Is the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) on the right track? We can look at what happened in Nicaragua for a hint:
I remember when the Sandinista National Liberation Front, FSLN won a victory and I was glad they chose not to create a dictatorship as Fidel Castro had in Cuba. Eventually Daniel Ortega Emerged from a ruling directorate as the president of the country in a fair and impartial elections. Several right wing parties took part in the election and government. Then, after being attacked constantly by The Ronald Reagan Regime here in the USA, Ortega lost. He served from 1985 to 1990. How much the FSLN, under his control, actually changed Nicaragua for the better is hard to say. But he just returned to power in an election 2006.
16 years is a long time to be out of power, but the military was build by the FSLN, so that prevented a right-wing military coup from destroying them.
Today according to Wicipedia:
"In his first week as President of Nicaragua, Ortega met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The two heads of state toured shantytowns in Managua. Ortega told the press that the "revolutions of Iran and Nicaragua are almost twin revolutions...since both revolutions are about justice, liberty, self-determination, and the struggle against imperialism."
On 6 March 2008, following the 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis, Ortega announced that Nicaragua was breaking diplomatic ties with Colombia "in solidarity with the Ecuadoran people".[21] Ortega also stated, "We are not breaking relations with the Colombian people. We are breaking relations with the terrorist policy practiced by Alvaro Uribe's government".[22] The relations were restored with the resolution at a Rio Group summit held in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, on 7 March 2008. At the summit Colombia's Álvaro Uribe, Ecuador's Rafael Correa, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Ortega publicly shook hands in a show of good will. The handshakes, broadcast live throughout Latin America, appeared to be a signal that a week of military buildups and diplomatic repercussions was over. After the handshakes, Ortega said he would re-establish diplomatic ties with Colombia.[23][24]
On May 25, 2008, Ortega, upon learning of the death of FARC guerrilla leader Manuel Marulanda in Colombia, expressed condolences to the family of Marulanda and solidarity with the FARC and called Marulanda an extraordinary fighter who battled against profound inequalities in Colombia."
So will things be better in Nepal. Every sitution and every revolution are different. I doubt if Comrade Prachanda is just another Ortega. I believe he is aware of the pitfalls that came in Nicaragua and I don't think he will just fall for that. I believe he has thought this out and deserves our support. He may run into the same problem eventually, but he also may usher in a new era where Maoist Parties can afford to Campaign in elections. After all, here in the US, we already have a two-party system that is as close to a one party system as we can have, without being a one party state. Do we really want just one political party, even if it's a great one?
And yet, already, a faction within the CPN(M) is arguing whether to accept pluralism or aim for a united party – or a one party state:
From HOME PAGE OF:http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/MAOIST_REVOLUTION
Here are two views of the Nepal Revolution:
"DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OR PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC?
Harry Powell
21/10/08
The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is engaged in a sharp two line struggle over the way forward for the Nepalese people. On one side are those, such as Comrade Kiran, who want to proceed rapidly to the establishment of a new democratic type of regime. On the other side are those such as Comrade Prachanda, Party Chairman and Prime Minister, who seem to be envisaging a fairly long period of bourgeois parliamentary democracy which could eventually lead to some sort of new democracy. Prachanda has been proposing that some of the other communist groupings, who opposed the People's War, merge with the CPN(M) to form a new Communist Party of Nepal. Some other leading comrades are vigorously opposed to such amalgamations. A Party Conference to debate these issues commences on 6th. November.We should be careful of trying to understand contemporary political developments in terms of making crude historical analogies with past conjunctures. But on this occasion it might be useful to make some comparisons with the situation in Russia in 1917.A prominent comrade said to me that while the Maoists have formed a government, they do not yet have state power. One major issue is the question of the integration of the Nepal (formerly Royal) Army with the People's Liberation Army. The Nepal Army commanders and the reactionary Nepali Congress party are opposing such a change. They say that PLA personnel could apply to join the Nepal Army. This is unacceptable to the CPN(M) who want full integration on a basis of equality.This particular issue highlights the fact that in Nepal today there is a situation of "dual power" rather like the one in Russia between February and October 1917. Then there was a bourgeois liberal government presiding over the old Tsarist state apparatus but at the same time the Soviets (councils of soldiers, workers and peasants) had arisen and exercised considerable popular power. In Nepal although as a result of the Constituent Assembly elections the CPN(M) have formed a minority government, the rest of the old reactionary state apparatus remains in place. The Nepal Army, the police and the civil administration remain unreconstructed. Counterposed to this is the continued existence of the PLA, the militant Young Communist League and strong Maoist-led trade unions. The key issue in Nepal is whether or not the old army and police can be neutralized or dismantled. Otherwise there is the danger of a military coup at some point.Another parallel with 1917 is that "Menshevik" and "Bolshevik" factions seem to emerging within the CPN(M). On the one hand are those who see the future of Nepal in terms of a fairly long period of capitalist development which could eventually lay the basis for socialist transformation. On the other hand are comrades who want capitalist economic development to be closely supervised by the state and to fairly quickly start implementing socialist developments.A positive feature of these controversies is that the Party's two-line struggle is out in the open. There is no attempt to impose "monolithic unity". Unity comes through struggle. "
And:
"KATHMANDU, Oct 18th - A 'dissent' paper, proposed by senior Maoist leader Mohan Baidya during the party's recently held Central Committee (CC) meeting, has revealed serious ideological differences between two factions in the CPN-Maoist. While Baidya roots for a "people's republic", party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal is for a "democratic republic."
