03-19-2005, 09:07 PM
Article by Baburam Bhattarai of Communist Party Of Nepal (Maoist)
Krishna Sen News Agency (Online Service) - English translation
THE ROYAL REGRESSION AND THE QUESTION OF DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
Baburam Bhattarai
CPN(Maoist)
In his famous work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Karl
Marx had said: "Hegel observes somewhere that all great incidents and
individuals of world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the
first time as tragedy, the second as farce." It was while drawing a parallel
between the coup of 1851 by Napoleon's nephew Louis Bonaparte, who had then
crowned himself as Napoleon III, and the original Napoleonic coup of 1799. Of
course, this was in a satirical sense.
Similar law of Hegelian dialectics seems to be in operation in the
history of Nepal, too. While the father, King Mahendra, had staged a military
coup on December 16, 1960 against the first parliamentary democracy established
after 1950 to centralise all power in himself, now the son, King Gyanendra, has
staged another military coup on February 1, 2005 against the second
parliamentary democracy restored after 1990 and centralised all state power in
himself. However, for the politically enlightened ones, it is not difficult to
see beneath the surface that this episode of February 1 is merely a continuation
or culmination of the episode of June 1, 2001, when the relatively more weak or
liberal King Birendra, along with his entire family, was butchered and a new
dynasty ushered in by Gyanendra. This way, the "First February" of the Nepalese
history seems to be a carbon copy of the "Eighteenth Brumaire" of the French
history; but it is yet to be seen whether it will be more
'tragic' or more 'farcical'.
The Essence of the Royal Regression
In his every public utterances after the coup, including the 'royal
proclamation' of February 1, Gyanendra has laboured hard to sell the theory that
his present move is designed to restore 'peace' and consolidate 'multi-party
democracy' by exorcising the ghost of 'terrorism' [i.e. the ongoing
revolutionary People's War led by the CPN(Maoist), and this is meant only for a
definite time-frame of coming three years. While talking to a group of selected
media persons on February 24, he has particularly taken pains to project himself
as the real Messiah of 'democracy' and the exorcist of 'terrorism' and has
demanded of the parliamentary political parties and the entire members of the
international community to cooperate with him in this grand venture against
'terrorism'. Thus, he has sought to project himself as the true follower of the
US President George W. Bush in the international crusade against 'terrorism' and
begged everybody to grant legitimacy to his autocratic
military regime at least on that count. Of course, he seems to have learnt a
few lessons from General Musarraf of Pakistan.
However, Gyanendra's such political gimmicks are not cutting much
ice among the masses, as he has a tainted image as the hardliner autocrat even
within the palace since his father's and bother's days and is particularly hated
among the public as the real fratricidal and regicidal culprit in the palace
massacre of June 1, 2001. Particularly after his induction of the old palace
stooges of known anti-democratic persuasions like Tulsi Giri and Kirti Nidhi
Bista as his principal political associates and his abduction of all fundamental
and democratic rights of the people with the contrywide declaration of
emergency, the essential nature of his despotic military rule has been
thoroughly unmasked. Despite his incessant parroting about his commitments
towards 'multi-party democracy' and 'constitutional monarchy' , all his real
practices so far including the crackdown on political parties and their leaders,
free media and human rights activists and blatant trampling upon the
limited democratic provisions of the old constitution, leave one in no doubt
that the supine parliamentary democratic system has been snuffed out and the
autocratic monarchy restored in the country.
Hence the questions arise: How could the limited bourgeois
democratic system established after 1990 be abolished and the autocratic
monarchy restored so smoothly? Should not the wheel of history move forward
rather than backward? For the correct answers to these questions, one has to
grasp the laws of social development in a scientific and objective manner and to
correctly evaluate the weaknesses and limitations of the chronically infirm
parliamentary system after 1990.
Firstly, it should be acknowledged that struggle between social
classes provides the basic motive forces of societal development. The present
Nepalese society in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial stage is a multi-class
society, and the principal struggle there is among the feudal, the bourgeois and
the proletarian classes. All the three principle contending classes have their
allies, too. The traditionally dominant feudal class has the comprador and
bureaucratic bourgeoisie with it; the small and weak bourgeois class has a
section of the rural and urban petty-bourgeois class with it; and the
proletariat has the vast number of poor peasants and semi-proletariat with it.
