Maoists, Marxists and the Monarchy

Shashi P.B.B. Malla & Chandra Bahadur Parbate
http://peoplesreview.com.np/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4227&Itemid=94

In a most unusual development, last week the Maoists' top honcho Prachanda proposed cooperation between his own party, the other 'parliamentary' parties and the royalists. This was indeed a complete departure from the previous stance of the Maoists, until now bitterly opposed to the palace in general and King Gyanendra in particular.

It was also remarkable that Prachanda chose to explode this bombshell at a function organized by the Federation of Nepalese Journalists (FNJ). The FNJ and the Maoists have been at daggers drawn, ever since some journalists had been abducted and either been tortured or murdered by the former terrorists. In fact, he had no compunction to call upon the media to "appreciate" the importance of such an "alliance" and to promote it accordingly. He qualified his statement by saying that even among the royalists, there were those that loved their country very much. Thus, in a situation where the King had been totally sidelined, the necessity to forge such a tripartite alliance including the nationalists among the royalists was indeed essential. He even stressed the fact that there was "no alternative to this national necessity".
All things considered, it should not be deduced from all this that there has been a change of heart in Prachanda or even the Maoists. They remain absolutely opposed to the monarchy. Their aim of achieving a totalitarian Communist republic remains. This objective is diametrically opposed to the royalist aspiration to at least preserve the monarchy to perhaps a limited degree. These political positions are irreconcilable. However, Prachanda was implying that there was at least a common denominator between these two objectives: patriotism.

Appealing to the 'supposed' common ground this speech was aimed at those royalists, who are for the King at any price, and the monarchists, who are only for constitutional monarchy, which is not bound to any one person, i.e. not necessarily for King Gyanendra, and are convinced that the monarchy is essential for the viability of the nation. It was aimed at giving them a sense of well-being and complacency; however at the same time calling on them to abandon the common ground between royalists and monarchists: to abandon hope that the embattled monarchy could be saved. In point of fact, the Maoists and their collaborators are on the verge of achieving their aim of the proclamation of a republic through the so-called 'interim parliament', without the people having any say at all. Once a fait accompli was achieved, there would be many options for the Maoists and their real Communist allies.

Secondly, the statement was aimed at the Maoists' former government allies in the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) giving notice that unless they toe the Maoist line and realize the Maoist agenda, they (the Maoists) were quite capable of forging a new alliance and treading a new path. On the same occasion, Prachanda accused PM Koirala of giving more priority to the CA-elections than to the peace process and compared his actions to that of King Gyanendra in 2005 who had ordered local elections amidst boycott by the political parties and questions of legitimacy. He also made it clear that it was also the big media houses that were opposing the Maoists forming a government under their leadership.

That Prachanda is a complete bundle of contradictions was made clear from the fact that in a separate informal meeting with editors in the capital, he underlined the necessity for CA-elections in order to bring movement to society and the country, and use the opportunity "to reform our cadres"! He has also warned that if the political parties did not reach a consensus on the political deadlock within a week, a change of guard in the government was in the offing. Hence, in summary, the Maoist antics thus amount to undiluted skullduggery.

Thirdly, he cleverly used the opportunity to underline the bona fides of the Maoists in the eyes of the diplomats in Kathmandu and also the international community at large. They have already garnered the support of the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative, Ian Martin. Compared to PM Koirala, home minister Sitaula and the SPA, the Maoists' public relations act is quite impressive.

Not a day passes without the Maoist top dogs waxing eloquent on some aspect of domestic politics. This way, they seem to hog the limelight, and people cannot but be impressed. However, it is easy to mistake shadows for substance, fantasy for facts. It can only be hoped that the international community is not hoodwinked by the Maoists, and also the SPA regarding their so-called good intentions. The taste of the pudding is in the eating, and it must not be forgotten that the Maoists have not honoured a single agreement that they have signed, nor that the SPA is not exactly hurrying along with the organization of the CA-elections.

The nominally democratic and largest party in the coalition, the Nepali Congress (NC) does not seem to be able to make up its mind with regard to Maoist and Communist demands. Krishna Prasad Sitaula (branded as a Maoist collaborator even by some NC leaders, including Sujata Koirala, the PM's daughter) differed with Prachanda. He insisted that the monarchists could never be nationalists and that they were always in favour of a despotic regime (sic). At the same time he made the tall claim that only the seven political parties were "the biggest nationalist forces". Apparently, this poor man is hopelessly caught up in enigmas.

