MONDAY INTERVIEW
- Nepali Congress leadership is still stuck in the 1950s
SEP 09 -
In the wake of the 2008 CA election, it was becoming increasingly clear that the Nepali Congress was losing its stronghold on Nepali politics. Soon after, newer forces began labelling the NC “status-quoist” and “traditionalist”. By now the party has garnered a relatively “conservative” public image which, in fact, stands in contradiction to its founding socialist principles. Puranjan Acharya, an NC activist and political analyst, worked closely with GP Koirala and has been a close observer of NC policy. In conversation with the Post’s Bidushi Dhungel, he spoke about the history of NC policies and their contradictions, and what it requires to emerge again as a leading force in national politics. Excerpts:The Nepali Congress says it is a socialist party. How do you understand the party’s ideology?
In the post-1990 framework, the Nepali Congress’ social agendas have been weak. Before that, for 40 years, it was a centre to left party. The NC was worried that by taking on agendas of the poor in villages, they would be seen as a leftist party. After 1990, the NC became centre to the right party. The NC is still stuck in that transformation.
Why did the NC transition into a centre-right party after the 1990 revolution, even as its principles were rooted in socialism?
BP Koirala said that democracy would not be enough and five years after the 1950 revolution, they chose socialism as their ideology. But after 1990, a new liberal economic aspect seeped into the NC, as a result of the shift in international dynamics. Marxism as a political tool had failed and capitalism was on the rise and that naturally had an effect in Nepal—including the Nepali Congress. That came from the Washington Consensus.
How did the Washington Consensus effect NC politics?
Henceforth, the debate in the developing countries was less about who would be PM and President, but rather the finance minister. The finance ministers had to be ones who understood the Washington Consensus and could make people understand it, had international degrees and Phds, and believed firmly in neo-liberal economies. From Man Mohan Singh to Ram Sharan Mahat and Mahesh Acharya, they all were strong proponents of neo-liberalism. At the time even countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka had the Finance Ministers who were stronger than the PMs.
In fact, if the Maoist movement hadn’t come with such a strong social base, and if liberal economics and democracy had flourished longer, by now Ram Sharan Mahat would have already been PM.
An NC decline post-2006 is evident. How do you gauge this dynamic?
After both 1990 and 2006, the NC didn’t have an agenda aside from that of their past as the founders of democracy. Ideologically, socialism was the stance, but practically, it was total capitalism. In the 1990s 32 organisations were privatised under the NC leadership. The service sector did improve, but industry and unemployment were not tackled. Most importantly, there was no justice. When the Maoists raised a movement for justice and the Madhesis for identity, the NC was at a loss.
The justice movement was about a focus on rural Nepal which politics had ignored till then as movements were based in urban centres and Kathmandu in particular. The agendas for 2006 were rural, but long before then, the relationship of the NC with the villages had been delinked. The NC’s relationship with the villages was always based on relations with landlords who could handle the masses in the villages—never directly with the people. When the Maoist movement displaced the landlords into their own fold or elsewhere the NC lost its complete support base in rural Madhes and had no mechanisms to keep it. The NC didn’t have any agendas or tools to accept identities to keep the Madhesis or Tamangs or Gurungs content in the changed context.
Was public anger over the Koirala dynasty also a reason?
The high stakes of the Koiralas of Biratnagar in the NC became suspicious to many people, particularly the Madhesis. The 2006 movement was also about anti-Koirala sentiment which was seen even in villages where Bimalendra Nidhi and his father had a stronghold. If in 1990, the world demanded liberal agendas, in 2006, the world over was seeing a resurgence of identity, but the NC didn’t understand this global dynamic. And these agendas were hijacked by force by the Maoists and through emotive force, by the Madhesis.
Is there a silver lining to the position of the NC today?
The NC’s greatest strength is that it will never go against Loktantra—not today or 50 years down the line. But that’s not sufficient. The greatest illusion harboured by NC leaders is that as soon as the NC talks about Loktantra, people will flock to them like sheep. Having said that, the silver lining in all this is that after GP Koirala and Jana Andolan 2, there have been four successive communist governments. All four were seen to be contemporary leaders, who were young and perhaps more dynamic than the Congress leaders—Madhav Nepal, Jhala Nath Khanal, Prachanda and Baburam Bhattarai. Of course the ineptitude of the NC is there, and the NC’s lack of agenda is also there, but till date the four governments considered to have agendas and vision and radical thoughts, have failed in performance. This has lead to people to think that perhaps the NC would be better, even if they too are inept.
What is the Nepali Congress stance on inclusion?
As a party, the NC by-laws have changed to be far more inclusive than ever. The women and Dalit quota have been raised along with the youths. There are almost 30 percent women in the Central Working Committee. Madhesis also have a quota and a separate election for that. Without being too hi-fi, they have slowly started the process of transformation.
So the Nepali Congress has internalised its shortcomings?
The NC, until the day the CA dissolved, wasn’t able to prepare itself for tomorrow as it should have done. It wasted energy just hanging on to the seats of power, became Deputy PM, and even tried to become PM up to 16 times. It would have been better for it to pull back and reorganise itself for tomorrow’s needs. However, even if the leadership has been preoccupied by power, some people in the NC have begun to bypass these leaders and move forward together to create agendas.
Has the leadership shown any signs of self-realisation?
Nepali Congress leaders—Sushil Koirala, Ram Chandra Paudel, Sher bahadur Deuba—still fail to see the changing context of Nepal. They are still in 1950—not even the 1960s and 1970s. They don’t understand how the media works today and how universal it is and make little effort to appeal to the people and talk to them directly. But the NC still has a sizeable group of capable politicians.
Around 70 percent of the intellectual capacity of Nepal is occupied by the Congress, 70 percent of the entire middle class and upper middle class. And it also has democracy’s poster image. But having these important assets, it doesn’t have a leadership which can reach out to people through social agendas in the way that Communist leaders have been able to.
I think that between the three leaders, there probably hasn’t even been a half hour conversation about what their political line ought to be. But then they spend hours in their homes discussing how to become PM.
What is the NC’s tragic flaw?
The greatest thing in politics is timing—when you endorse or reject certain positions. The NC leadership, from the time of GP Koirala, never took decisions on time. From republicanism to secularism and inclusion, the leadership in the Congress has been making decisions and acting on them too late such that they cannot own these agendas and are seen as reactionary. GP said baby king and cultural king before he endorsed republicanism. But he didn’t realise the mood of the people. The Congress’ greatest flaw is that it is too Kathmandu-centric and since demands for social change and agendas come from below, if you don’t take them on board, others will.
The Nepali Congress ushered in much of modern “development” in the form of international organisations and INGOs. How do you evaluate their role in NC politics?
At the beginning, the donors and INGOs came to assist with the political and economic agendas set in the country. But after 1990, that shifted—they carried prescriptions with them and started telling us to set agendas according to their prescriptions. As a result, all the politicians started taking donor-driven projects to their districts for their political gain. Around 10-11 districts in the 1990s where powerful people were from had a bigger budget than all the remaining 60-some districts combined, leading to mass inequality in terms of development, infrastructure and power politics. The illusion was that this was the way to develop—there would be growth first and that would trickle down to the rest later. But that never happened and the Maoist movement proved it.
Posted on: 2012-09-10 08:32
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kathmandu Post in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
by Abin
She’s an actress....Had approached for acting lessons...they took her in their party!
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
