Bo Xilai, the Communist Party Chief of Chongqing city in Southwest China, was dismissed on March 15 following his suspected hand in criminal activities in the city. Ever since he had assumed the top post in 2007, Bo had been cracking down hard on the city’s organized crime racket. A big section of the Chinese population hailed his tough “Chongqing model” of governance as something to be emulated by other crime-ridden cites of mainland China. But Bo was also widely criticized, particularly among the human rights circles, for his often brutal methods of crime control. Events came to a head when his city police chief, Wang Lijun, sought refuge at the US Consulate in Chongqing, apparently fearing persecution from city administrators for digging up evidence against Bo.
Some seasoned China watchers have gone so far as to say that the circumstances surrounding Bo’s inauspicious dismissal present a defining moment in the history of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). A day before his ouster, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao hinted as much when he said the episode could plunge “China back to the turmoil of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.” Did Bo flout the law or was he ousted in the ever-murky power struggle within the CCP? We might never know.
Before the US consulate episode, Bo was considered a shoo-in into the all-powerful nine-member CCP Politburo Standing Committee scheduled to meet at the end of 2012. Bo Xilai, the son of Bo Yibo, a former Chinese vice premier, was a leader belonging to the “elitist” camp in CCP, named so for its long history of patronage of former CCP leaders. The “populist” camp (led by Hu Jiantao and Wen Jiabao) resented elitists’ strong political linkages and opposed their ‘overemphasis’ on economic liberalism and export-led growth.
Given this division, The Economist notes (March 31-April 6), “Many Chinese see the present binary tussle as what Chairman Mao would have termed a “two-line” struggle” over China’s future”.
Nepal has been a victim to a “two-line struggle” of its own. The UCPN (Maoist), in keeping with Mao’s theory of “unity of opposites”, has been adopting a twin strategy of peace and constitution on the one hand and ‘people’s revolt’ and establishment of ‘people’s government’ on the other. It was telling that in interviews even top Maoist leaders often resorted to obfuscation when asked how the two line struggle would reach its desired destination (if any).
Copious amount of ink has already been spilled over how a split in the Maoist ranks is not a question of ‘will’ but ‘when’. The hand of Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal who vacillated between the two poles to keep the party together and to secure his position at the top has been forced: In the last eight months or so, Dahal has thrown his lot firmly behind Baburam Bhattarai, the Maoist ideologue credited as the architect of the peace and constitution agenda.
Such vacillations at this crucial hour would surely have taken away whatever credibility Dahal has earned for his lead role in peace and constitution after the demise of GP Koirala in 2010. So far as the position of the radical camp led by Mohan Baidya is concerned, whatever its ultimate goals, Baidya has left no one in doubt about his desirable setup. Asked by The Hindu recently if his version of ‘people’s democracy’ meant a one-party rule, Baidya replied: “Parliamentary democracy is also class hegemony where five percent rule over 95 percent. In people´s dictatorship, it would be the other way round.”
It is true that even today Baidya’s radical agenda has resonance across the country, and certainly within the Maoist party. In the party’s 148-member Central Committee, Baidya enjoys the support of 48 members; and of nearly 80 of 236 Maoist lawmakers.
Whatever the current position of Baidya camp in the party, it is unlikely that it would walk out before the May 27 deadline. Baidya will want to hold on to the trump card till the last possible moment, when his showing of hand could extract maximum damage on constitution-making. Meanwhile, the radical camp is also trying to revive its grassroots through cadre-awareness campaigns across the country. Besides that, it is drumming up support of disgruntled former combatants, Maoist renegades and, one assumes, anyone opposed to the political changes post 2006, including the supporters of monarchy.
Revival of Mohan Baidya’s fortunes in Nepal is as unlikely as restoration of Bo Xilai’s clout in China.
Events outside the party are likely to have as big an impact in shaping Maoist politics post May 27. Inter-party negotiations leading up to the deadline will be crucial. For instance, the Baidya faction still enjoys big support among the landless farmers. If the traditional parliamentary forces are seen rigid in their support of the landed gentry, Baidya’s radical land reform slogans are likely to gain in traction among this vital group.
Likewise, if the Maoist establishment faction is seen bending over backwards to accommodate the parliamentary parties on state restructuring, Baidya is likely to gain support of heretofore marginalized minority groups who want their identities recognized in the new setup. Pretty much the same applies to the form of government. The climb down of the establishment from its demand of a directly elected president to a prime ministerial system (directly elected or chosen by the parliament), will add edge to Baidya’s message of ‘surrender’ before the traditional parliamentary forces.
The role of India, the broker of the historic 12-point agreement in 2005, will as always be crucial. If the Maoist establishment faction is seen committed to the peace and constitution agenda, New Delhi will have no option to supporting the outcome of democratic exercises in Nepal. India’s recent pivot towards a policy of engagement in South Asia, in sharp contrast to its much reviled interventionist approach in the past, indicates as much. It is safe to say that irrespective of the timing of the eventual breakup, odds are heavily stacked against Badiya and co.
The likelihood of the sea change in Chinese politics that the supporters of Bo Xilai have been talking up in the growing microblogging community in China will be incredibly hard to come about. The likelihood of establishment of ‘people’s republic’ in Nepal, given the vastly changed political ground realities in the country and the region since 1996 when the Maoists launched a civil war, looks as remote. Both Baidya and Bo have sought to cultivate public support as true adherents of Mao Tse-Tung’s teachings. Chairman Mao recommended long-distance running for his followers, which he believed enhanced perseverance. The two B’s will indeed need nerves of steel (and plenty of luck) to turn their flagging fortunes around.
biswas.baral@gmail.com
Related story
Over 25,600 water birds recorded in Shuklaphanta National Park,...
_20211018145021.JPG)
