Just as the Maoists and other political parties had to unite to get rid of what they perceived as a bigger nuisance to Nepal’s future, the believers in multi-party democracy, freedom of speech and freedom to own property must unite with each other to put in place the growing influence of the Maoist party to safeguard individual liberty. These parties should ink an agreement on paper conveying their fear of the Maoist party’s ambivalence to basic multi-party democracy and individual rights. This will signal to the voters the seriousness of their union and their desperation to check the threat to democracy.
The Maoists’ fascination with Mao and China, and reading between the lines on what their leaders have to say, it appears that they have in mind provinces similar to those in China. This is where the anti-Maoists’ advocacy for genuine decentralization can stump the Maoist.
This anti-Maoist union needs to focus on the biggest weakness of the Maoist party: Their lack of commitment to basic individual rights and faith in parliamentary democracy.
At the national level, the alliance will need to spend a lot of resources on a campaign with the sole objective of making voters aware on how the Maoist party is a serious threat to very basic things that we take for granted. Due to the penetration of FM radios and local newspapers and the rising literacy rates, Nepali voters are now a lot more sophisticated and politically sensitive than many “old school” Nepali politicians believe. Convincing arguments, with businesslike marketing techniques could sway public opinion against the Maoists.
At the local level, grassroots workers need instruction from their center about the need to unite and put a common front against the Maoists. The foot soldiers of non-Maoist parties suffer from a low morale. A visible alliance among the anti-Maoist forces and a clear conception of their real foes will boost their morale and sharpen their aim.
In the next round of elections, these parties also need to send a coherent message against Maoists’ ultimate goal of creating a communist dictatorship. They should also co-ordinate on candidates for different constituencies keeping in mind the possibility and the consequence of a massive Maoist victory.
The suggestions put forth so far have been centered on the next round of election, for which ground work can start. As for now, there may still be ways to beat the Maoists in popularity.
Whether we like it or not, ethnic/lingual federalism has the biggest public appeal and it is this commitment that gives a lot of support to the Maoists. They have been very clear on provinces’ demarcation, names, and have consistently shown support for “self-determination”. They have, however, cleverly avoided discussions on what they mean by “self-determination” or how much power they expect these provinces to have.
The anti-Maoist camp could also try coming up with their map and one that is even more popular than that of the Maoists. This is hard to do—the Maoist map is a pretty good one. Whatever alternative model has been leaked to the media hasn’t been able to gain momentum outside the Kathmandu valley. If the anti-Maoist alliance can’t settle on a popular map, they should not delay in agreeing on the Maoist model. A protracted debate will only strengthen the Maoists.
The smartness is in shifting the discussion on the powers assigned to these provinces and to the villages. The Maoists’ fascination with Mao and China, and reading between the lines on what their leaders have to say, it appears that they have in mind provinces similar to those in China. This is where the anti-Maoists’ advocacy for genuine decentralization can stump the Maoist.
The non-Kathmandu residents and the local elite want a genuine transfer of power to the provinces and villages and ethnic groups want an identity as well as a platform to organize. The anti-Maoist alliance should focus on convincing the Nepali electorate that their leadership will assure a genuine transfer of power and warn them that the Maoists may actually take away their power. To convince the electorate, the anti-Maoist alliance should be specific on what powers they intend to delegate and by when. This will be going one step beyond what the Maoists have to offer.
Regardless of what specific agenda and strategy the anti-Maoist alliance decide upon, they need to realize that their common foe is the Maoist party who may be just pretending about their belief in multi-party democracy. There is a large electorate that is getting increasingly skeptical about the true intentions of the Maoist leadership. They are looking for someone they can trust in safeguarding their individual rights. A strong alliance and a coherent message from the parliamentarians may just gain that trust.
(Writer is an Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at Texas A&M International University in Texas, US.)
680anand@gmail.com
Related story
Washingtonians tired of crime but skeptical of Trump takeover
