 |
|
| Kathmandu Tuesday March 12, 2002 Falgun 28, 2058. |
|
Significance of UML-ML
unification
By BHIM RAWAL
Recent organisational unification between the
Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and the Communist Party of Nepal (ML)
has provoked vivid thoughts in various circles. It is quite natural for the unification to
boggle the minds of conscious citizens and political analysts. The impact of this
unification on national politics, and on the leftist parties of course merit attention.
The present unification move is actually a revival of general unity orientation of the UML
which started about two decades ago. It had contributed to the gradual development of the
UML as a mainstream communist party. The trend of unification and adoption of competitive
politics adhered to by the UML were seriously impaired due to the split in its
parliamentary party four years ago. The division in the parliamentary party and virtual
formation of another communist party not only tarnished the image and integrity of the
party but seriously influenced national politics. Objective analysis of political
developments of the past four years amply shows the negative results due to the split in
the CPN (UML). Division and polemical debate within the main opposition were not
beneficial to the novice multi-party democracy in any way. That is why the UML and ML
boldly came forward together realising their past mistakes. The present unification is
itself a major step in that regard.
Polarisation and unification among political
forces are a continuing process determined according to the dynamism of society. However,
the conscious and determined efforts of political leaders sometimes lessen or hasten that
process. Questions of political ideology, programme, policy and attitudes of course remain
as factors of unity or division. The division in the UML four years back also resulted
because of serious differences in policy issues among the leaders in the Central
Committee. Transformation of those differences into sharp conflicting stands had dragged
the party towards split. Consequently, some unfounded accusations and attacks were made
against each other when animosity was at a climax. It happens everywhere when political
differences turn into points of enmity. Political differences and contradictions are not
static. In the case of the UML, no one had opposed the programme of people’s
multi-party democracy even during the polemical sixth national congress of the party. All
the leaders, including those who broke away later on, had participated in all procedures
of the national congress.
The present unification between UML and ML is
a practical realization of the fact that it was a subjective and illogical judgment to be
divided over the issues and differences that cropped up at the time of the national
congress. A system of democratic debate and decision making procedure was to be followed
for reaching a particular point of understanding. Such realisation itself augurs well for
unified endeavours in the leftist political spectrum. It would positively influence the
unity efforts made by other small communist parties too. The Maoist’s offensive for
the polarisation of the leftist forces towards its own direction will also be greatly
discouraged by the UML-ML unification. It is not a secret that the division in the UML had
disillusioned many of its activists and followers and some of them had deserted in favour
of the Maoists. Another remarkable section of the UML rank and file had become vulnerable
to Maoist manoeuvring. It had contributed to swelling the ranks of the Maoists both
because of psychological jubilance and availability of more prospective followers. This
factor is considerably minimised after the unification between the UML and ML. That is why
the Maoists are irked by the unification. The UML rank and file are also freed from the
traumatic disappointment caused due to the split and their susceptibility to the Maoists
has decreased. Furthermore, the UML, now by means of unification, has demonstrated its
absorbing capability just as it had already proved its endurance right after the split
four years ago.
The UML-ML unification has further evolved
the UML as an undeniable alternative parliamentary force. More than 20,000 members,
hundreds of party committees and scores of elected representatives of the ML have been
unified with the UML. More than six hundred thousand popular votes acquired in the general
election by the ML are also added in favour of the UML. It will have a long-term impact
both on Nepalese politics and the leftist movement. It is cynical to undermine or to
ignore this fact. Political analysts, who are more concerned about political stability and
smooth running of the democratic process in the country, see the unification as a positive
trend. They think that the disintegration and continued quarrels in political parties
emasculate them, virtually weakening the fledgling democracy. This assertion has been
proved true in the past 12 years of multi-party democracy. Therefore it might be only
wishful thinking to minimise the importance of the unification simply because of past
polemical debates among leaders on policy matters. No one is ignorant about the fact that
the policies, views and even ideologies are dynamic and political leaders or workers have
to adjust themselves according to the need of the time. The political leaders or forces
who are not responsive to society could only turn deaf ears towards the objective
conditions.
Every one has to accept the dictates of time.
Friendship and cooperation is seen between arch rivals and enemies in many instances even
in the international political arena. Sometimes unity turns to disunity and vice versa.
But the unity between the UML and ML is not a case of diametrically opposite poles. Both
of the parties, in fact, were following the political programme of People’s
Multi-party Democracy. Thus the UML-ML unification is neither a wonder nor an unprincipled
and unethical move. It is also not limited within a narrow and selfish objective of
immediate gains. It is rather motivated towards creating a strong political party to face
the challenges confronted by the country. As a broad based effective political party
itself is always a reliable vehicle for democracy, it is ridiculous to argue that
consolidation or unity of a political party should be entirely separated from the routine
practice of elections. It is needless to say that elections are not only a means of public
interest articulation but also an inevitable mechanism provided to the people to elect
their representatives. Then, what would be wrong with UML-ML unification if it will add
more vigour and energy to the CPN (UML) to present itself effectively in the coming
elections. It may be a childish argument to say that UML and ML leaders, while unifying
themselves, were motivated to gain victories in elections and to form their government in
future, and therefore they should be criticized. Political parties are meant for running
the government with popular mandate in a democratic system. No political party can realise
its programme and policies without taking up the reins of government. The ambition of
running the government and programme implementation cannot be viewed as an effort directed
towards self aggrandizement. Such views are actually a reflection of negative attitude
rampant in Nepalese society these days. If the political parties are not meant for public
interest aggregation, articulation, representation and governance, then what are they
meant for? The relevance of a political party definitely lies in its efficiency at public
mobilization and running the government. Does the negation of the essential role in
governance of a political party match democratic practice and the constitutional
framework? Is it compatible with the anticipation of the people? The rationale and
importance of the unification of the UML and ML should be gauged from that perspective
too. While the leaders of both of the parties have accepted past division as a blunder and
urged all to take lessons from the sad results of the split, everyone anxious about the
capability of political parties must be happy and satisfied to some extent. Time will show
the sustainability of the unification. Hasty prophecy and conclusions would be only
premature exercises.
The unification between the UML and ML sends
some message also to the ruling Nepali Congress (NC). The NC leaders had seen their
success in the dismemberment of the CPN (UML) four years ago but now they themselves have
been bogged down in internal bickering while the CPN (UML) has been unified. It is a fact
that the Nepali Congress has failed politically despite its election successes. It could
not prove its election successes beneficial to the county even after the split in the CPN
(UML). The people and the country always became sufferers under the governance of the NC.
So neither the celebration in some quarters during the time of split in the UML nor the
mourning at the present time of unification is based on an understanding of the
significance of party driven democracy. Whatever the judgment of subjective minds, the UML
and ML unification will have a direct and meaningful bearing on national politics.
(The author is former member of parliament)
Other Stories
|
