|
|
|
What will Nepal Get from Maoists in next One & Half Years?
Author: Prakash Bom
When twelve years´ pseudo-democratic practice under the monarchical setup was suspended for the rule of absolute dictatorship by Gyanendra Shah the top leaders of main political parties were hung-up and shaken for their willingness to confess mistakes. But now what they have become with their confessions in dealing with the new nation is disheartening.
So far it has become certain since after the elections of the Constituent Assembly that the top leaders including Maoists can never change their politics of conceit despite the appalling condition of the nation. Yet all of them, particularly Maoist hardliners, speak of people without humiliation. It seems all of them can rebel – armed struggle, protest and call for "Banda" but none of them can run the nation by the rule of law – order, peace and justice.
For current political impasse against peace and drafting of a new constitution there is none to blame except for the political leaders of main political parties. The democratic process for peace and rule of law has been obstructed with the old hag syndrome of Nepali Congress and the madness of Maoist radicals with their utter politics of conceit for the state power.
For example, Maoist radical such as Kiran Baidhya may think it is a justice of people not to return the lands and properties of feudal lords that have been confiscated under Maoist people´s war. But in fact it is not by any standard of rule of law that can be settled with such radical arbitrary pronouncement. The appropriate process is to return and redistribute with the scientific land reform as Maoists have suggested. If not the land disputes between "have" and "have not" can never be resolved. Therefore, the forceful confiscations can never bring justice for people as a whole or reconciliation between the fellow citizens of the nation.
In the history of Nepal, as repeated, the post April Uprising leaders and revolutionaries have become the impediment of its own nation and people – for their own power by playing the politics of conceit prior to building a new nation as per the aspiration of people for peace and democracy. It is a hopeless state of affair that cannot honestly ascertain peace and democracy.
For this reason people of every walk of life have to protest and call for "Banda" to shutdown the everyday business from the vehicular movement on the roadways to the business of street vender. If political leaders in power – both in opposition and government do not take responsibility of people´s mandate but play their own politics of conceit for power then the only tool that public have is to protest.
I wonder whether every Nepali political leader in power has to behave like Mugabe of Zimbabwe in the name of socialism and democracy! It looks Nepali politics can end up with Mugabeway if Nepali Congress in opposition and Maoists in power fail to cooperate to address national issues for peace and democracy – in order to bring peace to a logical conclusion and accomplish the fundamental objective of the Constituent Assembly for drafting a new constitution that can institutionalize state with the federal democratic republic setup.
At this juncture any political agenda either for the power of the party or for the personal grab of state power or for the sake of Maoist hardliner-ideology or for NC attempting to topple Maoist led government will do no good other than barricade the peace and drafting of a new constitution. But, it is unfortunate that this is what is happening in Nepal that has made nation terribly ill.
In my opinion Nepali politics has no foundation for ethics to take responsibility for people and the nation. This means every political party establishment has no tradition for even minimum ethics to run a public organization. If so, for example, why old generation of leaderships do not handover opportunity to young and capable or why young and capable do not challenge the old and incapable – this has become the fate of Nepali Congress party, which has become the footsteps of the rest of other political parties of the nation including Maoist. Maoist party has nothing new to offer to people in this regard.
For example, the morale of UML has long been wretched because those leaders who could not secure the trust of people in Constituent Assembly have sought more status quo for power not less than what they had enjoyed in twelve-year pseudo-democratic practice. The question of serving the people and the nation at this transitional period for UML had become less important than modus operandi of political status quo in government power, which cannot be other than the outcome of politics of conceit.
The aftermath of Maoist coming in power has proved that the ethics of Maoists is literally scandalous – setting up absolute double standard with political commitments and openly ignoring justice for the outright practice of state impunity by impulsively following the footsteps of NC in state power.
Basically, Maoists can never live by ethics of politics simply because it is for them by all means to force their ideology and grab the state power, particularly for the mental fulfillment of hardliner ideologues. Therefore, Maoists cannot fulfill the political commitment of 2006 peace accord without playing the politics of conceit. Currently, Maoist led government has committed to fulfill NC´s demands, for example, yet the hardliners have opposed it for the sake of politics of conceit that inevitably create political impasse in the current democratic processes.
It is for sure "the PM" and "the Maoist chairman" [Prachanda] has been caught up like the ping pong ball between his own democratic commitments and the hardliner ideologues´ politics of conceit in his own party establishment. Therefore, as a head of the state of a democratic government it is unethical to bow down to his own party hardliners at the expense of aspiration of people for peace and democracy. Therefore, by virtue Maoist party has no obligation to ethics of politics in democracy.
The nation has become ill not only with the politics of Maoists but also with the politics of the main democratic parties, which have failed to mentor Maoist to democracy with their own example by fulfilling commitments for peace and democracy, particularly at the juncture where nation must be built without other choice. Instead they have deliberately taught Maoists how to play politics of conceit in democracy for the state power.
Should another incidence of dictatorship occur to do away with what April Uprising have secured for people as their mandate in order to teach these self-conceited political leaders of main political parties another lesson at the expense of people´s suffering with the illness of the nation? Or will they see what people and nation need desperately – peace and prosperity under democracy that is all inclusive. If these leaders think personally ethics in politics have nothing to do with them then these leaders will make the nation terribly more ill.
Prakash Bom
January 04, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