This basically triangular class contention is increasingly turning into a
bi-polar contention after the initiation and development of revolutionary
People's War under the leadership of the proletariat since 1996. In other words,
according to the law of class struggle and social development , the parasitic
reactionary classes are polarised on one side under the leadership of the most
capable and strong class among themselves, and on the other side are rallied the
working and the progressive classes under the leadership of the most advanced
class, the proletariat. As the monarchy representing the feudal and comprador
and bureaucratic bourgeois classes is historically the strongest representative
of the reactionary classes in Nepal, the parasitic classes most adversely
affected by the revolutionary People's War have been increasingly rallying under
the leadership of the monarchy. This is the rationale and essence of the current
royal regression or the restoration of autocratic monarchy in the social class
terms. The regressive march of the reactionary classes in opposition to the
progressive march of the working classes is perfectly in keeping with the
dialectical law of social development.
Secondly, viewing from a further political angle, it should be
acknowledged that the inherent defects and weaknesses of the bourgeois
parliamentary democracy established after 1990 and the general infirmity and
incapacity of the middle strata and forces also provided an objective basis for
the ultimate feudal autocratic regression. Historically, the major parliamentary
political forces, viz. the Nepali Congress and later the revisionist UML, enjoy
no independent class base of their own, and tend to represent a hodge-podge of
class forces ranging from the feudals and comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie
to the petty-bourgeoisie and constantly take vacillating and conciliatory
political positions. Contrary to this, the monarchy traditionally draws its
strength from the prevailing feudal property and cultural relations, and
principally, from its monopoly hold over the Royal Nepal Army (RNA). To be more
specific, the political change and the Constitution of 1990 did not
properly settle the question of 'state sovereignty' traditionally claimed by
the monarchy and left the final 'state authority' and strategic control over the
RNA in the hands of the monarchy. This 'historical blunder' (to paraphrase Jyoti
Basu from India!) paved the way for the monarchy to gradually gobble up the
parliament and the Constitution and consummate the current royal regression.
Moreover, the parliamentary forces during their twelve years long rule in
between did nothing to bring about a progressive transformation in the
traditionally feudal and increasingly comprador and bureaucratic capitalist
socio-economic and cultural base of the society. In the later period,
particularly along with the rapid development of the revolutionary People's War,
their class and political base got further eroded. As a result, the upper strata
of the society which had backed the parliamentary forces after the political
change of 1990 gradually returned back to the fold of the monarchy and the
lower and a section of the middle strata naturally got polarized around the
revolutionary People's War. This dilemma of the reformist parliamentary forces
has been summed up in Chairman Com. Prachanda's recent People's War Anniversary
statement thus: "Ultimately, the so-called royal proclamation of February 1 has
not only exposed the irrelevance of reformism in the Nepalese politics, but also
shattered the collective lethargy of the parliamentary political forces."
Thirdly, from a military point of view, this action of total
centralization of the old state authority in the absolute monarchy can been as
an attempt of the moribund reactionary classes to wage a final battle with the
revolutionary forces in the ever mounting class war in the country. In view of
the recent declaration of the CPN (Maoist) to lead the nine-year old
revolutionary People's War into the final and decisive stage of strategic
offensive, it is not unnatural, though foolish, for the frightened reactionary
classes to attempt to wage a final battle of life and death under the direct
leadership of the monarchy, which has assumed supreme commandership of the RNA
since its inception. In the recent past the pathetic showing of the RNA in
almost every real battle with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been blamed
by certain quarters on the contradictions of de jure political leadership of the
parliamentary forces and de facto leadership of the monarchy over the
RNA, Also, it is not hard to understand the super military ambitions of
Gyanendra, who has grabbed the throne by butchering the entire family of his
brother, Birendra, to project himself as the great savior of his tottering
feudal and comprador-bureaucratic bourgeois class. Nevertheless, as any common
student of military science would know, the victory or defeat of a particular
army ultimately depends more on its social class base and the political goal
rather than on the leadership prowess of its commander, and in that sense the
ultimate defeat of the reactionary RNA should be a foregone conclusion and
Gyanendra's dream would be mere chimera.
Role of the International Forces
In the present day world of imperialist globalization any internal
political event has more international ramifications than ever before. Hence the
February 1 royal regression has generated worldwide reactions, and all major
world and regional powers and organizations, including the UN, the USA, the UK,
the EU, India, China and others have issued public statements on the question.
Surprisingly none of the major international players have supported Gyanendra's
regressive steps so far. Not only that the major powers like the USA, the UK,
the EU and India, which have been the principal props for the reactionary
regimes in Nepal in the past, have publicly opposed the current developments,
and others like China, Russia, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. have commented upon the
events as 'internal affairs of Nepal'. The most significant international
development has been the suspension of military aid by India and the UK (the USA
also appears to be toeing the same line) and suspension
of 'development aid' by a number of EU countries. International human rights
organisations such as the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., have
publicly denounced the royal regime for its rampant violations of human and
democratic rights of the people. Thus the autocratic royal regime has been
totally isolated from the international community so far, which is a good omen
for the democratic movement.
