Posts Tagged ‘Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)’
Presidential coup in Nepal
Below is an article I wrote a week or two ago for the Spark, the Workers Party paper, briefly going into some of what’s been taking place over the past wee few months and describing in particular the recent events surrounding the presidential coup. A shortened version will be in the next Spark (look out for us in Cuba mall and elsewhere on Saturday morning, only costs a dollar!), but readers of this blog get to see it in all it’s unedited glory. 
The fierce one: Prachanda, leader of the UCPN (M), and former Prime Minister of Nepal
Presidential coup in Nepal
By Alastair Reith
The last time the Spark carried news from Nepal, the story was positive. The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) had been elected to government with just under forty percent of the seats (more than the next two parties put together). It’s leader Prachanda was Prime Minister. Previous to this, it had waged a decade long People’s War that liberated eighty percent of the countryside and radicalised the workers and peasants of the country in support of revolutionary change. Under the slogan of a new Nepal, the Maoist-led government attempted to bring about land reform, build national industry, empower and improve the lives of workers, and fight against the domination of foreign imperialism, in particular Indian expansionism. However, this article describes events of a much less positive nature.
Nepal: Maoists revive parallel government, kick up land seizures
New generation, new nepal: Young revolutionary woman at a Maoist rally
I haven’t posted anything here about Nepal in a while, and so much has happened that this brief post can’t do justice to the rapidly changing situation there. But here’s a few media reports to give a taste of what’s going on there at the moment. I plan on writing a detailed article putting forward my thoughts on what’s happening since the presidential coup and the end of the Maoist-led government, and I’ll post it here when I’m finished. The basic line it will take is that since the Maoist’s departure from government, they are taking an increasingly militant and confrontational approach.
Nepalese Maoists threaten to take up arms again
(as far as i know, this is the first time since the Constituent Assembly elections that the Maoists have made an open and serious threat to take up arms once again. I see this as a positive development – it shows the Maoists are not willing to abandon their goal of radically transforming Nepalese society, and if they can’t advance these goals through peaceful means, they will retrun to using violent ones.)
Reactionary forces sabotage formation of Maoist-led government in Nepal
This new and unexpected development represents a temporary setback to the unfolding revolutionary process in Nepal. But it by no means represents the end of the road – rather, as Chairman Gonzalo famously put it, this is but a bend in the road, a road that leads all the way to socialism and ultimately to communism. If the reactionaries class forces and the parties that represent them will not allow the Maoists to gain state power through peaceful democratic means, there are alternatives the Maoists can turn to – they proved to be extremely good at these alternatives during the decade long People’s War.
The CPN (M) made noises in the lead up to the elections that if it was not able to gain power through the ballot it and it’s fighters would “return to the jungle”. This may now be necessary to smash the resistance of the comprador-capitalist and landlord classes, who are desperately trying to prevent the creation of a Maoist led government that will initiate agrarian reforms based on Land to the Tiller, and will lead a program of idnustrialisation and working-class mobilisation to lay the basis for a transition to socialism.
The Maoists recieved by far the largest vote in the elections, and the efforts by the other parties to block the democratic will of the Nepalese masses only reveals their true and reactionary nature.
In government, the Maoists could have achieved huge things for Nepal, and they were always clear that this would have to be backed up by and carried out through mass mobilisation and class struggle. In opposition, the Maoists may not be able to effect their revolutionary policies, but with their mass support and stunning organisation skills, they have the strength to resist anything the reactionary classes throw at them, and perhaps even to advance their radical agenda outside of the halls of office.
Nobody can say right now where things will go from here, but one things for sure – it’s going to be bloody interesting to watch. All eyes must remain on the New Nepal – Lal Salaam!
The Maoists will not participate in the government of Nepal
10 minutes ago
KATHMANDU (AFP) - The Nepalese Maoists, whose presidential candidate was defeated on Monday, will not participate in the first government of the Republic of Nepal, plunging the country into a new political crisis.
A Beacon of Hope shines from Nepal
(this was also written as a post on www.Revleft.com, as part of the ongoing debate within the revolutionary socialist movement about Nepal. It was actually largely in reply to the pessimistic comments of a Maoist, a RL member of the Revolutionary Communist Party in the US, which shows that even within the Maoist current opinion is divided. I intend to write an in depth, well researched full length article about Nepal some time in the future, that will go over the ground I briefly covered here and elsewhere in a much deeper way. Watch this space…)
I reject the idea that the CPN (M) is going in the direction of becoming a “capitalist” party. The Bolsheviks did not immediately implement socialism, and that was in a large country with a strong industrial working class (it was a minority, but it was still much larger and stronger than anything Nepal has), and much greater development of national capital. Lenin referred to what the Bolsheviks were implementing as “state capitalism”, not socialism (which makes the Cliffite use of the term even more ridiculous), does that make him “pro-capitalist” and the Bolsheviks a “capitalist party”?