Former PM Sher Bahadur Deuba (NC) firmly reiterated his stand that the country could be declared a republic only after the CA-elections. Many leading luminaries of the NC at the central level-including former House speaker Tara Nath Ranabhat, General-Secretary K.B. Gurung and former minister Khum Bahadur Khadka - have come out openly for constitutional monarchy as the sine qua non for the independence and territorial integrity of the nation. They have sharply criticized Girija Koirala and his cronies for giving in to the Maoists and Communists.

Dev Gurung (terrorist turned lawmaker, aka Kancha Bahadur und assessed as No.8 in the Maoist hierarchy) has demanded the punishment of these NC-MPs. Being a Maoist (and arguably a non-democrat consequently) he can be forgiven for not being aware that MPs are only obligated to their voters and their conscience. While it has often been stated in this space that the MPs of the current parliament have not been legitimated by a vote, it can be said in this instance that at least they seem to be motivated by their conscience. Conversely, our good comrade is not motivated by either.

Another former PM, Surya Bahadur Thapa, chairman of the Rashtriya Janshakti Party (an offshoot of the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party) rejected outright the attempts to coax the 'nominated parliament' to "initiate the process for a republic". Thus, on the important question of proclaiming a republic before or after the CA-elections, there does seem to be coalescing a polarization of forces between the Maoists and Communists on the one hand, and democratic parties on the other.

Above all, the international community must take cognizance of the fact that the Maoists are vociferously and violently against the idea of CA-elections. Last Saturday, the nominally number 2 boss, Baburam Bhattarai again insisted that the CA-elections would be impossible without first declaring the country a republic. For the Maoists this remains the bottom line. He also rubbished Prachanda's call for all nationalistic forces (including royalists) to forge an alliance (without saying so specifically, but indicating that Chairman Prachanda's statement had been distorted!).

Bhattarai would have us believe that he exudes an air of a dispassionate intellectual, but he remains a transparent and iconoclastic Maoist-Communist rabble-rouser wedded to double-speak. In a revealing but thick-headed statement, he has let the cat out of the bag by saying that for the Maoists that have already established a "progressive political agenda" (implying that this is all that is needed), any elections would be meaningless (i.e. a farce), if the Maoists were to lose! He divulged his mind-set in a supercilious manner and exposed the Maoists for what they really are. Only genuine nationalists believe that electoral democracy will pave the way for real reforms.

In the meantime last Saturday, the independent Transparency International's Index of Corruption has placed Nepal among the most corrupt countries. This has been a massive blow to the country's international standing and is also a reliable political barometer for the record of governance of the Gang of Eight (the SPA and the Maoists dictating from outside the government). It is also an indication of the utter rotten state of affairs.

Nepal's position in 2006 at 131 out of 163 countries in the corruption index fell from 117th among 159 countries in 2005 - a total disgrace for SPAM after announcing "a new Nepal" under total democracy (loktantra) after the so-called Peoples' Movement II ( Jan Andolan). The country's corruption was concentrated heavily in the public sector. The international community is definitely aware that there is always a tendency towards corruption in authoritarian states.
As the brilliant author Will Hutton (in: The Writing on the Wall. China and the West in the 21st Century) has written: " ... the depth of corruption at the apex of government.... is chronically dysfunctional and even threatens the integrity of the state." The Chief Justice, Kedar Prasad Giri rightly condemned this 'regression' as resulting from the absence of the rule of law.

One day earlier, in a twist of fate, the World Bank rewarded the current, most corrupt regime since the restoration of democracy in 1990, the highest ever grant of $ 253 million for education, irrigation and roads! This is a mockery of the process of encouraging democratic norms and a direct stimulation of lawlessness and autocratic government.

What were the directors of the Bank - "the Lords of Poverty" - thinking when making such a huge grant to such a regime at a most inappropriate time? The grant will in no way address the root causes of the (Maoist) conflict as the key to ensuring lasting peace. A visiting delegation of the European Union has concluded that the peace process has lost momentum. Inequality and social exclusion are definitely among Nepal's foremost development challenges, but the claim that "the package approved demonstrates the WB's commitment to ensure social and economic inclusion of the poor, marginalized and less developed regions" is seriously flawed in conception, content and timing.

The writers can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com