What People Can Accomplish Through Election?

This question seems vital today as in Nepal, CPN(M) is going to be in power through parliamentary election. We are aware of the CPN(M)’s claim that they had been waging people’s war for ten years for the aim of new democratic revolution. Now, CPN(M) leadership, looks very happy, pretends that they have accomplished whatever they aimed for. It obviously raises couple of questions. Firstly, what was their aim? Secondly, if their aim could be accomplished through parliamentary election then what had been the point of shedding blood of the Nepalese people through people’ war? It would have been better to struggle for a fair parliamentary election. At least it could have saved the lives of people.

Therefore, the standpoint of CPN(M) needs analysis a bit.

If their aim was new democratic revolution, then it is quite clear that whatever CPN(M) could accomplish is not the new democratic revolution. Revolution is something which deals with the production relation. If the production relation remains the same as before, then it is something else than revolution. We are aware that the contradiction between Nepalese people and the imperialism, comprador capitalism (and expansionism) and feudalism constitute the principal contradictions of the Nepalese society. Therefore, abolishing the class enemies and thereby changing production relation can only bring the fundamental change in Nepal. It includes the revolutionary land reformation and confiscation of imperialist-comprador capitals. Interestingly, Prachanda has now become the advocate of the running of imperialist and comprador capitals in Nepal. So, they are not going to bring any fundamental change in terms of principal contradictions of Nepal. The only difference it can make is the removal of the king. Imperialism-expansionism-comprador capitalism and feudalism will be untouched as they have been before. Therefore, the victory of CPN(M) in election will not bring any revolution in the Nepal.

Some can still argue that CPN(M) may exert its power while it will be in the ministry and gradually bring the fundamental change. In practice it never happened in the world and theoretically it is against the teaching of Com. Mao. The idea of bringing change through parliamentary election is nothing but a form of the ‘peaceful transition’, the revisionist line promoted by Khrushchev against which Communist Party of China under the leadership of Com. Mao waged a two line struggle. Accepting the idea of bringing fundamental change through parliamentary election is the direct negation of the teaching of Com Mao.

Still the victory of CPN(M) in the election is significant. It confirms that the people of Nepal want a fundamental alteration in the system. As the CPN(M) had been waging armed struggle, people have been hoodwinked by the idea that victory in election is the same as concentrating power of the people’s committee all over the country through new democratic revolution.

Taste of power in a neocolonial type semicolonial-semifeudal country, gradually converts revisionists into fascists. The experience of Left-Front government in three different provinces of India in post-Naxalbari period once again shows the correctness of the line of Naxalbari. In near future, people of Nepal will see the same; how a fiery party gradually gets tamed to serve the interest of the class-enemies and finally turn into fascists.