Uml-Maoist Merger
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UML-MAOIST MERGER Two of the three largest political parties, CPN-UML and CPN-MC merged to form Nepal Communist Party (NCP) on May 17 and were approved by the Elec- tion Commission on June 6, 2018. bunch of leaders, in a guerilla style, brought the seven-point unification (document) and announced the decision, not a proposal, for unification with UML. That decision was brought into an informal meeting where a task force was meeting to distribute electoral tickets...I have never read about an example of humiliation of such a huge proportion in any com- munist Ajaya Bhadra Khanal [email protected] Merger of CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist): Implications for Nepal's Democracy [1] Ajaya Bhadra Khanal While the rest of the country had quietened down for the Dashain holidays in October 2017, the two major leftist forces made a surprise announcement they were going to merge after the series of local and parliamentary elections for the three levels of the government.[2] The move created a huge political ripple in Nepal and abroad. The announcement came after three days of intensive discussions between K P Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal. Initially, the two party leaders had been talking about such a possibility, and now the proposal has reached a stage of alliance and party Maoist leader Narayan Kaji Shrestha says.[3] In order to complete the unification process, the parties announced a seven-point plan[4]. After seven months of intense negotiations, the two largest communist parties formally merged on May 17, 2018. Until the 2017 elections at the local, provincial, and federal levels, the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxists Leninists and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Center) had largely played second fiddle to the Nepali Congress.[5] But with the electoral alliance, the UML and the Maoists collectively received a resounding electoral victory at all levels of the government. The UML and Maoists received 174 seats in the 275-member federal House of Representatives, and, with the completion of the merger in May 2018, became the largest party. The merger of the two communist parties is a significant event in Nepal's political history. It has the potential to determine evolution of Nepal's democracy while shaping Nepal's relations in the global arena. But how and why did such a merger take place and what implications did it have for the new party as well as Nepal's democracy? This article first describes the context of the merger and analyses some of the factors that led to the unification process. In the next section, it looks into how the merger reshaped distribution and organization of power, generated new trends, shaped internal party policies, and affected internal party democracy. In the third section, this article looks into the international dimensions of the merger, particularly the way in which the new party's relations with India and China evolved and affected Nepal's foreign policy dynamics. In the fourth section, this article analyses the impact of the new party on Nepal's political course within the broader context of political settlements in the country and the new political party. It also discusses the implications of the merger for Nepal's political future, especially as they related to questions about democracy, inclusion, federalism, and foreign relations. 1 CESIF/ABK/2019/UML-Maoist-Merger 1. Context and rationale of merger History of the communist movement and evolution of communist parties The merger of UML and the Maoists is more significant than the series of mergers and splits of communist parties in the past because it has brought together two major streams of Nepal's com- munist movement. Communist movement in Nepal developed from the rebellion against the Ranas in Kathmandu and were influenced by socialist movements in Europe as well as the novelty of Mao Zedong's revolution in China. Soon, the movement diverged in multiple directions. One stream, associated with the former Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxists and Leninists (CPN-UML), traces its direct heritage to Pushpa Lal Shrestha, one of the founders of the Nepal Communist Party. Another stream, associated with Mohan Bikram Singh, is linked to peasant movements in western Nepal and represents the more radical Maoist movement in Nepal modeled after China.1 The communists had maintained a working partnership through the Panchayat era. As a result, many of them came together under the umbrella of the United Left Front in 1990 to carry out a political movement against the monarchy.[6] After the success of the movement, the Marxists and Leninists in the alliance came together in the spring of 1991 to form CPN (Unified Marxists and Leninists).