Now that the Maoists are out in the open seeking public support for their return to power or, failing that, a third people’s movement, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML must respond by action. And words.

History might be repeating itself, as farce. One of the reasons why the Maoist movement succeeded

was because groups and classes unresponsive to the people’s rights controlled the state. And this time, if the ruling coalition wants to protect itself from the Maoist onslaught, it has to show why the people should side with them.

So far, they’ve failed-the NC and the UML. They have not been able to provide any ground to the neutral public who might want to support them. Some of the things that Prachanda said resonate with the public. For example, he said that the cabinet council consists mostly of people who’ve lost the elections. A person who lost from two places is the Prime Minister.

He said that it was the Maoists who introduced the agenda of the Constituent Assembly, the republic and the federal system. He also said these parties killed the people to prevent CA from taking place. So whom would the people think would be mostly likely to care about these agenda?

He said the army was the single reason that people’s democratic rights were taken away from the movements of 1950, 1980, and 1990. The same, he indicated, was happening now.

He characterized the political parties as having

a feudal mentality, represented by a habit of submitting “binti patra” or petition to the King and the President. He represented them as puppets of the Army Chief and foreign powers. He represented them as

status-quoists who were

always opposed to change. He portrayed them as parties who would turn to the army and the police, rather than the people, to protect their interests.

Prachanda’s strategy is clearly to isolate the UML and the NC, particularly from the people and the security forces. He praised the army and the police for having people who cared about the country and the people. He vilified Rookmangud Katawal and only a “handful” of generals.

Political parties control Nepal’s political processes. Politicians who may not have public endorsement, meanwhile, control the political parties. Nepal’s peace and political processes, therefore, can be driven without public endorsement. This means that the extent to which the political and peace processes coincide with the national interests is almost arbitrary and largely depends on the self-determined moral fiber of individual politicians.

The public is confused about who they should trust. Should they trust the Maoists-with their violent radicalism-or political parties-with their inability to control corruption, respect public opinion, and provide good governance?

Prachanda’s speech resonates deeply with the public, and it is this single factor that is the most dangerous, because he is outlining what appear to be facts, but giving an interpretive twist that is half ideological and half fallacious. His interpretive twists vilifying the Nepali Congress and the UML would not have mattered if these parties had a strong popular support. Unfortunately, with the coalition’s slipping support base, it is easier for Maoists to vilify them, and harder for the coalition to gain ground.

On the action front,

Madhav Kumar Nepal can justify himself only if he provides governance that is better than that of the Maoists. What he’s done is not encouraging.

The most time-consuming job that any minister does is to oversee promotions and transfers of employees. It is extremely saddening to see the way in which the bureaucracy is run. There is no respect for merit or procedures. No government employee can obtain a transfer or promotion without bribery or political patronage. The bureaucracy has been completely demoralized by the pervasiveness of petty politics, and the Prime Minister has failed miserably by his inability to protect the weak.

Without the bureaucracy and the police, the government can do little to play the role that is expected of a modern nation state. With the state considerably weakened, different interest groups are springing up to fill the vacuum.

The government has developed a new security plan. But given the political and bureaucratic structure there is a real danger that the security plan would end up as ambient policing-the people would “see” a lot of police on the streets and in communities, but there would be little depth to the policing activities. As a result, it would end in the trampling of the rights of minorities and smaller groups, and fail to give enough recognition to building relations with ethnic groups and minorities.

It was, and still is an opportunity for PM Madhav Kumar Nepal to prove the Maoists wrong, that there is an alternative perspective

to look at the current situation. This is as much a war

of public relations or words, as it is a war of strategies, and the coalition must

gear for a battle in this new turf. They cannot, and should not, fight the Maoists without winning the public opinion battle. And it is this battle that the current coalition appears to be losing, quite easily.