Nepal politics: Parties Required Soul Searching

Yuba Nath Lamsal

It is still not clear how should be the recently held election be called? Is this the second election of the Constituent Assembly or the election for the second Constituent Assembly? This issue has not drawn attention of our politicians and political pundits. But it needs thorough debate and deliberations. Perhaps, political pundits and even parties are expected to clarify this to the people in appropriate time.

In this connection, Jhala Nath Khanal, chairman of the CPN-UML, is the first and only personality who has raised this issue in public. In a television interview more than a week ago, Khanal described the November 19 election as the second election to the Constituent Assembly. According to him, there cannot be two Constituent Assemblies and thus it would be unfair to call it as the election to the second Constituent Assembly. However, other politicians and political scientists as well as political analysts are tight-lipped on this issue.

Whatever the definition, this was a historic election which was held in the most successful and peaceful manner. This is historic in the sense that Nepalese people overwhelmingly participated in the election. The voter’ turnout was over 70 per cent, which is not only the highest in Nepal’s electoral history but also one of the best in the world. This historic election and its outcome are expected to change the entire political course of the country.

The outcome of the election was as expected because there had been widespread prediction that there would be fractured mandate like the one we saw in the 2008 election. But the strength and the role of the political players have changed. In the earlier election, the UCPN-Maoist had emerged the largest political party, although it, too, did not have even the simple majority to form its own government. In the first-past the post system, the UCPN-Maoist had secured simple majority of 221 out of 240 seats allotted for the majoritarian system. However, it failed to win majority under proportionate representation system. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were in the distant second and third positions, while the Madhesi parties combined had emerged as the fourth political force.

But this equation has distinctly and drastically changed in the present election. The Nepali Congress has emerged the largest force followed by the CPN-UML in the second position. The earlier largest party—the UCPN-Maoist— has been reduced to a distant third. The Madhesi parties have almost been routed. But even the largest party has failed to secure majority neither under majoritarian nor in proportionate system.

The election results have been interpreted differently by different people. Those close to the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have termed the election fairest and most credible which has genuinely reflected the people’s desire and choice. According to them, people had been fed up with the behavior and agendas of the UCPN-Maoist and they rejected the earlier largest party just to teach the Maoists a good lesson and it was people’s approval  for the agenda and political positions of the Congress and the UML on several key issues including the one concerning federalism, state restructuring. Theoretically, they are correct but practically, it was the verdict against the Maoists as people found no other place to express their anti-Maoist ire.

However, the UCPN-Maoist leaders have dubbed the election results as the engineered one under the ‘grand design of both domestic and external reactionaries’. Whatever the claims, accusations and counter accusations, election is the reality and its results are with us. The results have cheered some especially the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. It must have upset the UCPN-Maoist and the Madhesi parties. None had expected and even imagined such a worst debacle of the Maoists, around whose agenda the country’s politics is revolving. It was really a surprise and shocking result. But it is people’s verdict and it would be unwise, apolitical and undemocratic to raise any doubt over the election outcome and disrespect it.

Such a worst defeat is definitely not good for the UCPN-Maoist. But it is also not good for the country, people and other parties as well. The Constituent Assembly, federalism, secularism and inclusive democracy are the agenda first raised by the UCPN-Maoist. Other parties including the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML adopted these agendas and incorporated them as a part of their political document and commitment only later. But the reduced role the people have given to the Maoists may have its own impact on the ongoing political and constitution writing process.  But, despite the debacle, the UCPN-Maoist cannot and should not go against the people’s mandate but needs to contribute constructively in the constitution writing.

After the election, political analysts have their own views and opinion on the outcome of the election. But, more importantly, parties need to make frank and candid assessment on poll outcome and their position. It is more for the UCPN-Maoists as it needs to make serious soul searching where they failed and what caused the people to reject them. The other two larger parties, too, are not the clear winners as they have not secured required simple majority neither of the two electoral systems and they also cannot call the election outcome as their victory.  It should be taken into account that all parties including the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, too, have been rejected by majority. Although parties did not win majority, the successful and peaceful conduct of the election is the victory of the people, country and democracy. Thus, the election should not be taken as a victory or defeat of any particular party but it should be regarded as the victory of the country.

So far as the election debacle of the UCPN-Maoist is concerned, its own weaknesses and agenda are more responsible. There had been high expectations of the people with the Maoists when they joined the peaceful politics and people overwhelmingly voted for the Maoists in the first CA election in 2008, although it still had fallen short of majority. But the remarks, behavior and life style of the Maoists hardly matched with popular expectations during the last five years after the election. The Maoist leaders failed to demonstrate that they were different from other traditional parties. In some cases, the life style and working style of the revolutionary UCPN-Maoist leaders and cadres proved to be even worse than that of other leaders of the bourgeoisie parties.

At the same time, some of the agendas of the UCPN-Maoists did not pay them. The issue concerning the identity-based federalism that the UCPN-Maoist had raised was dubbed as the ethnic federalism, which scared more than 40 per cent of the population that included bahun, chhetris, and dalits alike. However, the ethnic communities and janajatis also seemed not to have taken the Maoist agenda positively. As a result, the UCPN-Maoist could not win the heart of neither janajatis nor other ethnic communities. This is because the UCPN-Maoists could not educate the janajatis and oppressed class that they champion their cause and rights. At the same time, the organizational strength of the UCPN-Maoist had weakened rapidly in the local level which the leaders failed to comprehend. They thought that the people who had voted them during the 2008 election would follow suit in the November election, too. This is where their calculation failed. Similarly, the UCPN-Maoist paid no attention to consolidating their organization and mobilize people and instead they got bogged down in the internal feud in the name of line struggle. These are the combinations of reasons that led to the defeat of the UCPN-Maoist. This should serve as a good lesson to the UCPN-Maoist that without mobilizing people and strengthening and enlarging organizational base, election cannot be won. Thus, the UCPN-Maoist needs to find fault within itself instead of blaming others. Also it bodes well if the UCPN-Maoist reconsiders some of its agendas that did not pay well during the election.