Nepal: NCP-Maoist is not follower of parliamentary system

 

TGQ1: Paradoxically as it seems that your party, the NCP-Maoists has been voicing for the demand of a new government whereas the parliamentary parties too have been making similar claims. Tell us that isn’t the entire talks emanating from various parties were revolving around formation of a new government? The talks appear to have centered on the periphery of the government only?

Baidya: It can be interpreted in two ways. The first one is apparently centered on having a government only for the sake of government by replacing the incumbent one. The second one is that when we demand a new government then it has some theoretical and ideological premise. What we feel is that if a new government is formed under the command of the revolutionaries then something substantial could be done for the country.

This is our theoretical base on which our demand stands. But yet what we have begun observing of late is that things are becoming more and more grave. Even if we conduct yet another poll for the Constituent Assembly, we feel that such a body could not provide the nation with a new constitution. At this juncture and with the prevailing situation, what is for sure is that we see no chances of the formation of a government under the command of the revolutionaries.

This is what I am talking on practical terms. The State authority is the same old one. More over the bureaucracy too remains the same. So when everything are old in place then whatever comes to the surface will be nothing more than a goiter in the neck. What we wish to stress here is that if you in all earnest desire to transform the nation then the NC, the UML and even Bhattarai’s continued presence in government will have no impact or whatsoever. The problems will remain as it is. That is why we prefer the formation of such a government which is revolutionary in nature and be commanded by the revolutionaries.

TGQ2: Your party has been voicing for a intensive dialogue in between various parties and several other stake holders in order to get the country out from the current mess. But given the present political situation it appears that your formula will not work. Is it so or otherwise?

Baidya: Now it is more difficult. The outlet to the present transitional stalemate appears impossible even if you go in for a composite dialogue in between the parties. This method will not work now. Talking of an out let to the current deadlock in clear terms then I must say that the exit could be either those forwarded by the parliamentary parties or by the status quoists.

I think the country is moving towards that direction. The way the parties are moving, take it for granted that such a solution will never provide a constitution in people’s favor and guarantee the basic fundamental rights of the population. The vent as we need and demand is next to impossible if the manner the political parties have been moving with their own preferred stances. If you need an outlet that is in the favor of the people then the people themselves have to wage a struggle for securing their own rights and well being. We must open a new chapter once again. I tell you that the way the parties have been handling the jumbled politics will never provide with an outlet that favored people’s pressing and fundamental demands.

TGQ3: But the fact is also that the sort of struggle you desire appears not in sight? So how the things will move then? Also tell us that you and your party leaders allege other parties as parliamentarian parties which should then mean that your party prefers now to detach itself from the parliamentary patterns ? What say you?

Baidya: To tell you frankly, we have not yet begun the process of struggle as stated by you. Our prime agenda at the moment is centered on conducting the first General Assembly of the new party. This is our prime agenda as of today. We will definitely bring out planned drafts for waging a struggle. Programs will definitely come time permitting but only when we plan it well.

It is because of this no solid programs as such as regards our struggle or for that matter the movement have not come to the surface. For the time being we have brought out some simple programs. A planned way of struggle has yet to come to the public. General Assembly is our primary agenda, as stated earlier. It would be after this General Assembly where we will have intensive debates and discussion and the ideas thus collected which will be condensed and later a solidified, effective and meaningful program of struggle will be announced.

It is on these lines we have been thinking of late. As regards your attached question, let me remind you that the initiation of the ten years long people’s war was against the monarchical parliamentary system. When you talk of the parliamentary system with monarchy then it means that you are talking of a particular system. When we have jumped into what we call against the old system then it should automatically mean that we are opposed to parliamentarianism. It is very natural. That’s why we are not the followers of the old system that is of the parliamentary pattern.

TGQ4: You waged a ten year long people’s war but which could not let the people feel of any tangible change as promised. Is it that the people are reluctant in supporting your proposed movement because of this? What say you?

Baidya: Very pertinent question you have raised. Yes! We went for a ten year long people’s war which could not bring about any qualitative changes in the life styles of the people. We underwent through a grave cheat and deceit. In many countries across the globe, there are least evidences wherein you could find that the central leadership have cheated the people. But in Nepal, the central command of the party itself cheated the people ultimately.

That is why it was due to this swindle, things were not what was expected of the people’s war. The people’s war could not found its real objective and thus suffered a serious setback. This is the situation the country felt. The nation landed in a different political situation because of this hold up. Yes! I admit that what had been promised during the initial days of the people’s war could not transform the country in a desired manner.

TGQ5: So looking at the present day situation, what your party thinks on getting the country out from the current mess? What is your party’s fresh line of thought as regards the prevailing situation?

Baidya: Well, talking of the safe passage to the country’s current ailments, the talk of the restoration of the CA body, and election of the CA is consuming much of the time. The politics is revolving round these issues. The people now do not in favor of the slogan for Constituent Assembly nor it is with the revolutionaries instead it has slipped into the hands of the opportunists. That is why let us not boggle our minds in talking these redundant issues.

It will have no meaning as such. We must now push the people’s agenda of nationalism, People’s Republic and of the livelihood and for that I think we should wage a struggle now. The people have no other alternative than what I just stated. Even the revolutionaries do not have any other suitable option with them. We must have transformation through the struggle.

But how to make it all pervasive one will be very much debated and decided by our party’s upcoming General Assembly. This GA will bring about a solid and meaningful plan on how to proceed in the days ahead. People’s constitution could only be drafted through the street protests. It will come through people’s struggle from the streets. This is the main point. CA body has no meaning now as regards the new constitution.

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/five-questions/2012-11-29/nepal:-ncp-maoist-is-not-follower-of-parliamentary-system.html

Comments are closed.