Baidya's proposal carries some weight. The party CC couldn't defeat it. Neither did it endorse Chairman Dahal's paper, which remains committed to the current democratic republic for now. Dahal's proposal sees a people's republic as a long-term goal, with a "pro-people" constitution as a transition toward that end. In contrast, Baidya stresses that the party must opt for a people's republic with immediate effect.
Baidya's proposal, backed by senior leaders CP Gajurel, Ram Bahadur Thapa and Matrika Yadav among others, advocates state-controlled political and economic systems and says that the state must have strong control over all economic resources. A party CC leader says the state cannot provide justice to all marginalised classes like farmers, labourers, the dalit and the janajati until it has full control over all economic resources.
Further elaborating on the Baidya proposal, the CC leader said the proposal argues that all economic activities, such as industries, must function under direct regulation by the state. "This is how the state can be socialist and dispense justice to all sections of society," he said.
Stressing that the party fought the decade-long war for a people's republic, Baidya argues that the party cannot undervalue the loss of hundreds of party cadres for the cause.
On the political front, Baidya's proposal states that there will be a multi-party democracy but it will not be a parliamentary one. The proposal says various political parties will be free to compete among themselves but they will function only within the norms and guidelines set by the state.
"The underlying meaning of the proposal is that there will be a single major political party in the centre and all other political parties will compete under norms set by the major political party," the CC leader said. "But we are still open to discussing the structure of the political system."
He said the high number of political parties in developing countries poses a hurdle in the development process. "If there is only one major political party in a developing country like ours, we will be free from horse-trading and all other types of political malaise."
Members of all the party's 11 state committees are currently studying both proposals. Some 800 members of the committees are expected to choose either one of the proposals during the party national cadres' conference, scheduled for the second week of November.
"I am sure the cadres will choose Baidya's proposal as it reflects the true aspiration of our decade-long struggle," the CC leader said.
Although he declined to say exactly how many members in the party's 35-member central committee are in favour of the Baidya proposal, he said the party leadership cannot just brush it off, considering its long-term implication for a party with a revolutionary history.
"We hope the party leadership will incorporate the dissenting proposal before presenting a final political paper during the national cadres' conference," he said. "If it fails to do so, major change in the party organisation including its leadership cannot be avoided as a majority of party cadres do not want to give up their long-cherished dream of a people's republic."
The Baidya faction, also known as the hard-line faction, has opposed Chairman Dahal's recent remark that the party is not in favour of a people's republic, and Dahal is desperately trying to consolidate his base, party insiders say.
Dahal's nervousness can be judged by his frantic efforts to unify his party with the CPN-Unity Centre (Masal). General Secretary of Unity Centre (Masal) Narayan Kaji Shrestha, who played a key role in the past in forging an alliance between the seven political parties and the Maoist, is known to be close to Dahal. Party insiders say Shrestha has set the condition that after unification the Maoist leadership must be ready to remove all adjectives from the name of the party and rename it the Communist Party of Nepal.
Maoist Chairman Dahal and another powerful party leader, Dr Baburam Bhattarai, have agreed to Shrestha's demand. But Baidya, sensing Dahal's intentions, is strongly opposed to it, according to this story."
No comments:
Post a Comment