However, the despotic regime is desperately seeking to exploit two
issues to gain international support for itself. The first is the
'anti-terrorism' card, and the second, the 'geo-political' card. The hackneyed
'anti-terrorism' card, much exploited after September Eleven by all and sundry
petty dictators and reactionary regimes of the world, has already lost much of
its original steam and is yet to be seen how it will fare in Gyanendra's case.
But one can be fairly certain that the enlightened world public opinion won't be
easily hoodwinked by the 'anti-terrorism' claims of a person of Gyanendra's ilk,
whose hands are blood-stained in the infamous palace massacre and who has now
launched a countryside reign of military terror against the people by suspending
all political and fundamental rights. Nevertheless, as all the values and norms
in a class-divided society are governed by class interests, it won't be
surprising if some of the reactionary rulers of the world would
ultimately back the regressive royal regime, overtly or covertly.
As far as the 'geo-political' card of the country's strategic
positioning between the two super-states of China and India is concerned,
Gyanendra's attempts to repeat the skillful diplomatic maneuvering of playing
one neighbour against the other as practiced by his father, Mahendra, in the
specific cold-war context of the last century cannot be expected to bear much
fruit in the changed situation of international balance of forces in general and
the India-China relations in particular. The recent coming together of the USA
and India and their coordinated policy against royal regression may tempt
Gyanendra to play the China card. He has given enough hints of this by
appointing the old royalist Kirti Nidhi Bista with a known pro-China tilt as one
of his principle associates in the government. Similarly, Pakistan and
Bangladesh, with traditional contradictions with India, may provide some
breathing space for the royal regime; some indications of which have already
come from
the Pakistani ambassador in Kathmandu. However, given the extremely shaky
position and uncertain future of Gyanendra himself, it is hard to believe that
any of the neighbours will go beyond diplomatic niceties to extend him any
substantial material help. Similarly, on the part of the proletarian
revolutionaries they should be prudent enough to practice strategic firmness and
tactical flexibility in the matters of diplomatic relations particularly with
the immediate neighbours.
Another noteworthy factor in recent days is the indication of some
positive change in the attitude of major international and regional powers
towards the revolutionary forces in Nepal. Due to their own distorted class
outlook and interests, these major powers in the past used to regard the
monarchy and the parliamentary forces as the so-called 'two pillars of
stability', and they were seen working hard to bring about a grand alliance
between the two against the revolutionary democratic forces. Now they seem to be
increasingly veering round a 'three pillar' theory, including the revolutionary
forces; which is, of course, a step forward. But the historical necessity and
the new objective reality of the country is that the new 'two pillars' of
parliamentary and revolutionary democratic forces join hands to uproot the
outdated and rotten third 'pillar' of monarchy. The CPN(Maoist) has already made
a policy decision to this effect, which is reflected in the recent Anniversary
statement issued by Chairman Com. Prachanda.
The Question of Democratic Republic
After the royal regression of February 1, there are seen some
important developments in the internal political situation. Whereas earlier the
national politics was divided into three streams of monarchy, parliamentary
democracy and revolutionary people's democracy, now it is gradually getting
polarized into two broad streams of monarchy and democracy. Particularly, the
leaders, cadres and supporters of parliamentary democracy have now seen through
the anti-democracy maneuvering and divide-and-rule policy of the monarchy in the
past and their collective ire against the monarchy has sharpened more than ever
before. Though there are sponsored public rallies and statements in favour of
the autocratic monarchy on a daily basis, none of the known political parties or
their leaders have openly endorsed the royal move so far. While the royal regime
has laboured hard to propagate that the harsh autocratic measures are directed
only against the 'terrorists' (i.e. Maoist
revolutionaries), the people have increasingly realized that they are against
all the democratic forces. Similarly, almost all the members of 'civil society',
media persons, human rights organizations, professional organizations, etc. have
openly come out against the royal coup. This is obviously a good sign for the
future of democracy in the country.
