Democratic revolution (Nepal)

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), two years after abandoning guerrilla warfare to participate in aboveground politics, now finds itself set to lead the government. On 10 April, the former rebels received an astonishing 36.6 percent of the seats in the Constituent Assembly, which will double as a parliament as it writes Nepal's new constitution. The Maoist win has surprised many, more so for its wide margin. Previously, even the more generous predictions in the national press had seen the party coming in a close third, behind the mainstream Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist).

The most prominent reason for the surprise, even dismay, among Nepal's liberals arises from the feeling that, at this point in history, today's CPN (Maoist) cannot be separated from its recent past of violence. Reasons offered for the Maoist win thus seek to redeem the people of their 'erroneous' choice. Surely a good number of votes for the Maoists were 'votes for peace' by those who suffered during the conflict and were worried by the former rebels' threats to take up the gun again if they did not gain enough seats. Surely, too, intimidation tactics in the run-up to the elections played a role in determining the outcome.

Despite the temptation to give these fear-based factors heavy emphasis, however, to do so would be all too easy. While the second explanation seeks to dismiss the Maoist victory, the first seeks to limit both the significance of the victory and the winning party's mandate. Indeed, the manner in which the election results are interpreted during this post-poll period will have important implications for how that mandate is understood. For Nepal's elite to try to explain away the outcome is for it to pass up an opportunity for serious reflection on the difference in aspirations between itself and the majority of the country's population.

For while the Maoists have been a violent force for much of their existence, they cannot be understood by the parameter of violence alone. The fact is that the CPN (Maoist) brings to Nepal's political mainstream many commitments. It must be deduced from its victory, for instance, that the liberalism offered by the other two large parties, the Congress and UML, was not appealing enough to a large section of Nepalis. The Maoists campaigned on a promise to bring redress to all manner of the oppressed – women, Dalits and ethnic minorities, in addition to the working class. To overlook the importance of this commitment is not only to deny the Maoists their mandate to take decisive action in favour of these marginalised sections, but, more importantly, to deny the necessity of quick and substantive rectification of present-day and historical inequalities.

As for other worries, since 11 April the Maoist top brass has been working overtime to make assurances that their current plan of action and their past rhetoric are not necessarily on par. Industrialists and large-scale businessmen have been reassured that nationalisation and collectivisation, actually absent from the Maoist election manifesto, are indeed not on the agenda. Time and again, the former rebels have also emphasised that they are looking forward to working together with the other parties, have implied a commitment to pluralism, and have urged the parties to join what will of necessity be a coalition government.

In the immediate aftermath of the polls, Maoist leaders said that, since they cannot currently form a "revolutionary front", for now they are contenting themselves with the formation of a "democratic front" that will carry out a "democratic bourgeois revolution". While bourgeois implies that this is only the first step on the path to the creation of a 'new Nepal', democratic revolution suggests that what they seek is more democracy, as well as more-substantive equality. As such, this would not seem to be a mere formal return to the pre-2002 political dispensation. Nepalis can expect the revolution they seek to include strong trade unionism, land reform and work towards eliminating caste, ethnic and gender discrimination.

Worth the war?
Whether or not what the Maoists do in government is worth their decade-long war, and the tens of thousands of lost lives that entailed, will be something for the future to judge, including future voters. Many, of course, will never believe that the Maoist violence was justified. But now that they have ridden the peace process into government, the CPN (Maoist) must give Nepal a new politics. Corruption, cynicism and inefficiency will perhaps be less tolerated of this new force than they were of the parties that came before it.

In order to show a responsible face to those political forces apprehensive about working with it, the Maoist party must undertake certain corrective measures. It must immediately dissolve its parallel administrative and judicial mechanisms, and firmly rein in the violence of its youth wing, the Young Communist League. It must also state and display a commitment to pluralism and democratic freedoms – in particular freedoms of speech and of the press, without which no one's interests will be served in the long term. The transition from armed rebellion to democratic politics must entail the rejection of violence and intimidation, especially in dealing with dissent. Further challenges before the largest party in government will be the need for a dialogue-based approach to tackling the armed rebellion in the Tarai only temporarily in abeyance, as well as the demands of myriad ethnic-based movements, when expectations have been dramatically raised by talk of ethnic federalism.

The other parties, for their part, must work together with the CPN (Maoist), accepting the people's mandate with grace but also not neglecting their own mandates as parties likewise voted into the Constituent Assembly. As Himal went to press, the manner in which the other major parties would join the government was still unclear. Whether they do so in the form of a supportive coalition outside of the cabinet or whether they join the cabinet itself, the Nepali Congress and the UML, as the largest parties with the most experience in government, must show the way for other political actors by working with the Maoists in an environment of mutual cooperation.

One autocratic royal grab for power and one peace process later, the parties must not re-engage in the nay-saying politics that more than once served to bring them down. The Nepali people have waited too long for peace, stability and an end to their economic woes. The parties must now work together to deliver for them. Only once the people see their politicians working together in a spirit of cooperation towards the fulfilment of a common, progressive agenda will they believe that they are truly living in a New Nepal. After the elections of 10 April, the 'politician' in Nepal must certainly include the Maoists activist, as it does the Congress or UML party worker.