Parties should accept identity in federalising states
The Maoist internal rift has drastically widened in the past few weeks and appears to have reached a tipping point. News that the party is on the verge of a split has caused considerable concern on whether the peace and constitution writing is going to be completed in the remaining five months or not. A key player since the inception of the peace process in 2006, Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” has a bundle of expectations riding on his shoulders to keep the party united and finish the twin national agenda for the past six years. Akhilesh Upadhyay and Kamal Dev Bhattarai spoke to the party Chairman about the possibility of a split, relations with NC and UML and how he intends to manage tensions in the coming days. Excerpts:
Is the Maoist party heading towards a split?
No, the party will not split. On some issues, there are unusual debates in the ongoing Central Committee (CC) meet but that will not cause a split immediately.
It seems that on some issues you have fundamental differences with the Baidya faction.
We do not have fundamental differences. We have debates on what issues should get priority right now—peace and constitution or some other things. While we are discussing our current focus, some political and ideological debates have also emerged. But it is misleadign to claim that we have fundamental differences.
But doesn’t the current activity within the party show there are already two parties within the party?
We do not have differences on the fundamental principles of revolution. However, there are some parallel activities and political documents (at the ongoing CC). The CC will come up with amicable solution on these issues ultimately. Baidyaji has claimed that the leadership is moving ahead by avoiding the official decisions made by the party. We will settle current disputes following the theory of democratic centralism, which means there should be uniformity in action and yet freedom to voice dissent. All should abide by the decisions made by the CC, on which Baidyaji shares similar views.
How’re you going to settle this dispute?
As per the principle of democratic centralism, the decision made through a majority should be followed by the minority. As the situation inside the party is much more complicated than the usual times, we have developed a new method—dissenting voices will be taken to the lower committees for a larger debate. If leaders make commitment to keep the party united and implement the decision made by the majority, we can hold open discussions on some specific ideological and political issues as per the party’s official consent.
But this approach has failed to work in the past and there is a parallel functioning of the rival faction already.
How do you expect it to work in the coming days?
There should no parallel functioning of two groups within a single party. What is happening at present is wrong. Both factions claim to function as per the party’s decision and there is debate on what the party’s official position is. So the ongoing CC meet will give a final verdict on it and such a situation (of confusion) will not continue after that. If it does, then the party may not remain united—either dissatisfied faction revolts or the party establishment will take action against them. But the party has not reached such a point yet and it will remain united for now.
The Baidya faction has warned of overturning the decisions made by Subcommittee formed under the Constitutional Committee of the CA.
The issues settled by the Dispute Resolution Subcommittee have already been forwarded to the Constitutional Committee of the CA for further deliberations. I think Baidyaji lacks sufficient information on the decisions of the Subcommittee and he lacks details on what is happening there. The issues related to state restructuring will be settled after the State Restructuring Commission comes up with its report. We have in principle agreed to adopt mixed model on the forms of governance but the details have not been worked out yet. And we are working to delienate separation of power between the president and the prime minister.
Is there a meeting point between you and Baidya?
There are two political documents the CC members are currently discussing. We have uniform view about the immediate policy and programmes of the party, such as organising mass meetings and imparting trainings to cadres and revamping the organisational structure. But we have some political and ideological differences. This will not affect the party’s immediate programmes and plans however. If you look at both the documents (Prachanda’s and Kiran’s) closely, there is a similarity in the party’s immediate policy and programmes. The Baidya faction does not want to leave the party immediately. Similarly we are not in favour of splitting the party. It is true that we have crossed the limits set by the theory of democratic centralism. If we had followed it there would have been uniformity in action and in freedom in speech—which is not happening currently in the real sense. In that, both establishment faction and Baidyaji have not abided by the theory of democratic centralism. The establishment faction is not willing to take action against the Baidya faction for violating party norms. Similarly, the Baidya faction does not want to revolt against the leadership. The meeting point is somewhere there.
But Baidya has said the CA has no more meaning if you continue with constitution drafting.
If so, the Baidya faction should come up with an alternative view and walk out from the CA. But Baidyaji has not said that his faction is giving up on the ongoing peace and constitution drafting process. They are still in favour of peace and constitution.
Is it possible to promulgate a new constitution in the remaining five-month period?
We have to finish the constitution drafting process within the next five months and it is possible to do so. People want an early promulgation of a new constitution, and the expectation of the people is more important than the verdict made by the Supreme Court. We should not kill more time discussing and debating on the verdict of the Court, but engage in drafting the constitution.
What are your fundamental differences with traditional parliamentary parties such as the NC and UML and what are your expectations from them?
There are two or three areas on which we have some fundamental differences with traditional parliamentary parties, like the NC and UML. The first is related to state restructuring.
We have agreed to settle the issue of federalism on the basis of identity and viability. We have given more importance to the identity aspect because the new constitution should liberate all ethnic, linguistic and regional suppressions. But the establishment factions of NC and UML seem reluctant to accept the right to self-determination while we are in favour of accepting the right to self-determination. We are not in the mood to compromise on some of these issues. NC and UML should be ready to liberate the suppressed groups and communities while drafting a new constitution.
What about the differences on forms of governance?
The second issue is related to forms of governance. We want an executive president, which means the rejection of traditional parliamentary model of democracy and a step forward from the Westminsterial model. The system of a directly elected executive president is required to ensure political stability at least for five years (after the election). But the NC and UML want an executive prime minister, which is a continuation of the West Minsterial model of democracy. This is a serious issue—whether to go for presidential system or continue with the parliamentary model. Without adopting a presidential system it will be difficult to address the aspirations of the people in the changed context. NC and UML should be ready to internalise the changed political situation.
The issue of ensuring the representation of workers, peasants and other minority groups in the state mechanism is another important issue which has to be addressed in the new constitution. NC and UML should be ready to ensure the class representation in the state as per the aspirations of the people too.
Where are the meeting points?
There are places for compromise. Where we adopted a mixed model in the forms of governance, the NC and UML agreed on a directly elected President, which is a shift from their earlier position.
But the issue of identity seems much more complex.
Since we have already accepted a federal republic and all parties agree to liberate the suppressed communities, caste and ethnic groups through a federal structure, there should no problems to adopt the identity issue. We will come up with a uniform view and understanding on these issues soon.
It seems that the rift in your party is affecting the peace and constitution drafting process.
The process of integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants has not been stalled due to the internal rift of the Maoist party. Despite objection from Baidyaji, we initiated the regrouping process of combatants. There are some issues related to integration and rehabilitation of combatants on which parties need to forge consensus. The issue of rank determination has not been settled. The PLA commanders have demanded their representation in the proposed directorate headquarters. Similarly, there has not been agreement on the nature and duration of the bridging course for the combatants. As we are currently engaged with the Central Committee meeting, we have not had sufficient time to discuss these issues with other parties right.
Posted on: 2012-01-02 08:18
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