However, it is a matter of serious concern that even after more than
a mouth since the coup the democratic forces have not been able to come up with
an effective & coordinated plan, programme or mechanism of resistance against
the autocratic monarchy. The CPN (Maoist) attempted to provide initial tempo to
the resistance movement by organizing a three-day 'Napal Bandh' (shut-down) and
a fifteen-day transportation blockade in February, and is planning further
mass-mobilization and military-action programmes in coming months. The
parliamentary forces did organize some propaganda activities from India and
symbolic public rallies within the country, and are planning peaceful
mass-arrest programmes for the future. But the desired sharp attacks against the
monarchy in a unified manner, firstly, amongst the parliamentary forces and,
secondly, between the parliamentary and revolutionary democratic forces, has not
materialized so far. Whereas the Nepali Congress has come out more
sharply against the monarchy, the so-called 'leftist' UML has made a relatively
muted response against the royal coup. This has naturally raised some
apprehensions among the masses whether a new 'Rayamajhi' trend (i.e. the
capitulation of the then general secretary of the CPN, Keshar Jang Rayamajhi, to
the monarchy in the 1960s) is in the offing. However, after so much blood-bath
the situation has undergone a sea change since then. Hence, even if a few
Rayamajhis from the left camp and a few Tulsi Giris from the Nepali Congress
camp may arise, the overwhelming majorities of the leaders & cadres of the
political parties and the general masses of the people are likely to fight till
the end against the autocratic monarchy. Moreover, with the presence of the
revolutionary PLA to take on the monarchist RNA, and the more favourable
international situation than ever to fight against the absolute monarchy, a new
objective ground is prepared for the democratic political forces to mount a
unified assault against the monarchy so as to sweep it away for ever.
Precisely in this context the question of anti-monarchy common
minimum programme and slogan acceptable to all the democratic forces, including
the parliamentary and revolutionary democratic forces and the international
community, has become pertinent. It has been the considered view of the
CPN(Maoist) that the programme of election to a representative Constituent
Assembly and institutionalization of the democratic republic is best suited for
the purpose. The old slogan of restoration of the parliament or re-activization
and amendment of 1990 Constitution, advanced by the parliamentary forces and the
international community, has been totally outdated and inadequate in the new
context. A brief recapitulation of the incessant struggle between the monarchy
and democracy since the 1950s in the country should leave no one in doubt that
without the complete abolition of the archaic institution of feudal monarchy and
its puppet RNA no form of democracy can be secure and
institutional in Nepal. It has been proved time and again that the so-called
'constitutional monarchy' seen in operation in some of the highly developed
capitalist countries cannot be replicated in a semi-feudal & semi-colonial
society. Hence any attempt on the part of the parliamentary political parties
and the international forces to preserve the thoroughly rotten and discredited
institution of monarchy, in this or that pretext, does not correspond with the
historical necessity and ground reality of balance of forces in the country, and
the agenda of 'democratic republic' has entered the Nepalese politics.
As for as the sincere commitment of the revolutionary democratic
forces, who aspire to reach socialism and communism via a new democratic
republic, towards a bourgeois democratic republic is concerned, the CPN(Maoist)
has time and again clarified its principled position towards the historical
necessity of passing through a sub-stage of democratic republic in the
specificities of Nepal. Particularly, in "An Executive Summary of the Proposal
Put Forward by CPN(Maoist) for the Negotiations" presented during the
negotiations in April 2003 [See, Some Important Documents of Communist Party of
Nepal(Maoist), 2004] the minimum content and the process of realization of this
democratic republic through a Constituent Assembly has been expressed in
concrete terms. The fact that the democratic republic is envisaged to be
institutionalized through a freely elected Constituent Assembly, should cast
away any illusions about the democratic credentials of the revolutionary forces.
Further
concrete issues like the creation of a new national army after the dissolution
of the royal mercenary RNA can be discussed during the process of negotiations.
The need of the hour is unity of all democratic forces of the
country on the common minimum programme of a democratic republic. If anything is
lacking so far it is the real democratic vision and will power on the part of
the leadership of major political parties. Also, it is the time to win
confidence of the masses of the people through a correct projection of the
democratic credentials of political parties, and for this the correct practice
of inner-party democracy would be a significant component.
In the end, it may be useful to recollect Engels to understand why a
proletarian party needs to uphold the programme of a bourgeois republic in the
particular historical specificities of a country like present-day Nepal.
Lambasting the Bukuninist anarchists who had opposed the immediate programme of
a republic in nineteenth-century Spain, Engels had said:
"When the Republic was proclaimed in February 1873, the Spanish
members of the Alliance [i.e. Bakuninist 'International'] found themselves in a
quandary. Spain is such a backward country industrially that there can be no
question there of immediate complete emancipation of the working class. Spain
will first have to pass through various preliminary stages of development and
remove quite a number of obstacles from its path. The Republic offered a chance
of going through these stages in the shortest possible time and quickly
surmounting the obstacles. But this chance be taken only if the Spanish working
class played an active political role." [From "The Bakuninists at Work"]
March 15, 2005.
