Although Dahal too criticized his intra-party rivals on the occasion, compared to his reproach, condemnations of the so-called civil society leaders were far more callous. One of them, a columnist, better known for insulting remarks about his political opponents than for critical analysis, equated Dahal’s adversaries with sewage. Referring to their factional meetings that took place around Dhobighat area, he compared them with Kathmandu’s sewerage which passes through the location; hence he opined that they should ‘be flushed out of the capital’.
Another, a pro-Maoist journalist, often branded as a ‘political analyst’, came heavily on Dahal’s intra-party rivals. The third, a medical doctor used by Maoists as their showpiece because of his professional reputation vented his anger at Dahal’s colleague-turned-rivals despite his poor intellectual and political credentials. So went on the parade of offensive speakers.
Partisanship has become a norm rather than an exception in this country. With their excessive divisiveness, politicians and parties have poisoned everything from student councils to professional associations to trade unions to ex-army organizations to socio-cultural groups—you name it. Even civil servants and journalists are not spared; they have been divided into contending blocs each aligned to one big party; some are even associated with racial-communal outfits. With change of governments, heads roll even in state universities, academy of fine arts, literature, music and performing arts, Film Development Board and Sports Council to appoint party loyalists or cronies.
One reason for all this is historical. During the days of Panchayat authoritarianism, political parties were forced to mobilize cadres in the guise of members of professional unions such as student councils, bar associations, teachers or trade unions because parties as such were banned. Unfortunately, the practice continued, albeit with a different objective, even after the restoration of democracy in 1990. Because of their zero-sum mentality, the two big parties of the time – Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML – perceived that one’s rise was possible only at the other’s expense. Therefore, with an aim to outdo the other, they took the blight to new heights. With new players entering the ground, which include ethnic and communal groups, by the passage of time partisan offshoots multiplied both horizontally and vertically in the cover of civic and professional groups.
In our country too, civil societies played an active role in fighting the autocratic rule of King Gyanendra. But their role in exposing and cautioning against the wrongdoings of the political actors of post-2006 era have been hypocritical to say the least.
The other factor that nourished the partisan culture is ideological. Despite their rise, owing to the not-so-favorable conditions on domestic, regional and global fronts, hard-line communists were left with no choice but to engage themselves in the democratic polity of the nation, which didn’t match with their schooling. All along, they had been orientated toward a one-party communist system where society and economy are controlled by the party. But the communist modus operandi could not be copied in a democracy; the party could not have a cell in factories, universities, academies of arts and institutes of sports the way they have in communist states.
An alternate has to be worked out to meet the purpose. UML – the communist mainstream of the 1990s now tuned to the norms of a democratic and pluralistic polity and society – chose therefore to penetrate massively into every walk of national life from political to socio-cultural to business. NC, the mainstream of the liberal democracy and 1 political force of the country for a long time, tried to imitate the UML practice, but lacked their communistic methods, zeal and skills. Therefore, NC too is to be blamed equally to have promoted the menace. And with the yet-to-be-transformed Maoists joining (read using) the mainstream politics, the peril has reached its pinnacle, thanks to their ‘capture everything’ ethos.
By fluke or by design, even the conscience keepers of the nation have been corrupted by the evils of partisanship. 1990s that saw the restoration of democracy in this country also coincided with the tremendous rise and activism of civil societies across the world, which was mainly triggered by the success of mass movements against the communist regimes of Eastern Europe during the 1980s. The non-partisan character and moral gravity of civil society campaigners and the righteousness of the issues they raised have shaken governments, politicians, markets and even parliaments ever since. They had been battling against corruption, environmental degradation and unethical social and business practices, working hard to bring about social/political reconciliation between conflicting forces and pressurizing for the cause of civic, political, and social liberties and human rights.
In our country too, civil societies played an active role in fighting the autocratic rule of King Gyanendra. But their role in exposing and cautioning against the wrongdoings of the political actors of post-2006 era have been hypocritical to say the least, thanks to their affiliation with many among them. In fact, the ‘who is who’ of Nepal’s civil society is almost full with profiles of communist and/or ethno-lingual activists who have agendas, public as well as hidden, of their own. Their demand to federalize the nation along ethno-centric lines is a case in point of their unconcealed schema; the veiled one (such as to secede) may surface once such a federalization is materialized. Civil societies that are the social relationship of free individuals supposed to represent broader and diverse civic and social groups have to a large extent been used in this country as tools to promote the partisan and parochial agendas of the communist-racist nexus; and as such they have steadily lost credibility. With their echoing of the intra-party fights like the one reported earlier, they are bound to be further disgraced.
As far as Dahal’s politics and position is in question, I too agree that despite his multiple drawbacks of serious nature, he is the only Maoist leader at the moment capable to conclude the peace process and to write the constitution; Baidya has no intention and Bhattarai does not have enough skills and powers to do the job. At the same time, I am also convinced that the issues of organizational improvements as raised by the latter two are largely justified; however, I fear that at this juncture those issues may adversely affect the peace-building and constitution writing. Any civil society campaigner would have said the same thing but they would never have resorted to abusive and derogatory outbursts against Dahal’s intra-party rivals whose timing may be wrong but complaints are not with regard to Dahal and his style of functioning. And no genuine civil society leader would, as reported, advice any party leader not to share power with colleagues and become an autocrat. Civil societies are not meant to produce despots!
jeevan1952@hotmail.com
Related story
The fault lines of civil society
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
