Monday, November 24, 2008
Maoists appear to be tilting towards Prachanda's viewpoint
KATHMANDU: The Maoist hardliners bid to gain support among partymen for the establishment of a single-party rule in Nepal seems to be losing out, with Prime Minister Prachanda's view to continue multi-party system seems on the verge of receiving endorsement by the party Congress.
But question mark still hangs over whether in the long run the Maoists will stick to this concept or abandon it midway, political analysts said as National Workers Conference has twice run into a logjam over the issue.
The main objective of the convention was to debate two parallel reports of Maoists future objectives -- one floated by Prachanda and the other by party Mohan Vaidya aka Kiran.
But so far the sea-saw battle has seen no winners, party sources said.
However, Prachanda, whose nom-de-guerra means "fierce one," has succeeded in converting a majority of partymen to his idea of state.
"Eighty per cent of the members have voiced their support for the chairman's political document," said a Central Committee member from the prime minister's faction.
Prachanda, whose political document to consolidate a "democratic republic" was rejected by majority of hardcore workers in the 13 state committees of the CPN-Maoist emerged stronger as the party's National Workers Conference comes near to its conclusion today, sources said.
Vaidya's political document that aims to immediately establish "People's Republic" or communist republic had received support from majority of 1,100 hardcore workers during internal discussions of the party's various state committees last week
Source The Economic Times:
Posted by nickglais on 11/24/2008 09:43:00 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Combination of the positive aspects of both the reports is necessary for building a new Nepal. And CPN(M)must proceed towards people's republic gradually.
I agree Ajay - Prachanda and Bhattarai must take account of the Kiran arguements and the feelings of the cadres on the issues debated and synthesise the two reports to chart a path forward ,not only for a Democratic Republic but for socialism and a Peoples Republic, which is close to the hearts of all cadres.
Essentially the argument is that the PW was and is contrary to parliamentarian theory. Obviously it is. How can we conclude however that Prachanda/Bhattarai have abandoned the goal of the People’s Republic simply because they are engaging a strategy of peaceful struggle vs insurrection and are presently using tactics that at this point involve multi-party negotiations. Sure, as such, these tactics are not strictly revolutionary in the historical sense, but if the goal is to thereby wither away parliamentary government and put an end to it this way, then it is also true that the tactics are not strictly speaking reformist. Has not history often shown us that it is problematic to retain the fruits of revolution without having really gained control of the socio-economic situation? Is it really not a leap of conclusion to think that Prachanda/Bhattarai, given their leadership roles from the beginning of the PW have suddenly forgotten or abandoned the goal because they want to drive a BMW and live in a palace? As we know, the NC etc. are highly suspicious they are simply engaging in a strategic process. Let’s hope so and be vigilant but not screw with that process too much. Also, let’s not forget that communism is not about division - the NC etc. has been and are mistaken but those people are still in our world and will be when stripped of their elitist class. Taking this into account is as I understand it the new phase of manifestation of the communist hypothesis as elucidated by Alain Badiou and introduced elsewhere in my blog in further detail, along with many links and references to this very important theoretical line. I don’t know, but I aim to find out if Prachanda/Bhattarai are indeed creating something novel - its important I think that the jury remain out at this point, and its certainly no time to be calling for the hangman. I hope that what Nick and Ajay are suggesting is that we stay behind Prachanda but see that he does not forget the incorporation of the line of Kiran at some future point.
I think we all support Kiran wanting to go forward faster to People's Republic or Socialism - but that is also subjectivism - our desires.
Prachanda has to deal the the objective reality of Nepal and I am pleased that the message of comrade Kiran will be combined with that of Prachanda and the movement will get an agreed and clear way forward in Nepal following the cadres meeting.
Post a Comment