 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
14-April-2008
NEPAL: CA Elections- Maoists Surge Ahead- Update No. 156
By Dr. S.Chandrasekharan.
The Constituent Assembly elections have brought in many surprises. The biggest surprise has been the emergence of Maoists who are heading for a clear majority in the first past the post system.
The election was by and large peaceful with an estimated 10.5 million people taking part out of 17.6 million voters that comes to around 60 percent. Re polling has been ordered in 98 stations so far but more polling stations may come under this category.
Out of 185 seats declared so far ( 14th April- 1.45 PM), the Maoists won 104 seats, followed by Nepali Congress with 30, the CPN UML with 25, the MJF 17, TMDP 4, NWFP 2, Jan Morcha 1, NSP Sadbhavana of Mahato 1 and Independent 1.
Among the major winners are Prachanda, Babu Ram Bhattarai, K.B. Mahara, Ram Bahadur Thapa, Hsila Yami, Barsha Man Pun, Pampha Bhusal, and C.P. Gajurel of the Maoists, Sher Bahadur Seuba, Prakash Man Singh ( son of Ganesh Man Singh), Narahari Acharya, R.C. Paudel Nidhi, Shasank Koirala and Ram Sharan Mahat of the Nepali Congress, Jhala Nath Khanal of UML, Upendra Yadav, V.K. Gachedar, S.S. Bhandari of MJF, Hridesh Tripathi of the TMDP, Rajendra Mahato of NSP and Naran Man Bijukche of the NWFP.
The lone independent Baban Singh who won from Rautahat 1 constituency is an accused in the serial blast case of Kathmandu of September 2007 and is still in hiding.
Prominent losers include M.K. Nepal, Bharath Mohan Adhikari and Bam Dev Gautam from UML, Sushil Koirala, K. P. Situala, the Home Minister and Sujatha Koirala from Nepali Congress. Both M.K.Nepal and Sushil Koirala have since resigned from the leadership of their respective parties.
The major surprise has been the rout of the UML that was expected to make a good showing in the present elections as their cadres were in position and had started electioneering earlier than others. That their cadres were prevented from campaigning in many interior places by the YCL of the Maoists could have been one reason, but this does not explain their losses in the urban centres that were their traditional strongholds. That their leader M.K. Nepal lost in both constituencies showed a more serious malady in the party and is indicative that those who traditionally voted for the UML have now crossed over to the Maoists. The main problem before the party would be to retain its identity, to move on and not be overwhelmed by the more aggressive Maoists in the days to come.
It was no surprise that the Nepali Congress lost out and the danger is that it may not even be the second largest contingent in the new constituent assembly. For this, their leaders are themselves to blame as most of them remained “disconnected” from their constituents ever since the people’s war of 1996. Even some of their district committee meetings were held in Kathmandu as most of them had concentrated in the valley and too late and in fact very late in the day they ventured out to the interior at the time of elections. People in those interiors who faced the wrath of the Maoists and the Police naturally asked them “Where were you in those days.”
A typical example is Sushil Koirala who rarely visited Nepalgunj, his traditional constituency and people naturally showed him the door. A counter example is Bimalendhu Nidhi who maintained contact with his constituency patiently built up by his father and won despite the Terai unrest and the aggressive campaigning by the Maoists.
The Nepali Congress lost a sizeable number of votes in its traditional constituencies in the Terai for their obstinate disregard of Terai aspirations and even persons like V.K. Gachedar of the Tharu community who held out till the last in the Nepali Congress had to get out as they found that the leaders had no sympathy and were not even aware of the ground realities in Terai.
Their failure to engage the armed groups in Terai for a dialogue till the end was another reason as many voters in Terai who would have voted for the Nepali Congress were prevented from going to the Polling stations by the armed gangs.
The Terain parties, the MJF, the TMDP, the NSP of both factions could have done better had they contested the elections together. As has been the malady of the Terains they were not united and will never be. Out of a possible 80 seats they could end up half of that or a little more.
