The country is in a political mess. The Maoists want to remove the king before the constituent assembly (CA) elections as a part of their strategy to promote their “revolutionary” image and avoid the difficult task of facing the people without the guns. Not to be outdone, the UML wants to have a statutory provision allowing the parliament to take action against the king in case he starts acting “smart”. The NC is not sure about anything. The one-point agenda of the party leader at the moment is to ensure that Situala does not resign despite the fact that almost 40 people in Tarai have been killed in the agitation so far. People are clearly worried. The oft-asked questions are: Where are we heading? What is the new vision for the nation?

The question posed above is complex. Apart from national actors, it is now clear that international forces exert a significant influence in Nepal’s political development. The print and the electronic media are euphoric, as if the politics of the country is taking a new course every time the prime minister and other political leaders meet with foreign ambassadors. Envoys, especially from our neighbouring countries and also from across the “seven seas”, never had it so good in terms of media attention and coverage. On the other hand, it is also a fact that in many cases foreign envoys have been on the forefront reminding the political establishment that the road to a democratic future is arduous unless the political parties, especially the Maoists, prove their commitment to peaceful politics through action and deeds that the people can see and feel.

While mentioning the nation’s notion of a vision the most important question is the goal of different political forces. On this issue there are serious differences. Recent public utterances of the Maoist leaders make it clear that the election to the CA is not necessarily their number one priority. One of their top leaders has stated in a recent interview that they are aiming for a “multiparty system under the dictatorship of the progressive forces”. It is hard to figure out what it means. What model do they have in mind? A Buddhadev Bhattaracharya model like in West Bengal, India? A North Korean democratic model with two formal parties presumably under the dictatorship of the progressive forces that is virtually a dynastic rule? A Cuban model with a guaranteed life-long presidency under one party? A Chinese model propounded by Deng? It would be enlightening if the Maoist ideologues shed some light on this issue. Of course there is the “new democracy,” a three-stage model propounded by Mao while he was struggling against Chiang in the 1940’s. It called for an alliance of all the nationalistic forces under the leadership of the Chinese communist party that promised democracy to the nation. Mao’s model of democracy that took shape after the revolution had no space for any other political party except the communist party.

As it stands now the Maoists’ democracy seems to assert that it is only the Maoist party that has any relevance in the transformation of the Nepali society. Top Maoist leaders are ever eager to call all other parties as cheats and complain to the people that their “good ideas” have been stolen. The corollary of this is that all other parties are of little use. A brilliant display of this unbridled arrogance was there for all to see in the parliament when a senior Maoist leader hurled obscene abuses at his other non-Maoist colleagues — all astounded and speechless — and even went to the extent of displaying his firepower confirming his faith in the dictum that power comes from the barrel of the gun. And then the apology. The first to tender it on behalf of the Maoist was none other than the home minister who is until now, at least officially, an NC bigwig.

There is an urgent need for understanding between the Maoists and the other parties as regards their respective perception of the norms and values of the democratic process that should be the basis of the new constitution no matter who wins in the CA polls. This is an important issue since the present parliament is becoming a “rubber stamp” legislature whose main job seems to be to approve whatever is tossed up by the eight-party syndicate. In the meantime, Maoist’s behaviour after the signing of the peace agreement clearly indicates that in democracy under the dictatorship of the progressive forces the values of tolerance, compromise, consensus-building and constitutional checks and balances are at a low premium. Maoist faith in strong-arm tactics remains firm as ever, the evidence of which came loud and clear in the speech of one of its thinkers in New Delhi a few weeks ago. Perhaps it is a result of their penchant for asserting themselves through the power of the gun. However, if the past legacy of the gun power becomes the basis of the future political power then democracy in Nepal will remain a distant dream. This is a point that the non-Maoist parties must ponder.

Dr Lohani is co-chairman, Rastriya Janasakti Party