Krishna Sen News Agency (Online Service) - English translation
THE ROYAL REGRESSION AND THE QUESTION OF DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
Baburam Bhattarai
CPN(Maoist)
In his famous work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Karl
Marx had said: "Hegel observes somewhere that all great incidents and
individuals of world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the
first time as tragedy, the second as farce." It was while drawing a parallel
between the coup of 1851 by Napoleon's nephew Louis Bonaparte, who had then
crowned himself as Napoleon III, and the original Napoleonic coup of 1799. Of
course, this was in a satirical sense.
Similar law of Hegelian dialectics seems to be in operation in the
history of Nepal, too. While the father, King Mahendra, had staged a military
coup on December 16, 1960 against the first parliamentary democracy established
after 1950 to centralise all power in himself, now the son, King Gyanendra, has
staged another military coup on February 1, 2005 against the second
parliamentary democracy restored after 1990 and centralised all state power in
himself. However, for the politically enlightened ones, it is not difficult to
see beneath the surface that this episode of February 1 is merely a continuation
or culmination of the episode of June 1, 2001, when the relatively more weak or
liberal King Birendra, along with his entire family, was butchered and a new
dynasty ushered in by Gyanendra. This way, the "First February" of the Nepalese
history seems to be a carbon copy of the "Eighteenth Brumaire" of the French
history; but it is yet to be seen whether it will be more
'tragic' or more 'farcical'.
The Essence of the Royal Regression
In his every public utterances after the coup, including the 'royal
proclamation' of February 1, Gyanendra has laboured hard to sell the theory that
his present move is designed to restore 'peace' and consolidate 'multi-party
democracy' by exorcising the ghost of 'terrorism' [i.e. the ongoing
revolutionary People's War led by the CPN(Maoist), and this is meant only for a
definite time-frame of coming three years. While talking to a group of selected
media persons on February 24, he has particularly taken pains to project himself
as the real Messiah of 'democracy' and the exorcist of 'terrorism' and has
demanded of the parliamentary political parties and the entire members of the
international community to cooperate with him in this grand venture against
'terrorism'. Thus, he has sought to project himself as the true follower of the
US President George W. Bush in the international crusade against 'terrorism' and
begged everybody to grant legitimacy to his autocratic
military regime at least on that count. Of course, he seems to have learnt a
few lessons from General Musarraf of Pakistan.
However, Gyanendra's such political gimmicks are not cutting much
ice among the masses, as he has a tainted image as the hardliner autocrat even
within the palace since his father's and bother's days and is particularly hated
among the public as the real fratricidal and regicidal culprit in the palace
massacre of June 1, 2001. Particularly after his induction of the old palace
stooges of known anti-democratic persuasions like Tulsi Giri and Kirti Nidhi
Bista as his principal political associates and his abduction of all fundamental
and democratic rights of the people with the contrywide declaration of
emergency, the essential nature of his despotic military rule has been
thoroughly unmasked. Despite his incessant parroting about his commitments
towards 'multi-party democracy' and 'constitutional monarchy' , all his real
practices so far including the crackdown on political parties and their leaders,
free media and human rights activists and blatant trampling upon the
limited democratic provisions of the old constitution, leave one in no doubt
that the supine parliamentary democratic system has been snuffed out and the
autocratic monarchy restored in the country.
Hence the questions arise: How could the limited bourgeois
democratic system established after 1990 be abolished and the autocratic
monarchy restored so smoothly? Should not the wheel of history move forward
rather than backward? For the correct answers to these questions, one has to
grasp the laws of social development in a scientific and objective manner and to
correctly evaluate the weaknesses and limitations of the chronically infirm
parliamentary system after 1990.
Firstly, it should be acknowledged that struggle between social
classes provides the basic motive forces of societal development. The present
Nepalese society in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial stage is a multi-class
society, and the principal struggle there is among the feudal, the bourgeois and
the proletarian classes. All the three principle contending classes have their
allies, too. The traditionally dominant feudal class has the comprador and
bureaucratic bourgeoisie with it; the small and weak bourgeois class has a
section of the rural and urban petty-bourgeois class with it; and the
proletariat has the vast number of poor peasants and semi-proletariat with it.
