Font size: 
Chandra Prakash Gajurel, a member of the Central Committee and head of the international affairs department, sat down with UPI to explain some of the fundamental differences between communism in Nepal and its older European cousin. He began by asking a rhetorical question, “Why did communism in Eastern Europe fail?”
To begin with, the Russian brand of communism had a single-party “democratic” structure. They had elections and the people voted, true. But there was only one candidate running from one party. There were no surprises when the election results were announced; it was a foregone conclusion.
“But,” the Maoist leader stressed, “that is not the true spirit of democracy. The voice of the people could not be heard and therefore the will of the people could not be reflected in the governing processes. Here in Nepal, we are absolutely committed to a multiparty democracy. It is a fundamental principle we believe in; it is how we were elected.”
He went on to say that in Europe when the communists were ousted they were gone for good; they never came back. There was no way for them to come back because there was no real democratic process in place. “In a true democracy,” the communist leader explained, “sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. But when you lose there is always a way for you to return, as long as a real functioning democracy is in place. In Europe that door was closed.”
In essence, Gajurel was saying that communism was applied in different ways according to the respective situations, and Maoism in Nepal has a democratic DNA. This, of course, must be music to the ears of Nepal’s southern neighbor, India, the largest democracy in the world, which was surprised by the unexpected turnout -- 61 percent of voters -- and the results in the Constituent Assembly elections here last month that ushered in a red Nepal.
The next difference between European and Nepalese communism is the justification for the use of violence. In Eastern Europe it was a fait accompli. It was the first line of action. In old-school communism, the state militia became the primary apparatus for policy implementation. Regimes were brutal and oppressive.
On the contrary, the use of violence is viewed differently from the rooftop of the world and the land of Lord Buddha. Here the Maoists have stressed repeatedly that the use of force was their last option. Over the course of many years they were hounded by the state, their offices were ransacked, leaders arrested, dialogue with the king completely cut and, from their point of view, they were driven underground. “Every effort to achieve our genuine demands was crushed by using force,” reiterated Gajurel. “We took to arms as our last option.”
The irony now is that to govern democratically, one of the first tests of their statesmanship will be how they deal with their own People’s Liberation Army and the Young Communist League. This issue is being hotly debated daily in the press as well as among political parties. It is also being closely watched by other governments and the international community. It may well determine the fate of their government.
The next chapter of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” to be amended by his Nepalese namesake is the communist economic theory. Marx felt that capitalism was equated with exploitation. His theory of surplus value, which viewed the private ownership of the means of production as the root of social evil, meant there was no hope for capitalism to be reformed; it would have to be overthrown, violently.
Marx would have been pleased with the outcome of the elections here but would have sat up in his grave upon hearing the next goal for the ruling Maoists.
Within days after the April 10 elections Prachanda, the leader of the CPN-Maoists, met with the business community of Kathmandu to calm their fears. During this meeting, chaired by the president of the Chambers of Commerce, the communist leader said, “Now we are entering a new era of economic revolution, after nearly accomplishing a political revolution. Our next fight is to wipe out feudalism and promote a capitalist economy -- this is the true concept of Marxism.”
The international business community will probably take a wait-and-see attitude. But businessmen in Nepal believe the outlook for economic growth is bright.
Nirvana Chaudhary is executive director of the Chaudhary Group, one of the largest business houses in Nepal with over US$250 million in assets, and founder of the Entrepreneurs’ Organization (www.eo.org).
Chaudhary described the economic prospects in a post-election atmosphere with a sense of renewed hope, saying, “While political parties are now discussing the makeup of the Parliament, the formation of a government and constitutional questions, businessmen are finding a more conducive environment to operate. Investors have already started demonstrating their trust in the economy, with many sectors already booming…We have always been and are more convinced that Nepal is on the road to economic prosperity.”
The Chaudhary Group partners with AES Corporation, one of the world’s largest power companies operating in 28 countries. Their focus in Nepal is to tap the enormous hydroelectric potential to light up Nepal’s future.
Suranjan De, director of Varun Beverages, which bottles and distributes Pepsi products, was equally enthusiastic. Tourism is coming back, hotels are full to capacity, and De’s bottling plants “are at full production.” Neither executive is worried about or second-guessing the economic future here. They see a rainbow on the horizon.
In order to attract much-needed foreign capital, Gajurel said that the new government would guarantee the protection of capital coming into the country. “Of course, we cannot guarantee companies will make a profit, that’s up to them, but the government of Nepal will give its assurance that the capital investment will be secure; it will not be nationalized.”
One problem faced even in developed capitalist counties is corruption. The recent resignation of Samsung’s chairman, Lee Kun-hee, amid a tax-evasion scandal in South Korea and the Enron bankruptcy in the United States at the beginning of the new millennium should help stop the finger-pointing at so-called developing nations.
How then do the Nepali Maoists plan to tackle this social evil? Interestingly, Buddha, who was born in Nepal 2,500 years ago, had the wisdom to understand the depth of human selfishness. Having renounced the pleasures and pleasantries of a royal palace, Buddha taught that, “The greed of a person cannot be satisfied by a shower of gold coins.”
How then will the new Nepalese government deal with corruption? In one word, “transparency,” said Gajurel.
“Our government will be transparent. We will go to the people, tell them, ‘This is how much money we are planning to invest in this area,’ and ask them for their input. They will participate in deciding how the money will be used and take ownership of the project. All financial transactions will be clear for everyone to see.”
Everyone hopes so. And it is vitally important that the leadership inside the Maoist’s party is thinking and speaking in this way. Hopefully, it will percolate down to the rank and file.
A good first step would be to speak out on social issues that are clearly wrong. The Kathmandu Post reported last week that Maoists are still seizing land. In the past few days YCL cadres have also broken water supply lines in retaliation against communities that elected opposition party candidates.
Top Maoist leaders must speak out on these issues. If they do, two things will happen. First, they will teach their own party members what is expected and what is not to be tolerated. Secondly, this would demonstrate to the nation and world community that they are truly putting the national interest above their own party politics.
Years ago, the complete breakdown of communication between the Maoists and the monarchy only exacerbated the rift between them and left any misunderstanding unsolvable. Now that the tables are turned, Prachanda and his comrades should not repeat the sin of silence.
