Nepal: The Royal
Regression And
The Question Of Democratic Republic
By Baburam Bhattarai
23 March, 2005
Krishna Sen News Agency
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"]
Baburam Bhattarai
is a top functionary of the Communist Party Of Nepal (Maoist)