It appeared to me that the Maoists went for the polls only when they were confident of making a dent in Terai. They saw that the NC had lost its influence and the Terain parties had a three way split. They were sure that they could get sizeable votes in the fractured polity in the Terain constituencies. It may be remembered that the Madhesi unrest was triggered by the Maoists when they not only shot down a student in Siraha but quietly cremated the body before the Police could intervene.It is to the credit of Prachanda that he led the party to a majority in the elections and despite strong opposition from within, he took a great risk in going for elections. His Prachanda path has won! One may question the methods of intimidation, threats and fear he induced amongst the people but nothing succeeds like success. With a weak Election Commission unable to prevent the rampaging YCL cadres and a Prime Minister who was more keen to conduct the elections under any condition including succumbing to the pressure of the Maoists and a loyalist Home Minister who had a soft corner for Maoists, nothing could have stopped CPN (M) from winning.
There were many instances in rural areas ( not in Terai or in urban centres) where other party cadres or the candidates were physically assaulted and prevented from campaigning. In most of the cases no action was taken by the Police and in certain incidents like the one in Rasuwa, over 100 UML cadres had to take shelter in the Police Post to escape from the attacking Maoist cadres. But come two days before elections with the observers all watching, the Maoists like a disciplined lot ensured an incident free elections!
Yet it cannot be denied that there was a surge in favour of the Maoists. Other parties believe that people voted more out of fear that the Maoists otherwise may go back to the jungle. This may not be so. The people believed in them and voted for a change as the mainstream parties were Kathmandu centred and never did anything for the marginalised societies or the marginalised regions. Most of them were corrupt too.
What of the future? It is still unclear whether the Maoists could get a majority in the combined house with induction of members from the proportional system where the closed lists are going to be gone into in proportion to the votes they received under the PR system. The cooperation of other parties will be required for arriving at a broad consensus on the future constitutional structure.
Therefore for a while, the Maoists will continue with the coalition and it suits them to consolidate their position. I would expect that their priorities would be to bring in some stability, attend to the badly mauled economy, find a lasting solution to the Terai problem and establish an inclusive society in the matter of governance. How they will deal with the monarchy now is another issue to be watched. The mainstream political parties have shown that they are no match to the politico military organisation of the Maoists. This point I had always made ever since the 12 point agreement was signed with the Maoists by the seven party alliance on November 21, 2005.
If the Maoists are sincere in joining the political mainstream, they should first dismantle the parallel administration they are still having in most of the districts other than the urban centres. Seized properties in many cases are yet to be returned.
The more difficult but an immediate imperative is to rein in the YCL that has grown into a lawless and violence prone organisation. Prachanda once is reported to have said that he had continued to have the YCL that has grown into over 50,000 cadres to prevent any take over by the monarchist forces. Therefore there is no justification now to continue with the YCL cades who are still sponging on the poor public.
The attitude of the now victorious Maoists towards the army and the problem of integration of the PLA will be another sensitive area that needs to be carefully handled.
On external relations, any prognosis will be in the realm of speculation. No doubt India has welcomed the victory of the Maoists and the Foreign Secretary has declared that India is willing to work with anyone coming to power including the Maoists. There have been constructive statements from both sides.
By facilitating the 12 point agreement India had consciously dumped its well-known policy of twin pillars of constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy and thus paved the way for a Maoist take over. It was clear to many then and even now that the question was and is not whether the Maoists would take over Nepal but how to manage a Maoist Nepal!
One immediate fallout will be an attempt to repeat people’s war in southern Bhutan for which there are many indications. It would need all diplomatic efforts on the part of India to ensure that this does not happen.
Home | Papers | Notes | Forum | Search | Feedback | Links
Copyright © South Asia Analysis Group
All rights reserved. Permission is given to refer this on-line document for use in research papers and articles, provided the source and the author's name are acknowledged. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.