Nepal’s time for plural, democratic socialism

BY most known measurements of economic development, Nepal may be described as an underdeveloped country, but in terms of ideological and political development, it is number one in the world right now, having democratically elected communists to the two top posts in the country — the President and the Prime Minister. 

 

Khadga Prasad Oli was recently elected Prime Minister and has been followed by Bidhya Devi Bhandari being elected President of the country. Ms Bhandari has the honour of also being the first woman President of her country as well as the first woman to be President of a communist-ruled country. If one were to construct a gender-index measure of development, Ms Bhandari’s electoral victory to the top post in the country will put Nepal in the top league.

 

Many questions immediately spring to mind. How has the Left achieved this amazing victory? What are the implications of this victory for the future shape of development in Nepal? Is such a left dominance sustainable? What are the lessons for the left-wing movements in other parts of the world? What are likely to be the implications of this left-wing ascendency for Nepal’s neighbours, especially India and China?

 

From a historical point of view of political progress, one of the shining achievements of the Left in Nepal was its central role in bringing over-250 years of monarchical rule to an end. This transition became possible both because of the internal balance of forces in Nepal as well as the crucial changes in the international political and military environment. The Maoist movement in Nepal had been engaged in a bitter armed struggle against the monarchy for decades. The Maoists had carved out a significant area of Nepal as their sphere of influence which could be called close to their notion of ‘liberated area’. However, they could not be confident of overthrowing the monarchical rule by force. On the opposite side, the monarchy could use its military power to inflict heavy damage to the Maoist movement but not without human rights violations. Both sides knew their strengths and vulnerability. Internationally, the US with India’s help did toy with the idea of helping the monarchy to militarily crush the Maoists but eventually did not follow this path because of its army being already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan. The situation had reached a fine balancing point. The Maoists made a historic move to announce the end of their armed struggle if the monarchy agreed to abdicate. Other political formations were willing to compromise with the monarchy but the Maoists stuck to their demand. Their courage and principled stand received overwhelming support from wide-ranging sections of society that included even some sections in the military. Had the Maoists not been armed, the monarchy would have certainly crushed the anti-monarchy forces, and if the Maoists had not openly declared that they were willing to abandon armed struggle conditionally, it would have certainly led to civil war. The Maoist strategy won and the monarchical rule came to an end.

 

This Nepali experience of transition from monarchy to republicanism has sobering lessons for both pacifist fundamentalists and armed-struggle fundamentalists. Pure pacifist approach would have certainly allowed the monarchy to crush the opposition — the Maoists’ guns prevented that military onslaught. However, if the Maoists had mindlessly persisted with the armed struggle, they would have been alienated from wider sections of Nepali society. They chose the path of parliamentary struggle at the right time and converted the political balance of forces in their favour. The moral of the Nepal transition is that neither pacifism nor armed struggle is superior to the other. It is the context and the balance of forces that decide what is politically feasible and, therefore, morally desirable.

In Chile in 1973, Salvador Allende, the first Marxist to become President of a Latin American country through democratic elections, refused to arm his supporters when they demanded and needed to be armed and was, therefore, overthrown and murdered by the right-wing military forces led by General Pinochet. The Chilean society suffered terrible human rights violations for 15 years of military rule before it returned to the democratic path. Chilean society paid a very heavy price for President Allende’s pacifism and constitutionalism. 

 

Nepal is a small landlocked country sandwiched between two huge economic powers — China and India. This geographical location has a huge disadvantage of both the powers wanting to use Nepal for their own goals, but Nepal can turn this disadvantage into advantage by using the competition between these two rivals to win concessions from both. Nepal faces huge challenges of poverty and inequality, and following an ecologically sustainable model of development. In this, it has the advantage of late development in not following the flawed model of Soviet-style industrialisation which was harmful to nature. It can also learn from the mistakes of the Chinese model of agrarian change. Nepal can leapfrog by innovating a path of transition to socialism which is democratic, compatible with nature and respectful of pluralism and diversity. The initial steps taken in developing a federal constitution is a healthy sign.

 

The most crucial challenge facing the Nepali transition to socialism would be land reforms. The land reforms can be the centrepiece of an agricultural model of development that can ensure the participation of the rural masses in the development process. 

 

Marx’s vision of socialism was based on transition from the most developed capitalist economy to socialism. Nepal throws a challenge to socialist theory by embarking on transition from one of the most underdeveloped capitalist economies to socialism. Therein lays the historical significance of Nepal having elected democratically communist politicians to govern its destiny.