The rebellion against Prachanda-Bhattarai revisionism and the formation of CPN-Maoist was a welcome development. But the great potential they contain is yet to be unleashed. The documents adopted by the 7th Congress are not yet available, but some writings seen in the CPN-Maoist press give reason for disquiet. The possible use of the Constitutional Assembly and that process to further the revolution had ended long ago. It has been a counter-revolutionary weapon since long. But there is no clear recognition or exposure of this objective reality. On the contrary the immediate strategy still remains “Multi-lateral round table conference, interim national unity government and progressive political passage”
. An “all-party consensus” is still seen as a viable solution in the present line and tactics of the CPN-M. In the midst of this, the boycott of the Constituent Assembly elections is a positive step. It fully accords with the rebellious mood of the masses. According to web reports, a recent Central Committee meeting has decided to boycott the CA election actively and strongly. The plan includes the mobilising of militant squads. But boycott by itself will only be of transient value if not firmly founded on a revolutionary line. In its absence and without a through break from constitutionalism, the boycott can very well be co-opted by the rightists as a pressure tactic.
As indicated by ground reports, the masses are overwhelmingly in favour of boycott. Given this situation, the reactionaries could opt to call off elections and initiate steps to incorporate the boycottists, all of it or a section. They may even accede to some of their demands. Evidently, the present positions of the CPN-M leaves it quite vulnerable to such possible moves. This is even more so because it has practically ruled out any possibility of the reactionaries dropping the elections. There is a disquieting resemblance to this with the assessment made by the UCPN(M) at various times on the possible response to its tactics.
On each occasion it was argued that its demands would be rejected and that this would give the opportunity to break out of the agreement with the ruling class parties and take to arms. On each occasion the enemy compromised and the UCPN(M) lost initiative, getting drawn even more deeply into constitutionalism. The CPN-M still believes that it will be possible to carry out a people’s revolt. It has adopted the line of ‘People’s Revolt on the foundation of People’s War’. But the objective basis for the people’s revolt is far from clear. In fact, it is quite complex. By itself, the ongoing period of political transition of Nepal and the crisis created by the deception of the parliamentarian parties of Nepal, is insufficient as a basis for a revolt leading to the completion of the new democratic revolution, though it may suffice for pushing the constitutional project to completion. First of all, what is this ‘political transition’? At present political transition to a new democratic society exists only as an aim. It certainly has great support from the masses.
But unlike the period of people’s war, today it is not an existing objective force in Nepali politics. At best, it is a powerful potential factor waiting to be unleashed. On the other hand, transition from the monarchy to a parliamentary system (misnamed as republic) is a live reality. For various reasons, including a great amount of selfish duplicity on the part of the parliamentarian parties, this transition is having a rough passage. But it is still live. Spontaneous anger of the masses against the self-serving parliamentary parties is, in itself, still within the parameters of this transition. Though there is disillusionment with these parties, the same cannot be said of the transition.
The illusion that things would have been radically different if the Constituent Assembly process were completed is still a significant factor. This shows that an altogether different politics, one that breaks away from constitutionalism, one that raises revolutionary political slogans and tactics, are needed to further the cause of revolution. It could draw on another objective reality — the sense of betrayal among the masses over the surrender of the Prachanda-Bhattarai renegades and their yearning to realise the revolutionary ideals for which thousands laid their lives down. That is the only remaining objective basis for a people’s revolt serving the new democratic revolution.
But the political positions of the CPN-M are nowhere near addressing this. Quite naturally, serious doubts arise on its plans for people’s revolt, even though it is said that this is relevant only so long as the present political crisis lasts. The position of basing it on people’s war is even more questionable since this war can only be waged as a continuation of the politics of new democratic revolution, leading to communism through socialism.
In our message to the 7th Congress of that Party we had already alluded to the ideological wavering seen in the CPN-M by drawing attention to centrism and dilution of internationalist positions. The portraying of revisionist parties in power in the erstwhile socialist countries as communist parties and the view that good relations with them can play “a significant role for the development of revolutionary movement, to protect the revolutionary parties and to bring the balance of power in favour of the revolutionaries.” (‘People’s Voice, May 2013) indicates a worsening of these tendencies.
Naxalbari No.4 July 2013