People vote for change in Tonga, Zimbabwe and Nepal
June 2008
In the past month or so, elections took place in three very different countries, far away from one another, with distinctly different languages, cultures and histories. These countries did have some things in common. All were all poor, third-world countries, whose people live in poverty and oppression, and they all voted against the regimes and systems they currently live under.
Tonga votes against monarchy, for democracy
In the leadup to the Tongan elections, mainstream New Zealand media talked a great deal about how the people of Tonga did not want radical change and did not really want the monarchy to go, and how the pro-democracy candidates were going to get an awful result.
Just as with their predictions in Nepal, they were proved to be completely wrong. In the Tongan elections, pro-democracy candidates won all nine elected seats.
Of the 34 seats in the Tongan parliament, candidates are democratically elected to only nine, with 16 members being appointed directly by the king, and another nine representing “the noble families of the realm”. This is essentially a semi-feudalistic system, with a small minority of nobles and the capitalists linked to them monopolising all power and wealth in the country.
Democratic reforms are due to be implemented in 2010, with the balance of seats being changed to 17 MPs elected by the people, nine MPs to represent the “nobility” and 4 MPs to be appointed by the King.
While this would certainly be a positive move and a step in the right direction, ultimately the King and his nobles have no right to exist. The people of Tonga deserve to live in a nation where everyone is treated equally and nobody lives in great privilege simply due to being born lucky.
Such a society can only come about through completely eradicating not only feudalism but capitalism as well, and moving towards a socialist system.
Zimbabwe votes against Mugabe’s dictatorship, but is the MDC any better?
In Zimbabwe’s parliamentary elections, the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) won 99 seats in the House of Assembly, with Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party winning 97 and the minority MDC faction winning 10.
In the last issue of The Spark we reported that the results of the presidential elections had not yet been released, and fears were growing that the results would be rigged in Mugabe’s favour. The MDC declared that it had won an outright victory.
The results of the recount were released on May 2, with Morgan Tsvangirai of the MDC winning 47.9% of the vote to Mugabe’s 43.2%. As neither of the two main candidates won a majority, a run-off will be held on June 27.
Since the initial elections, ZANU-PF has unleashed a wave of violence against MDC members, with several being killed. Interestingly, government-approved farm occupations have begun again in some areas. This also happened after the 2000 elections, and clearly shows that the farm occupations are not part of any attempt by Mugabe to radically transform Zimbabwe’s economy and transfer land and wealth to the poor, but is rather just an attempt to distract people from his election defeats.
Disturbing reports have also emerged about the actions of the MDC (which advocates neo-liberal, right-wing economic policies). ZANU-PF accuses them of being funded by American and British imperialism, and it would not be at all surprising if this were the case – the US and British have a long history of meddling in Third World politics, and have openly declared their intentions to effect regime change in Zimbabwe1. There are also unverified reports of foreign NGOs telling voters that if they do not vote for the MDC, food distribution will stop.
Nepal votes for Maoist revolutionaries
In the recent Constituent Assembly elections, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) won 220 out of 575 seats, making them by far the largest party in the Assembly. (The two next biggest, the Nepali Congress and the revisionist (ie claiming to be Marxist, but acting counter-revolutionary) Communist Party of Nepal (UML), won 110 and 103 respectively, making them smaller than the Maoists even when put together!)
The vote for the revolutionary Maoists represents the mass support they enjoy amongst the Nepalese masses, on whose side they fought during the decade-long People’s War. In the course of this struggle the Maoists liberated 80% of the countryside, before changing their tactics in order to move the revolutionary struggle into the urban areas.
The four next-biggest parties agreed on May 24 to back a Maoist-led government. However, there is still a great deal of conflict between the Maoists and the non-revolutionary parties. The Maoists are demanding that, as the largest party, they receive the two biggest portfolios in the government, the posts of Prime Minister and President. They have compromised to agree that the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly could be a non-Maoist.
The Nepal Congress in particular is calling for the Maoists to disband the People’s Liberation Army and the Young Communist League, but the Maoists have rejected this.
After a huge step forward, tensions remain in the new Nepal.
1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/