This basically triangular class contention is increasingly turning into a
bi-polar contention after the initiation and development of revolutionary
People's War under the leadership of the proletariat since 1996. In other words,
according to the law of class struggle and social development , the parasitic
reactionary classes are polarised on one side under the leadership of the most
capable and strong class among themselves, and on the other side are rallied the
working and the progressive classes under the leadership of the most advanced
class, the proletariat. As the monarchy representing the feudal and comprador
and bureaucratic bourgeois classes is historically the strongest representative
of the reactionary classes in Nepal, the parasitic classes most adversely
affected by the revolutionary People's War have been increasingly rallying under
the leadership of the monarchy. This is the rationale and essence of the current
royal regression or the restoration of autocratic monarchy in the social class
terms. The regressive march of the reactionary classes in opposition to the
progressive march of the working classes is perfectly in keeping with the
dialectical law of social development.
Secondly, viewing from a further political angle, it should be
acknowledged that the inherent defects and weaknesses of the bourgeois
parliamentary democracy established after 1990 and the general infirmity and
incapacity of the middle strata and forces also provided an objective basis for
the ultimate feudal autocratic regression. Historically, the major parliamentary
political forces, viz. the Nepali Congress and later the revisionist UML, enjoy
no independent class base of their own, and tend to represent a hodge-podge of
class forces ranging from the feudals and comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie
to the petty-bourgeoisie and constantly take vacillating and conciliatory
political positions. Contrary to this, the monarchy traditionally draws its
strength from the prevailing feudal property and cultural relations, and
principally, from its monopoly hold over the Royal Nepal Army (RNA). To be more
specific, the political change and the Constitution of 1990 did not
properly settle the question of 'state sovereignty' traditionally claimed by
the monarchy and left the final 'state authority' and strategic control over the
RNA in the hands of the monarchy. This 'historical blunder' (to paraphrase Jyoti
Basu from India!) paved the way for the monarchy to gradually gobble up the
parliament and the Constitution and consummate the current royal regression.
Moreover, the parliamentary forces during their twelve years long rule in
between did nothing to bring about a progressive transformation in the
traditionally feudal and increasingly comprador and bureaucratic capitalist
socio-economic and cultural base of the society. In the later period,
particularly along with the rapid development of the revolutionary People's War,
their class and political base got further eroded. As a result, the upper strata
of the society which had backed the parliamentary forces after the political
change of 1990 gradually returned back to the fold of the monarchy and the
lower and a section of the middle strata naturally got polarized around the
revolutionary People's War. This dilemma of the reformist parliamentary forces
has been summed up in Chairman Com. Prachanda's recent People's War Anniversary
statement thus: "Ultimately, the so-called royal proclamation of February 1 has
not only exposed the irrelevance of reformism in the Nepalese politics, but also
shattered the collective lethargy of the parliamentary political forces."
Thirdly, from a military point of view, this action of total
centralization of the old state authority in the absolute monarchy can been as
an attempt of the moribund reactionary classes to wage a final battle with the
revolutionary forces in the ever mounting class war in the country. In view of
the recent declaration of the CPN (Maoist) to lead the nine-year old
revolutionary People's War into the final and decisive stage of strategic
offensive, it is not unnatural, though foolish, for the frightened reactionary
classes to attempt to wage a final battle of life and death under the direct
leadership of the monarchy, which has assumed supreme commandership of the RNA
since its inception. In the recent past the pathetic showing of the RNA in
almost every real battle with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been blamed
by certain quarters on the contradictions of de jure political leadership of the
parliamentary forces and de facto leadership of the monarchy over the
RNA, Also, it is not hard to understand the super military ambitions of
Gyanendra, who has grabbed the throne by butchering the entire family of his
brother, Birendra, to project himself as the great savior of his tottering
feudal and comprador-bureaucratic bourgeois class. Nevertheless, as any common
student of military science would know, the victory or defeat of a particular
army ultimately depends more on its social class base and the political goal
rather than on the leadership prowess of its commander, and in that sense the
ultimate defeat of the reactionary RNA should be a foregone conclusion and
Gyanendra's dream would be mere chimera.
Role of the International Forces
In the present day world of imperialist globalization any internal
political event has more international ramifications than ever before. Hence the
February 1 royal regression has generated worldwide reactions, and all major
world and regional powers and organizations, including the UN, the USA, the UK,
the EU, India, China and others have issued public statements on the question.
Surprisingly none of the major international players have supported Gyanendra's
regressive steps so far. Not only that the major powers like the USA, the UK,
the EU and India, which have been the principal props for the reactionary
regimes in Nepal in the past, have publicly opposed the current developments,
and others like China, Russia, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. have commented upon the
events as 'internal affairs of Nepal'. The most significant international
development has been the suspension of military aid by India and the UK (the USA
also appears to be toeing the same line) and suspension
of 'development aid' by a number of EU countries. International human rights
organisations such as the Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., have
publicly denounced the royal regime for its rampant violations of human and
democratic rights of the people. Thus the autocratic royal regime has been
totally isolated from the international community so far, which is a good omen
for the democratic movement.
