On Feb. 3, Jhalanath Khanal was elected prime minister of
Nepal, securing 368 out of 601 votes in the Constituent Assembly. Khanal is the
chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal – Unified Marxist Leninist, and was
supported by the Unified Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist, the largest force
in the country’s legislature.
This ends a seven-month-long political deadlock, during
which time Madhav Kumar Nepal—also a member of CPN-UML—functioned as caretaker
prime minister. However, this major development is just the latest in a long
history of dramatic upheavals.
Revolutionary war,
‘peace process’ and constitution drafting
On Feb. 13, 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist,
which added “Unified” to its name after a merger with a smaller communist party
in 2009, began an armed struggle to overthrow Nepal’s despotic monarchy. After
10 years of “people’s war,” the Maoists controlled much of the countryside, and
an urban-based mass movement forced King Gyanendra to relinquish absolute
power.
After several delays, the election for the Constituent
Assembly, the legislative body tasked with drafting a new constitution, was
held on April 10, 2008. The Maoists received an overwhelming mandate, winning
nearly 40 percent of the seats—more than its two closest competitors, the
capitalist Nepali Congress party and the largely social democratic CPN-UML,
combined. The next month, the monarchy was abolished and the Federal Democratic
Republic of Nepal was proclaimed.
As per the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Maoists
and the legal anti-monarchy parties, two major tasks were to be completed in
the Constituent Assembly’s two-year term. One, the Constituent Assembly was to
draft a new constitution to institutionalize the gains won by the Nepalese
people. Two, the Maoists’ People’s Liberation Army and the government’s Nepal
Army were to be integrated into a single national army. The Maoists saw army
integration as a way to neutralize one of the main reactionary forces.
After the Constituent
Assembly election
After the election, Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal of the
Maoists, better known by his nom de guerre Prachanda, was elected prime minister
and formed a government with the CPN-UML and Madhesi People’s Rights Forum,
which represents the interests of the oppressed Hindi-speaking population near
the border with India.
Prachanda and the Maoists now had to grapple with a new
contradiction—between the forces within their ranks who want to continue
working within the parliamentary bourgeois democracy that replaced the monarchy
and those who advocate completing the democratic revolution by leading a
“People’s Revolt” to seize power and establish a “People’s Federal Democratic
Republic.”
In May 2009, Prachanda dismissed Rookmangud Katawal, the
head of the Nepal Army, for resisting efforts at army integration. In a move
that blatantly violated the interim constitution, the largely ceremonial president,
who came from the reactionary Nepali Congress, ordered Katawal to remain in
office. In protest, Prachanda resigned from the government and the Maoists
returned to their stance as the country’s largest opposition movement.
A new government led by Madhav Kumar Nepal, from a
right-wing tendency inside the CPN-UML, was formed with the backing of the
Nepali Congress and several small parties. In response, the Maoists launched
several national campaigns that brought hundreds of thousands into the streets
demanding civilian supremacy over the Nepal Army and the end of Prime Minister
Nepal’s government. The agitation culminated with a massive rally on May Day,
2010, and a subsequent general strike that shut down the country for six days.
By this point, it had become clear that the new constitution
was not going to be drafted by the May 28 deadline. After weeks of
tense negotiations, an agreement was reached at the 11th hour in which the
Maoists supported a one-year extension of the Constituent Assembly’s term in
return for the resignation of Prime Minister Nepal.
However, for seven months no candidate was able to secure a
majority vote to become the next prime minister. Only after 17 rounds of voting
was Jhalanath Khanal able to claim the post, receiving the Maoists’ support.
Some headway was made in writing the new constitution, but 83 of the most
highly disputed issues are yet to be resolved. There is, for instance, still no
agreement on the critical issue of how the People’s Liberation Army and the Nepal
Army should be integrated.
Uncertainties facing
the new government
Strong disagreements within and between the three major
parties promise to make the new government’s job extremely difficult.
Even the victorious CPN-UML is deeply divided. After Prachanda’s
2009 resignation as prime minister, the right-wing tendency within that party
gained the upper hand, led by then-Prime Minister MK Nepal and the virulently
anti-Maoist KP Oli. This faction wanted to continue the so-called “democratic”
alliance with the bourgeois Nepali Congress, and strongly opposed their party’s
promotion of current Prime Minister Khanal.
At the same time, as previously indicated, there is an
intense internal debate among the Maoists, which has received wide public
exposure. While some journalists and leftist organizations have speculated
about a looming split, the same was erroneously predicted when the Maoists
debated, quite publicly, the 2006 ceasefire. Without adding to such
speculation, it is important to understand the current line struggle being
carried out.
After the May 28, 2010, deadline passed, Chairman
Prachanda, Vice Chairmen Baburam
Bhattarai and Senior Vice Chairman Mohan Baidya—better known as Kiran—all wrote
separate political papers each proposing a distinct strategy. These were
debated at a countrywide plenum involving 7,000 Maoist cadre last November.
Bhattarai argued for “Peace and Constitution,” advising the
party to compromise on key issues to complete army integration and constitution
drafting, while Kiran argued for “People’s Revolt,” urging immediate
preparations for an urban-based insurrection to capture state power. Prachanda
argued that peace and constitution should be the focus until the new May 28,
2011, deadline, but alternatives could be sought if the deadline was missed.
In December, Kiran and Prachanda merged their documents and
the party majority decided to begin preparations for a “People’s Revolt” that
would be carried out only if efforts for peace and constitution were
obstructed. Bhattarai’s trend opposed this position, arguing that it would
prematurely stimulate Nepal’s reactionary forces into action. This faction also
dissented from the majority’s decision to support Khanal from the CPN-UML for
prime minister, calling for the party to only support a Maoist-led government.
The Nepali Congress, deeply divided in its own right, is
outraged that it has lost its alliance with the CPN-UML. A senior Nepali
Congress leader recently commented that the Maoists’ coalition with the CPN-UML
“put the entire peace process at risk.”
The establishment of a new government does not mean that the
parties will suddenly find common ground on key constitutional questions.
Khanal’s agreement with the Maoists to proceed with genuine army integration
will stimulate reactionary forces among the Nepal Army leadership and the far
right. Already, they are ominously warning about the Maoists’ influence over
Khanal. These mounting pressures, which reflect competing class strategies and
visions, are bound to test the new prime minister, his government and the
operational unity of all parties involved.
As it becomes less and less likely that the Constituent
Assembly will complete its tasks on time, Western powers and the Indian
government, which has a long history of violating Nepali sovereignty, are
likely to intensify their interference. Under the name of “peace-making” or
“conciliation,” their main aim will be to forestall an acceleration of the
revolution. Progressives and revolutionaries worldwide will have to keep their
eyes open to all such intrusions, and demand complete self-determination for
Nepal.
Ultimately, in this fluid and uncertain situation, the
actions of the Nepalese people and the leadership of the revolutionary forces
will be decisive.
