny and destination.

There are many other countries in the world which saw violence and use of force for change, freedom and democracy.  In another form of use of force was the Russian model in which peasants and proletariats raised arms against the feudal state of Czars. The Russian people finally triumphed in October 1917, which is also known as the October Revolution. This was an organized armed revolution under Marxist theory, which propagates armed struggle for political change and establishment of the people’s government. Russia is the first country where Marxism had been applied in practice for the first time in history. Vladimir I Lenin was the leader of the October Revolution, who not only applied Marxism for social change in Russia but also developed Marxism into Marxism-Leninism. Following Russia’s success, Chinese Revolution led Mao Zedong was launched against feudal and imperialist-backed Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang regime. China was liberated following a long war based on the model slightly different from that of Russia. Lenin in Russia basically mobilized people and launched armed insurrection mostly in urban areas, whereas Mao’s model was strictly rural guerilla warfare. Lenin’s and Mao’s political philosophy was based on Marxism. But their approaches to accomplishing their goals and completing revolution were slightly different. Also they adopted slightly different approaches in implementing Marxism in their respective countries with some modifications and changes as per their national context. While Marxism was developed as Marxism-Leninism in Russia after October Revolution, it was further developed into Marxism-Leninism-Maoism/Mao Thought in China.

After the end of Second World War, the world saw a wave of national liberation movement. Armed revolutions were launched in different countries in Russian and Chinese model and they succeeded. Countries like, Vietnam and Cuba along with several others in Asia, Africa and Latin America attained national liberation and established communist regimes.  In our own neighborhood, the independent movement had been picking up in the entire South Asia. Although India’s frontrunner leader of the independence movement Mohandas Karmachanda Gandhi, popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi, had propagated peaceful and non-violent struggle with the objective of ejecting British colonial rulers from India, there had already been some armed insurgencies and insurrections in different parts of South Asia. The perception and perspective of the independent movement in South Asia were diverse and dissimilar. Gandhi, who is known as Mahatma for his simplicity and sagacity, and his team including Jawaharlal Nehru viewed the goal of the independence struggle to just throw out British colonial rulers and give continuity to social, political, economic and cultural structure of the Indian society. Another freedom fighter Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his backers had different vision and views. Jinnah wanted a state based on religious identity. This different perceptions and perspective ultimately divided the movement and created two nations—Hindustan and Pakistan—out of the British ruled India. Apart from Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah, there were other freedom fighters in South Asia who had envisioned different scenario. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan was an Afghan freedom fighter who fought for a pan-South Asia which meant a grand country incorporating the present India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and also some parts of Myanmar. Subash Chandra Bose was India’s revolutionary fighter, who had organized armed revolution, not only for driving the British away but also for establishing a revolutionary communist regime in the entire South Asia. With this in mind, Bose had created a revolutionary army in India and also had been in touch with revolutionary organizations in other countries. Unfortunately, he became the target of both British imperialists and domestic reactionaries and was killed in a mysterious plane crash, which remains an unresolved mystery even today.

While Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah alike favored status quo minus British rule in South Asia, Subash Chandra Bose was fighting for a revolutionary and radical change. With Bose’ demise, the revolutionary and armed struggle in India got a jolt and ultimately the status quoist forces prevailed and triumphed in South Asia. As a result, the Indian independence movement ended in compromise with status quoist leaders agreeing to power sharing based on two-nation theory brokered by last British ruler Mountbatten. The class structure of the society in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan has remained unchanged with feudal and capitalist forces having overwhelming domination over hundreds of millions people.

A revolution is described as a clash between the people and power. This may not be correctly defined because defenseless people can never fight with the state backed by well-trained armed troops and equipped with fatal and sophisticated weapons. That is the reason why Karl Marx has advocated armed revolution to overthrow the armed reactionary regime and seize power.  The revolution is, hence, a clash of two armed forces in which the revolutionary forces win because they command support of the people. Any kind revolution, be it bourgeois or communist/ socialist, is violent. There is no instance in the world where peaceful protests have ever brought about radical changes. Peaceful struggle is a status quoist movement which seeks cosmetic changes and such movements often end up in compromise and power sharing between the old and the new forces. Even in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and currently Syria, where movements are building up seeking regime changes, the movements are not peaceful. Only armed struggle could overthrow Colonel Gaddaffi of Libya and Syria’s Assad is also not likely to be deposed peacefully. Peaceful revolution is a subject to be preached but not to be practices if genuine changes and political restructuring are to be effected.  All revolutions are, therefore, violent. Even in India where Mahatma Gandhi preached peaceful and non-violent campaign, Indian independence movement was not completely a non-violent and peace. Instead, it was an assorted campaign combined with both peaceful and violent struggle.

As far as Nepal’s movements are concerned, two major revolutions were violent that brought about systemic change. The 1951 revolution was an armed revolution that brought about systemic change although it, too, ended up in compromise giving continuity to the Rana oligarchic regime. Had it not been armed revolution, the Rana would not have agreed to relinquish their control over power. The 1990 movement was a peaceful one as its fundamental objective was not systemic and structural change but power sharing. The political parties that led the 1990 movement namely he Nepali Congress and the United Left Front did not want any systemic change but space and share in power under monarchy. The 2005-6 movement was, to an extent, an assorted revolution of parliamentary parties’ peaceful movement in the urban areas and a decade-long Maoist armed insurgency. Had the Maoists’ armed force not behind, the 2005-6 movement or Jana Andolan II, too, may not have succeeded so quickly and easily.

It is neither intended to advocate violence nor does it totally rules out the possibility of changes without weapons. People are the most powerful agents for change. The armed revolution or struggle san people’s support can never succeed. The reactionaries and ultra-rightists often dub the revolution as an act of terrorism. The monarchy, Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and some other rightist parties had done the same in Nepal when Maoists’ armed insurgency was at its height. The monarchy and the parliamentary forces had declared bounty on the heads of some senior Maoist leaders including Prachanda and the Present Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai. Authoritarianism is, therefore, a tendency of the state but it can be kept in check only by popular consciousness and collective endeavors. Mere jockeying for power neither keeps tab on the state from going into authoritarian path nor does it facilitates in delivering goods to the people.