E-Kantipur

There were many speculations about the fate of Nepali Congress soon as Girija Prasad Koirala passed away. But history is not just a record of the deeds of great men and the events they help shape. Nonetheless, if it is true that statesmen are judged not just on the basis of their achievements in life, but also the legacy they leave behind, only time will spell the final verdict on Koirala.

But before I move on to discuss the fate of Nepali Congress in the post-Koirala era, I want to end the debate on GPK’s legacy by borrowing these words from Jagadish Chandra Pokherel’s The days of Shame and Pain: No society can prosper and move forward without respecting its own past. 

But now that GPK is gone, will NC’s core ideological and political underpinnings be redefined? How will the new leadership accommodate the issues which have been sidelined for almost three decades? Is Congress willing to attune itself with the changing times? If we weigh these questions, NC’s test seems to have just begun.

However, some positive signs have already been seen vis-à-vis the party’s dealings with the Maoists on national issues. The party has put up a united front and struck to its agenda; the essence of collective leadership has not been undermined. Thus the Congress leadership seems to have passed its first test. But more tests are sure to come.  

For any political party, its ideology is its spirit; its leadership, the mind; and cadres, the body. It calls for different strategies to take care of sprit, mind and body. Congress as a democratic force has not only stood for democracy consistently, but also fought against the injustices in society. It has instituted solid social reforms. Unfortunately, sixty years down the line Congress is neither in a position to defend its glorious past nor to devise an ideology and strategies for tomorrow. 

Some of the fundamental questions that must be answered are: What does Congress stands for? What are its core ideologies? How does it define its role in modern society and marketplace? And how does it define public and private interests?

Congress has adopted nationalism, democracy and socialism as its core ideology. Emergence of nation states and feeling of nationhood reinforced in the aftermath of the Second World War helped define modern nationalism. But the sprit of nationalism that remained a powerful weapon in tearing apart the forces of colonial empires and communism after the Second World War has today been torn apart by the indigenisation of politics. Therefore nationalism is many things to many people. For some, it is a unifying force. For others, it is divisive. For some, it is democratic. For some others, it is authoritative.

Congress must initiate a debate on the meaning of nationalism in Nepali context. The same is the case with democracy and socialism. For Congress, democracy and socialism are not separate ideologies, but two aspects of the same coin. Any attempt to disassociate these two will have severe repercussions on the party’s future. An insidious attempt was made to drive a wedge between democracy and socialism post-1990 when Congress led the government. Neo-liberal policies were applied not only with respect to the economy, but in all spheres of life. This led to the migration of huge masses towards communist parties in general and the Maoists in particular.  

How long will Congress keep clinging to this extreme form of neo-liberalism? It is about time NC initiated a vigorous debate on it. Having sidelined socialist agendas, Congress has pushed away a large constituency. Critics of democratic socialism within Congress find the ideology outdated, but it is not clear what they would have in its place. As it vacillates between its old and new values, NC seems to have become a dysfunctional hybrid. 

It is important that Nepali Congress realises the evolving role of political parties. The change is nicely captured in the manifesto of the Communist Party of Great Britain: “The traditional role of political parties is being disrupted by the extension of politics into civil society and the new forms of expression being thrown up around the issues of new times. The old, rigid divisions of power and function between the personal and the political, the state and civil society, parliamentary politics, and extra-parliamentary activity, no longer apply.” Mind you, the manifesto was put out in 1990. Is Congress willing to realise in 2010 what the Communist Party of Great Britain did in 1990? 

The fate of Congress after the fall of GPK therefore will depend on whether it can reenergize the party by initiating debates on vital issues. Self-criticism and reflection are two important weapons, not only to strengthen oneself; but to automatically defeat others. Is Congress willing to enhance its legitimacy by overcoming its weaknesses? NC’s future may rest on this question.

sharmasumit77@gmail.com

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.