However, the despotic regime is desperately seeking to exploit two
issues to gain international support for itself. The first is the
'anti-terrorism' card, and the second, the 'geo-political' card. The hackneyed
'anti-terrorism' card, much exploited after September Eleven by all and sundry
petty dictators and reactionary regimes of the world, has already lost much of
its original steam and is yet to be seen how it will fare in Gyanendra's case.
But one can be fairly certain that the enlightened world public opinion won't be
easily hoodwinked by the 'anti-terrorism' claims of a person of Gyanendra's ilk,
whose hands are blood-stained in the infamous palace massacre and who has now
launched a countryside reign of military terror against the people by suspending
all political and fundamental rights. Nevertheless, as all the values and norms
in a class-divided society are governed by class interests, it won't be
surprising if some of the reactionary rulers of the world would
ultimately back the regressive royal regime, overtly or covertly.
As far as the 'geo-political' card of the country's strategic
positioning between the two super-states of China and India is concerned,
Gyanendra's attempts to repeat the skillful diplomatic maneuvering of playing
one neighbour against the other as practiced by his father, Mahendra, in the
specific cold-war context of the last century cannot be expected to bear much
fruit in the changed situation of international balance of forces in general and
the India-China relations in particular. The recent coming together of the USA
and India and their coordinated policy against royal regression may tempt
Gyanendra to play the China card. He has given enough hints of this by
appointing the old royalist Kirti Nidhi Bista with a known pro-China tilt as one
of his principle associates in the government. Similarly, Pakistan and
Bangladesh, with traditional contradictions with India, may provide some
breathing space for the royal regime; some indications of which have already
come from
the Pakistani ambassador in Kathmandu. However, given the extremely shaky
position and uncertain future of Gyanendra himself, it is hard to believe that
any of the neighbours will go beyond diplomatic niceties to extend him any
substantial material help. Similarly, on the part of the proletarian
revolutionaries they should be prudent enough to practice strategic firmness and
tactical flexibility in the matters of diplomatic relations particularly with
the immediate neighbours.
Another noteworthy factor in recent days is the indication of some
positive change in the attitude of major international and regional powers
towards the revolutionary forces in Nepal. Due to their own distorted class
outlook and interests, these major powers in the past used to regard the
monarchy and the parliamentary forces as the so-called 'two pillars of
stability', and they were seen working hard to bring about a grand alliance
between the two against the revolutionary democratic forces. Now they seem to be
increasingly veering round a 'three pillar' theory, including the revolutionary
forces; which is, of course, a step forward. But the historical necessity and
the new objective reality of the country is that the new 'two pillars' of
parliamentary and revolutionary democratic forces join hands to uproot the
outdated and rotten third 'pillar' of monarchy. The CPN(Maoist) has already made
a policy decision to this effect, which is reflected in the recent Anniversary
statement issued by Chairman Com. Prachanda.
The Question of Democratic Republic
After the royal regression of February 1, there are seen some
important developments in the internal political situation. Whereas earlier the
national politics was divided into three streams of monarchy, parliamentary
democracy and revolutionary people's democracy, now it is gradually getting
polarized into two broad streams of monarchy and democracy. Particularly, the
leaders, cadres and supporters of parliamentary democracy have now seen through
the anti-democracy maneuvering and divide-and-rule policy of the monarchy in the
past and their collective ire against the monarchy has sharpened more than ever
before. Though there are sponsored public rallies and statements in favour of
the autocratic monarchy on a daily basis, none of the known political parties or
their leaders have openly endorsed the royal move so far. While the royal regime
has laboured hard to propagate that the harsh autocratic measures are directed
only against the 'terrorists' (i.e. Maoist
revolutionaries), the people have increasingly realized that they are against
all the democratic forces. Similarly, almost all the members of 'civil society',
media persons, human rights organizations, professional organizations, etc. have
openly come out against the royal coup. This is obviously a good sign for the
future of democracy in the country.
