One year after the formal unification of the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Center), the new Nepal Commu­nist Party (NCP) has only now finalized the chiefs and secre­taries of its 77 district commit­tees. Party leaders hail this as a major achievement toward full-fledged organizational unification. However, there is still considerable dissatisfac­tion in the party over the deci­sion-making of its top leaders, and organizational issues at the local level are yet to be settled. This is happening against the background of growing public frustration with the functioning of the communist government. Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Shyam Shrestha, an analyst of left politics in Nepal, for his insights.

 

 How do you evaluate the federal government’s performance thus far?

Latest data show the country’s Gross Domestic Product is growing by 6.8 percent, a definite increase from previous years. So the size of the national economy has grown. In terms of economic stats, the gov­ernment is not so weak. But expec­tations with this government were high because of its two-third com­mand in the national parliament and because of the ruling party’s effec­tive control over six of the seven pro­vincial governments. The NCP made big promises in its election manifes­to and people are judging it on that basis. Another basis of evaluation is how the government is handling the country’s key priorities. These two bases give us grounds for objective analysis. For one, serious problems have emerged in the implementa­tion of federalism.

 

What problems are you referring to?

The first problem is related to budget allocation. Provincial and local governments cannot fully exer­cise the rights bestowed on them by the constitution if they face a funding crunch. They are short not only of financial but also of human resources. Provincial governments were not given enough financial resources. In last year’s budget, 71 percent was captured by the cen­tral government even though the center does not have many rights. Only 29 percent of the budget has been allocated to provincial and local governments. The alloca­tion is not compatible with federal structures, with a center without many rights keeping more than two-thirds of the budget. This has created a serious problem in the implementation of federalism. Sim­ilarly, the government has failed to mobilize enough staff. The provin­cial government does not have the right to mobilize the police forces, and provincial level home ministries are without any role. The constitu­tion, on the other hand, envisages powerful provincial governments.

 

 

What is the state of the local gov­ernments?

They are not doing well either. Let’s take the example of education. Local governments are empowered to exercise rights related to edu­cation but the center is recruiting the teachers. Recently, the National Education Commission submitted its report to the federal government. The commission has outlined areas that need to be separately imple­mented by federal, provincial and local governments. It has been over three months since the government received the report but it has not been made public yet. This is a cen­tralized, anti-federal mentality. Par­ty co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has himself expressed displeasure at this state of affairs.

 

Is it because those in power now are not committed to federalism?

This is a reality. Earlier, KP Oli used to say publicly that federal­ism was not his agenda. But now that he has become the country’s prime minister, the onus is on him to implement the constitution. British Prime Minister Theresa May cam­paigned to remain in the EU before Brexit, but she now has the respon­sibility to implement it. The same applies here. Sincere and effective implementation of federalism is the prime minister’s political and consti­tutional responsibility.

 

You mean PM Oli himself is not honest about the implementa­tion of the constitution?

Yes. There is inadequate bud­get for the effective functioning of federal structures. The center has monopolized the budget but devel­opment expenditure is low. Most of that budget will be spent at the end of the fiscal. The NCP mani­festo promised radical change in agriculture by ensuring irrigation facilities. The manifesto also states that the country will be self-reli­ant on food within two years. But the budget allocated for agri­culture has been slashed by more than half. This shows the true intent of our prime minis­ter. Farmers are getting very low prices for their produce and yet consumers are overburdened. The government has failed to lessen the role of brokers who are capturing the market. Another problem is that the NCP base is the lower and lower-middle classes but the gov­ernment is serving the interests of the middle and high classes. It seems unaware of the class it represents and how it should function to keep its constituencies intact.

 

In a separate context, a year after formal party unification, NCP leaders claim to have settled dis­puted issues. What do you think?

Top leaders did not take unifi­cation seriously. Party unification does not mean two leaders coming together. First, there should be ideo­logical unification. Second, there should be amicable unification of organizational structures. They announced party unification despite differences on ideology and orga­nizational structures, which was a blunder. Now they are facing the consequences. They should resolve both ideological and organizational issues through serious discussions.

