Inter Press Service, April 16, 2008

by Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI, Apr 16 (IPS) - After greatly surprising the world through its spectacular victory in direct first-past-the-post elections to the country’s new constituent assembly, the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-M) now appears likely to perform far better than expected in the proportional representation (PR) component of the house too.

As the counting of votes proceeds, the CPN-M has bagged almost one-third of the vote for the PR seats and established about a 10 percentage-point lead over each of its main rivals, the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) or CPN-UML.

When the results are declared for the 240 direct seats and 335 PR positions, the elected delegates will nominate another 26 members to complete the Assembly’s full strength of 601. This is bound to go in favour of the Maoists.

As the likelihood grows that the CPN-M could win a simple majority in the constituent assembly on its own, the world is struggling to come to terms with this earth-shaking development, as are Nepal’s neighbours and its own elite.

The CPN-M is slated to become the first Far Left current in any country of the world to come to national power through democratic elections since the Cold War ended.

Its victory comes barely four months after Nepal’s 240 year-old monarchy was toppled on Dec. 23, and the small Himalayan nation was firmly put on the road to a democratic, federal and secular republic.

What explains the Maoists’ emphatic win in Nepal? What do the factors responsible for it say about the direction of evolution of politics in Nepal? And what does the new democratic republican regime imply for relations within the South Asian region, and between it and the world?

Several commentators have argued that one of the reasons the CPN-M did as well as it has is that it used its "well-oiled campaign machinery" in a subtle "countrywide deployment of threat and intimidation during the run-up to the elections", which demoralised its opponents.

An additional factor, they say, might have been "the voters’ desire to keep the Maoists from returning to the ‘people's war’" they practised before 2005, with all the violence it entailed.

However, over 20,000 observers, including 1,000 observers from 28 international organisations, who watched the election process, have reached a different conclusion. The United Nations Mission in Nepal has also held that the elections were by and large free and fair.

The 67 percent voter turnout also supports this conclusion.

A significant component of these observers’ teams was the independent National Election Observation Committee, which invited 65 international observers, including many from South Asia, and mobilised 24,000 local observers and volunteers in support.

Its preliminary report holds that the elections were by and large free and fair and conducted transparently and in accordance with "internationally accepted norms and standards" right from the candidate registration stage to the sealing of the ballot boxes.

These teams witnessed the election process for several days before actual polling on Apr. 10 and visited numerous "sensitive" constituencies, and looked into allegations of irregularity, intimidation and violence. They noted that two candidates were killed and 18 other people lost their lives.

According to the NEOC preliminary report, "Most candidates campaigned actively, although incidents of restriction were reported from several constituencies. Overall, in most of the places, candidates were able to convey their campaign message without interference, and the freedom of movement and assembly were mostly respected…"

It adds: the "electronic and print media offered space to the contesting parties. The legal framework provided for equal campaign opportunities. It prohibited candidates from any abuse of official position... It forbid officials from using the authority to influence the free expression of citizens’ will by creating unequal conditions, or showing partiality."

It also noted a high level of participation of women candidates, voters and observers.

"It is hard to argue that the build-up to the polling was marked by threat or intimidation,’’ says Kamal Mitra Chenoy, a Jawaharlal Nehru University professor from Delhi, who served as an NEOC observer.

He is seconded by Karamat Ali, director of the Karachi-based Pakistan Institute for Labour Research and Education, who was also part of the NEOC team.

In the event, many commentators were taken by surprise at the groundswell of support for the Maoists because they assumed that the NC and CPN(UML) are, and continue to be, the political "mainstream", into which the CPN-M aspired to enter.

"Many people were encouraged by dubious opinion polls commissioned by the U.S. embassy in Kathmandu, which gave the Maoists only 8 to 10 percent of the popular vote," comments Ali. "They seriously underestimated the widespread anti-monarchy and anti-establishment sentiment, and the undermining of the credibility of the NC and CPN(UML) because of their long years of collaboration with the King."

In reality, it is CPN-M that has emerged as the "mainstream", which has laid down Nepal’s political agenda at least for the last three years, if not longer.

Significantly, the CPN-M speaks for the smaller ethnic groups, or Janajatis, outside the Kathmandu Valley which has dominated Nepali politics. It has articulated their concerns and aspirations unlike the NC and CPN-UML. This gives it a far more representative character.

"The CPN-M’s influence has been steadily growing", says Achin Vanaik, an international relations professor at Delhi University, who has just published an analytical study of Nepal’s recent political transition. "The turning point came in the mass mobilisation or Jan Andolan of Apr. 2006, a 19-day uprising driven by the Maoists’ demand for the abolition of the monarchy and elections to form a constituent assembly,"

"The Jan Andolan", adds Vanaik, "brought over a million people into the streets of Kathmandu and other cities. This precipitated a huge shift in the balance of political forces, and produced a historic change in establishing a republic. But this was itself the culmination of long years of the CPN-M’s political work and campaigning on issues like land reforms, gender equality, and radical economic policies right since 1996, when the party went underground."

The political course in Nepal will now be set mainly by the CPN-M. While it is firm on its demand that King Gyanendra must quit, and that its own People's Liberation Army must be integrated with the Nepalese Army, it has pledged to work with the other parties and form a coalition government till a new constitution is drafted and fresh elections are held in 2010.

"By all indications, the CPN-M seems inclined to adopt a moderate and consensual course," says Karamat Ali. "The Kathmandu establishment and forces loyal to the monarchy will do all they can to thwart Nepal's transition to a stable democratic, federal, egalitarian and secular republic."

"The main instrument in the hands of these forces of reaction is violence, Ali said. The CPN-M must not fall into the trap of countering their violence with violence. And that calls for great statesmanship and political acumen. It also means that the new leadership must handle external pressures with great tact."

The external forces that matter the most are India and the United States. A section of the Indian establishment views the Maoists with great suspicion and hostility, not least because it cannot control them as easily as the pliant NC and CPN-UML, and because they stand for a "truly independent republic".

Barely a week before polling day, India's National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan made an astoundingly partisan statement in support of the Nepali Congress.

Strong anti CPN-M sentiments have been expressed by senior officials of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in private media briefings. They are resentful and worried that the Maoists will want to renegotiate the 1950 treaty of peace and friendship with India. This group would like to play hardball with the new government, and continue to support anti-Maoist groupings in the Terai plains abutting India.

However, there are saner voices too. They are acutely aware that India has no choice but to accept the democratic verdict of the Nepali people and will have to rework and rethink its Nepal policy without being partisan and interfering.

Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee appears to represent the second group. He says India accepts the mandate of the Nepali people. He has already spoken to CPN-M chairman Prachanda (Pushpa Kamal Dahal) and assured him of India's support to and cooperation with the new government.

To counter the impression that India is hostile to, or shaken by the Maoists’ victory, senior Indian government officials held a special media briefing on Apr. 15, in which they stressed that India not only accepts the electoral verdict in Nepal, but also welcomes it.

The official said they regard the CPN-M as "a normal legitimate party", and recalled the role of India played in facilitating a major agreement in November 2005 between the Maoists and the seven-party alliance, including the NC and the CPN-UML. They also said that the "Old Nepal" under the king "was not working for us", and that they are no longer "attached" to it.

The Indian government has not yet decided how strongly it should press Washington to take the CPN-M off its list of designated terrorist organisations. That could well become a test of India's commitment to working with the emerging new order in Nepal.

(END/2008)