Pluralism with difference: A prerequisite for peace and prosperity

Govinda Neupane

In any society, politics is one of the most important topics which should generate debate. Unfortunately, in Nepal, politics is considered as a well understood and already concluded issue and the debate centers around political rituals. In essence, politics is the collective act of one or more non-antagonistic economic class or classes to protect and promote their class interests by blending, programming and packaging their interests in a certain ideology, theory and a pattern of behaviors. Therefore, one has to understand the class-base and the orientation of the ideology, theory and behaviors that their collective act represents. The collective act necessarily relates itself with the existing reality of the society and interacts, influences and interferes by antagonistic or non-antagonistic manner with all other types of collective acts prevailing in that particular time. Since its beginning, the class society is pluralistic politically, economically, socio-culturally, psychologically and organizationally. The plural values, beliefs and practices are not limited to the collective behavior of antagonistic classes; it has been seen within the same type of classes too. In reality, they differ and behave differently within a broad periphery of class interests. To promote and safeguard the class interests collectively, and to represent those interests more effectively, the antagonistic classes fight head-to-head, sometimes in the battlefield when the class contradiction reaches to the boiling point. This is what the Nepalese society is experiencing today.

In the Nepalese society, one can see the fiercest fight. The fight is multidimensional and complex. It has covered ideologies, politics, cultures, values and many more. The fight, primarily, is between the upper class ruling coalition and the working classes. The ruling classes are trying their level best to continue the political, economic and cultural dominance whereas the working classes want to radically reorganize the society including the change of the superstructure. At this moment, the palace has become the leader of the ruling upper class and the Maoists lead the working class majority. In strategic sense, the centrists are the extension of the ruling coalition, but today, in tactical sense, they are humiliated section of the upper class political coalition and use to cry sometimes when a 'friendly-fire' hits them or extreme hunger for power, prestige, wealth and opportunity compels them. This is what the parliamentary opposition's protest movement is all about. Although, they cry to regain their lost glory, this process also may have positive political impact.

Retaining and even strengthening the existing behavioral, programmatic and operational supremacy in all spheres of socio-economic and political governance is the goal of the upper class ruling coalition whereas the leftists led by the Maoists are striving for radical socio-economic and political change. In this way, Nepalese political scene is witnessing a grand fight of unprecedented nature. The contradictions between the antagonistic classes have broadened the scope of struggle, which has entered into the superior level of class war. Now, there are two governing mechanisms. Although, two types of mechanism have been in practice, but that does not necessarily reflect the presence of two systems. The upper class ruling coalition has been operating under the multiparty system whereas the Maoists are going through an experiential course by making several experiments in the area they govern.

During the period of war, any experiment may work, but in a broader political canvas, a comprehensive system alone can provide the appropriate operating mechanism.

The communists all over the world successfully campaigned for a new nature of state power. They were successful in capturing the power in several countries. Once, they were not only a dominant ideology in the world but also the counter-balancing military power. They failed to retain that place. The easy answer is – the revisionists and the capitalists recaptured the power. But why they recaptured the state power so successfully? Was it a policy failure or the failure of implementation? Or, it happened due to more fundamental structural reasons? It is not in one or a few countries the experiment failed. Therefore, the logic of policy or implementation failure doesn’t reflect the reality. This is structural failure of fundamental nature. In the beginning, one of the reasons for the failure of the Paris commune was stated as not effective implementation of dictatorship of the proletariat. This conclusion offered uncompromising stand in favor of dictatorship, which in later years was extended to people with differing views including the communist party leaders and cadres. In the process, most of the communist parties lost their vision, side-lined the values and degenerated as monolithic state bureaucracies. The failure was the outcome of the extension of dictatorship of the party exercised by its leadership. Indeed, the failure was the result of the negation of pluralistic socio-economic and political composition of the society and absence of a superstructure appropriate to address that reality. Certainly, that lesson should get importance, more particularly, during the phase of democratic revolution and reconstruction. Therefore, to address the need of an appropriate superstructure that ensures politico-economic and cultural pluralism with difference, the following provisions may provide the basis.

Constitutionally mandated nature of state that overtly favors working classes, minorities and weaker sections,
Multiparty,
Federal state,
Autonomous regions of nationalities,
New mixed economy,
Multiculturalism, and
State completely free from religious affiliation.

This is not the "Bahudaliya Janabad" as some centrists are busy selling their product under the communist banner. The important factors are the class orientation of the state power and the choice of a mechanism by which the power is exercised. When working class interests, values and visions occupy primacy, rest will fall accordingly. It is important to institutionalize those primacies in the form of constitutional provisions, and for this purpose there is the need of a duly elected constituent assembly. When there are such provisions in the constitution drafted and adopted by the constituent assembly, the armed forces and the bureaucracy need overhaul. A surgical process can insert the new state values within a new operational framework. The amalgamation of two armies into one could provide the opportunity for such surgical process. If this process gets obstructed, the course may turn again into a violent one and the mass uprising or protracted war will insure the insertion of the new vision and values. Finally, if the society has to move forward, there should be a progressive state which operates with dynamic political processes. Obviously, pluralism with difference provides the dynamic environment to all political parties, social and economic institutes and mass organizations to function as centers of excellence and also it makes them accountable as the people judge them continuously. Therefore, the consensus for the pluralism that has equity and justice as its core values, could be a turning point to ensure true democracy, lasting peace and ever flourishing prosperity in Nepal

The People's Review weekly, Kathmandu, June 12-18, 2003.