BISHAL THAPA on Nepal politics: Vilifying Prachanda

In an interview with Republica earlier this month, a few weeks before the announcement of the election date, CPN-UML General Secretary Ishwar Pokhrel was articulate in his disgust of the UCPN (Maoist) (Weekly Interview, June 4 2013). 

“They [UCPN (Maoist)] get into an agreement today, and even before the ink on the paper has dried, (they) start opposing it. This raises a serious question mark over their political honesty,” he said in response to a question over the debate on the size of the Constituent Assembly and threshold level for proportional representation.  Pokhrel was, and remains, an important interlocutor for the UML. His remarks were not merely a frustrated response to the trust deficit that has marred previous negotiations, including those over election issues. Rather, his comments betrayed a deep-seated fundamental distrust of UCPN (Maoist). 

“The bottom line is that the Maoists once established a culture of violence in Nepali politics. Now it is the chief force promoting anarchy and opportunism in the Nepali political arena,” he said in the same interview. The vilification of the UCPN (Maoist), and Prachanda in particular, has been a key component of Nepal’s current political polarization. Within the corridors of Kathmandu, Prachanda is cast as a despot in waiting, a man who appears willing to use deceit, violence, treachery or whatever else may be required to achieve his dictatorial ambition.

The democratic future of Nepal, as Pokhrel and others often suggest, rests on securing a coalition committed to democracy.  “For the new CA to produce a democratic constitution, there must be a two-third majority of democratic forces,” he said. Although he didn’t spell out exactly who the democratic forces were, his insinuation clearly was that it didn’t include Prachanda and his gang of ‘opportunistic anarchists’. There is no doubt that Prachanda has blood on his hands and that the uprising he led–people’s war, as he labelled it—“established a culture of violence in Nepali politics.” Thousands lost their lives in that war. Child soldiers were used. Property was confiscated with force. Human rights were abused by both sides to the conflict. 

But when Pokhrel and his cohort signed the peace deal that brought the UCPN (Maoist) into the mainstream, they decided that in the interest of a lasting peace they would overlook atrocities on all sides. Peace was negotiated on those terms. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was to heal the wounds. By that count, Prachanda and UCPN (Maoist) remain absolved of having “established a culture of violence in Nepali politics.”

Pokhrel and his democratic alliance can’t have it both ways. Either they wage war and vanquish the anti-democratic forces (as he labelled it), or they get on with the peace process without conjuring the image of violence every time it is politically convenient to do so. 
Perhaps a two-third majority of democratic forces can help produce a democratic constitution, as Pokhrel claims it will. But a lasting peace is unlikely if the integrity of the peace deal is continually questioned to suit a particular political agenda.

Prachanda has at times resembled a despot, determined to take control of all parts of the State. His current strength comes, in part, from being the leader of a (possibly armed) cadre based organization, not a mass based organization like a proper political party. He has been accused of using his machinery to influence the outcome of the last election. Many speculate that he will do so again this time. Prachanda has demonstrated a tenacious desire for power, often picking battles, such as the fight over the army chief, that were widely interpreted to expose his dictatorial aspirations. But Prachanda’s aspiration for power is perhaps no different from any other politician. Any politician would perhaps gladly be Prime Minister given the opportunity. Most politicians could be corrupted by the opportunities of power. The aspiration for power is what makes them tick, just as businesspersons are driven by profits, a doctor by the power to heal, a pilot to fly and a thief to steal.

If UCPN (Maoist) are “politically dishonest,” so is every other party. Almost every party, every politician could be corrupted by the temptation of power. Much of the last five years was unfortunately wasted on thwarting the political aspirations of Prachanda when it could have been spent far more constructively building the institutions to curb the abuse of power. But it wasn’t just Prachanda that was weighed down in the process.  Every Prime Minister in office proved to be ineffective. Pokhrel’s own party, for instance, exhibited some of the worst infighting, horse-trading and backstabbing in the last Constituent Assembly.

Our fear that Prachanda, the UCPN (Maoist) or any other group will go on to become a despot controlling all aspects of the State and ruling like a dictator, is exaggerated. Prachanda’s success with the Maoist movement is in itself an inherent limitation to power.
Prachanda rose to power from the background of a humble school teacher who had been cast away to teach in a remote village because he didn’t have the right connections. In his struggles, he was prodded on, he claims, by nothing more than his empathy for the suffering of Nepalis, the infrastructure and ideology of communist parties (including the antecedents of Pokhrel’s own party) and the personal pain he felt at the humiliation his father received at the hands of rich moneylenders.

Starting with a rag-tag group of rebels armed with nothing more than sticks and kitchen knives, Prachanda built up a successful army that rivalled the State’s and forced a peace treaty partly on his terms. Prachanda could go on to be a despot. But there are possibly 10,000 other humble school teachers who have the same empathy for the suffering of Nepalis and have felt some personal pain, and who could be just as willing to start a rag-tag group of rebels to challenge a despot. Just as Prachanda bought down a monarchy, one of the 10,000 other humble school teachers could bring down a despot. 

Nepal is also a fractured polity, from east to west, north to south. No caste, group or ethnicity is likely to easily hold sway over anyone else. Social hierarchies that defined past justifications for rule have been challenged. In such an environment, rule based on force and subjugation is impossible. Clearly, the diffuse, fractured nature of Nepal’s polity cannot be the only safeguard against autocratic rule. We need institutions, both formal and informal, to provide a modern legal basis for guaranteeing the democratic processes.  Within the polarized political environment of Nepal, painting one party as an “undemocratic force” for political convenience is as damaging as being “undemocratic” oneself. It hardens the polarization.

“The political leadership must be able to rise above petty interests and engage in the debate, realizing the gravity of the matter. There is a need for broader political unity on important issues at this very difficult juncture,” Pokhrel said at the end of his interview. He would do well to believe and heed his own advice. 

http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=56747