 

But you could argue ideological coherence was never their prior­ity and that unification was just a quick way to get to power.

Yes, ideology is not their prior­ity. There has been no discussion or debate on party ideology after unification, even though the two parties came from separate back­grounds. The Maoists glorified the armed insurgency and they believed in bullets. The UML prioritized the parliamentary front. One party glo­rifies the 10-year-long insurgency while another condemns it. They need to think of how to bridge this ideological gap. Still, they have huge differences, which is why Maoist leaders still talk about Janabadi Kranti (People’s revolution) while former UML leaders adhere to the parliamentary path.

 

How do you see the NCP? Is it a communist or a democratic socialist party?

It would be a big thing if the NCP could be a democratic socialist par­ty. That would be revolutionary. In many Scandinavian countries run by democratic socialist par­ties, the government is responsible for education and health. Norway, Switzerland and Denmark are not communist nations but their govern­ments nonetheless look after senior citizens, and health and education. In our case, Dr. Govinda KC has to stage a fast onto death to improve the health sector. KC, who belongs to the bourgeoisie, is demanding health reform and the communist government listens to him only at the eleventh hour. It is a matter of shame for the government. The constitution clearly mentions that health and education should not be left in the hands of businesses. The government puts on a mask of com­munists but it is pushing a capitalist agenda in practice.

 

Even in capitalist countries, the state takes the responsibility of health and education. Political ide­ologies are immaterial. But in Nepal crucial areas such are health and education are captured by business­men while the government looks on helplessly. This is not the working style of a communist government with a two-third majority.

 

Do you think the unification will last?

If they do not take immediate steps to resolve ideological and other dis­putes, unification will be in grave jeopardy, for three reasons. First, ideological and other backgrounds of the two parties are different. Sec­ond, there is growing dissatisfaction over party functioning. Third, even top leaders are saying that justice has not been done. There are com­plaints that a few leaders exercise a monopoly. Madhav Kumar Nepal’s command over the party is strong as he served as its general secretary for more than 15 years. Similarly, Bam Dev Gautam and Jhala Nath Khanal also have a strong hold. Maoist min­isters are not happy with PM Oli. The ideological as well as organizational issues remain unresolved. The orga­nizational structure is becoming more complicated. There also are questions of intra-party democracy.

 

How do you assess the supposed power-sharing formula between Dahal and Oli?

There may be a dispute as Oli is not ready to step down easily. The party is not working according to a system, and there is a bureaucratic mindset. If a communist party func­tions in a bureaucratic way, it cen­tralizes power at the upper level and creates anarchy at lower levels. Only a participatory approach will sustain unification. The way the party is currently functioning will deepen dissatisfaction among the rank and file, ultimately leading to a split.

 

There are reports that top lead­ers are ganging up against Oli.

This is because of Oli’s own behavior. I see the possibility of big changes in internal alliances. Dahal, Nepal, Khanal and Gautam have all suffered at Oli’s hands. If these four leaders come together, there would be a change in power balance in favor of this alliance. There are high chances of such an alliance and PM Oli fears this. The power balance is unstable. If the four leaders come together, Oli, already in a minority in the politburo, will face the same situation in the Central Committee and other organizational structures.

 

Now, the party is like an alliance of different factions, which are based more on differing interests than on ideological differences. Now they are united only because they are in power and disunity could throw them out of power. There are many ways to sustain party unity but senior leaders don’t seem serious about it. So it will be hard to keep the party unity intact.

 

Is the rift between Oli and Dahal widening?

Yes, due to some pressing issues related to federalism. Similarly, there are reports that PM Oli has not given much importance to min­isters of former CPN (Maoist Center) and constantly interferes with their work. Minister for Education Giriraj Mani Pokhrel, Minister for Industry Matrika Yadav and other ministers have expressed dissatisfaction over the PM’s working style.