However, it is a matter of serious concern that even after more than
a mouth since the coup the democratic forces have not been able to come up with
an effective & coordinated plan, programme or mechanism of resistance against
the autocratic monarchy. The CPN (Maoist) attempted to provide initial tempo to
the resistance movement by organizing a three-day 'Napal Bandh' (shut-down) and
a fifteen-day transportation blockade in February, and is planning further
mass-mobilization and military-action programmes in coming months. The
parliamentary forces did organize some propaganda activities from India and
symbolic public rallies within the country, and are planning peaceful
mass-arrest programmes for the future. But the desired sharp attacks against the
monarchy in a unified manner, firstly, amongst the parliamentary forces and,
secondly, between the parliamentary and revolutionary democratic forces, has not
materialized so far. Whereas the Nepali Congress has come out more
sharply against the monarchy, the so-called 'leftist' UML has made a relatively
muted response against the royal coup. This has naturally raised some
apprehensions among the masses whether a new 'Rayamajhi' trend (i.e. the
capitulation of the then general secretary of the CPN, Keshar Jang Rayamajhi, to
the monarchy in the 1960s) is in the offing. However, after so much blood-bath
the situation has undergone a sea change since then. Hence, even if a few
Rayamajhis from the left camp and a few Tulsi Giris from the Nepali Congress
camp may arise, the overwhelming majorities of the leaders & cadres of the
political parties and the general masses of the people are likely to fight till
the end against the autocratic monarchy. Moreover, with the presence of the
revolutionary PLA to take on the monarchist RNA, and the more favourable
international situation than ever to fight against the absolute monarchy, a new
objective ground is prepared for the democratic political forces to mount a
unified assault against the monarchy so as to sweep it away for ever.
Precisely in this context the question of anti-monarchy common
minimum programme and slogan acceptable to all the democratic forces, including
the parliamentary and revolutionary democratic forces and the international
community, has become pertinent. It has been the considered view of the
CPN(Maoist) that the programme of election to a representative Constituent
Assembly and institutionalization of the democratic republic is best suited for
the purpose. The old slogan of restoration of the parliament or re-activization
and amendment of 1990 Constitution, advanced by the parliamentary forces and the
international community, has been totally outdated and inadequate in the new
context. A brief recapitulation of the incessant struggle between the monarchy
and democracy since the 1950s in the country should leave no one in doubt that
without the complete abolition of the archaic institution of feudal monarchy and
its puppet RNA no form of democracy can be secure and
institutional in Nepal. It has been proved time and again that the so-called
'constitutional monarchy' seen in operation in some of the highly developed
capitalist countries cannot be replicated in a semi-feudal & semi-colonial
society. Hence any attempt on the part of the parliamentary political parties
and the international forces to preserve the thoroughly rotten and discredited
institution of monarchy, in this or that pretext, does not correspond with the
historical necessity and ground reality of balance of forces in the country, and
the agenda of 'democratic republic' has entered the Nepalese politics.
As for as the sincere commitment of the revolutionary democratic
forces, who aspire to reach socialism and communism via a new democratic
republic, towards a bourgeois democratic republic is concerned, the CPN(Maoist)
has time and again clarified its principled position towards the historical
necessity of passing through a sub-stage of democratic republic in the
specificities of Nepal. Particularly, in "An Executive Summary of the Proposal
Put Forward by CPN(Maoist) for the Negotiations" presented during the
negotiations in April 2003 [See, Some Important Documents of Communist Party of
Nepal(Maoist), 2004] the minimum content and the process of realization of this
democratic republic through a Constituent Assembly has been expressed in
concrete terms. The fact that the democratic republic is envisaged to be
institutionalized through a freely elected Constituent Assembly, should cast
away any illusions about the democratic credentials of the revolutionary forces.
Further
concrete issues like the creation of a new national army after the dissolution
of the royal mercenary RNA can be discussed during the process of negotiations.
The need of the hour is unity of all democratic forces of the
country on the common minimum programme of a democratic republic. If anything is
lacking so far it is the real democratic vision and will power on the part of
the leadership of major political parties. Also, it is the time to win
confidence of the masses of the people through a correct projection of the
democratic credentials of political parties, and for this the correct practice
of inner-party democracy would be a significant component.
In the end, it may be useful to recollect Engels to understand why a
proletarian party needs to uphold the programme of a bourgeois republic in the
particular historical specificities of a country like present-day Nepal.
Lambasting the Bukuninist anarchists who had opposed the immediate programme of
a republic in nineteenth-century Spain, Engels had said:
"When the Republic was proclaimed in February 1873, the Spanish
members of the Alliance [i.e. Bakuninist 'International'] found themselves in a
quandary. Spain is such a backward country industrially that there can be no
question there of immediate complete emancipation of the working class. Spain
will first have to pass through various preliminary stages of development and
remove quite a number of obstacles from its path. The Republic offered a chance
of going through these stages in the shortest possible time and quickly
surmounting the obstacles. But this chance be taken only if the Spanish working
class played an active political role." [From "The Bakuninists at Work"]
March 15, 2005.