[7] The Maoist stream of the United Left Front remained strong in Nepal even after the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990. The communists actively supported the 1990 move- ment and in the subsequent 1991 general election, they obtained about 38 per cent of the national votes. While the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxists and Leninists) became the second largest party after Nepali Congress, more radical communists also did well. Nepali Maoists con- tinued their links with the Peruvian Maoists, and, even at that time, researchers pointed out that special attention should be paid to the Maoist movement.[8] 1 Singh was later seen as deviating from the idea of an armed revolt. See Benoit Cailmail. 2008. European Bulletin of Himalayan Research 33-34, pp. 11-38. http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/ebhr/pdf/EBHR_33&34_02.pdf 2 CESIF/ABK/2019/UML-Maoist-Merger Ideological affinity Given the history of the communist movement in Nepal, the CPN (UML) and the Maoists share a common communist legacy. However, such historical legacy was not enough to bring them to- gether. Until recently, the UML believed that the Maoists could not become a stable political force without transforming into a peaceful party, while the Nepali Congress was seen as a temporary partner because of its affinity to status-quo politics and liberalism. There was, therefore, no alter- native than to strengthen the party.[9] In February 2014, during its eighth national congress, the UML outlined its five historical tasks: drafting a democratic constitution, concluding the peace process, restructuring the state, carrying out socio-economic transformation while ending feudal- ism, and protecting national sovereignty. The party described the Maoists as leaders socialized in the Mohan Bikram Singh school of thought and attracted to radical communism. While the UML perceived the Maoists as sharing their five historical tasks, it also ascribed three major flaws to the Maoists: distorted ideology; unsound analysis of the current political situation which saw NC as the primary enemy; and destructive tendencies.[10] The Maoists, on the other hand, saw clear ide- ological differences with the UML, particularly regarding Maoism, Marxism, and Leninism. Their key difference was UML's acceptance of multi-party democracy as a means of political revolution, while the Maoists were refusing to accept that.[11] The Maoists, on the other hand, have always viewed the UML stream as a deviation from Marxism and Maoism. The UML was formed by two groups that had discarded Maoist ideas and were bargaining with the Panchayat system. The notion of Multiparty espoused by the UML was viewed by the Maoists as an attempt to work through the capitalist system. According to Bishwabhakta Dulal, Aahuti, a respected Maoist thinker, the UML was using the tag communist only as a trademark and its only dream was to overthrow the Panchayat system. After the restoration of democracy in 1990, its main objective was to get to power by using what- ever means necessary, he says, adding that the main characteristic of the UML leadership has always remained hardcore Hindu feudalistic .[12] Maoists shift towards the right from an extreme left position from where they were waging a vio- lent was a gradual process, carried out in steps. The first major shift was the 12- point agreement signed in New Delhi. Prior to the peace process, Pushpa Kamal Dahal had made 3 CESIF/ABK/2019/UML-Maoist-Merger a promise (to Indian interlocutors) that he would adopt multiparty democracy and peaceful poli- tics. He said such a shift could not be achieved at once and required a gradual weakening and management of extreme left ideologues. Dahal promised (to Shyam Sharan) that he would strengthen his peace-oriented constituency first with a merger with Narayan Kaji Shrestha (Pra- kash). The merger with Shrestha's group (Unity Center) can, therefore, be considered to be the second major step in weakening orthodox Maoists and entering peaceful politics. The next steps were the Hetauda congress and the 16-point agreement reached between the Mao- ists, the UML, and the NC in early 2015 regarding their position on the new constitution. The seventh general convention of the Maoist party held after 21 years in Hetauda in February 2013 became renowned for muddling political and policy issues for the sake of organizational issues and tussle between Dahal and Baburam Bhattarai.[13] This seventh party congress appeared to model itself after China's Deng Xiaoping, opening up the party's acceptance of the free-market and multi-party democracy while claiming a socialist identity. The Hetauda political document placed the drafting of a federal democratic constitution through the constituent assembly and a socialist democratic republic as the primary mission.[14] More radical leaders like Mohan Baidya criticized Dahal's political line for abandoning the idea of class struggle and succumbing to the comprador capitalists and feudal reactionary regime.[15] The UML, however, saw the Maoists as being close enough to forge an alliance and lead the government.