C.P. Mainali & CPN (ML) Is The Polemics Over?

By Mukti Rijal

THE write up neither intends to criticise CP Mainali nor appreciation. It is a response to the stimulus of the comments he has received in the newspapers. Some weeklies portray the internal bickerings within CPN (ML) as tussle between General Secretary Bamdev and CP Mainali while other write epitaph on ML as bereft of any promise for future. But dialecticians take solace from the fact that any substance including political party remains alive only through contradiction. And it is no exception for ML as well. However, for ordinary political observers not knowing much about the dialectical nitty gritty it is difficult to take a rational cue from why CP Mainali is always at the centre of dialectical polemics.

Political Career

CP Mainali is not an ordinary politician. His political career starts from the heydays of the Jhapa movement directed at the annihilation of the class enemy. He is said to be one of the executors of the Jhapa communist movement in which alleged class enemies in Maoist parlance were remorselessly liquidated. CP Mainali was at the lead to form the ML party at the beginning of most probably eighties and assumed the role of the mentor. He was an ideologue par excellence.

It is said that he was eased out of the post of general secretary of the party following a rift of two lines. In those days Mainali was very much liberal and mooted for principles of liberty and freedom for competing ideas. It is said that the ideas were far ahead of the time and the party colleagues indoctrinated in dictatorship of proletariat failed to grasp the substance of political liberalisation. He was thrown at the political wayside. Despite the fact that he lost grip in the party he was at the forefront. CP Mainali remained a political mystery till the democratic change of 1990.

He came open only after 1990. He seemed not very much reconciled to the idea of integration of Marxists with ML that transform the party into UML. He led a group of minority within the party that kept alive banner of loggerheads with the so-called majority led by late Madan Bhandari. A keen tussle was launched in the run up to the congress of CPN (UML) held at Kathmandu that witnessed an open ideological polemics between two titans — CP Mainali and Madan Bhandari.

CP Mainali mooted for what is known as new peoples’ democracy in communist parlance while late Madan Bhandari proposed for a radical shift in communist orientation. The late charismatic leader introduced the concept of pluralism in the communist lexicon — a democratic innovation in the ideological arsenal of communist ideology. Ultimately CP Mainali faces with a defeat as a large majority of UML workers rallied around the people’s multiparty democracy espoused by late Madan Bhandari. However, he articulated his differences with the UML leadership invariably from within. Madan Bhandari died in a mysterious jeep accident that cut short a promising political career.

In the mid term election held in 1994, the UML was catapulted into an enviable position by bagging largest number of seats in the Parliament. This gave the party an opportunity to be invited for forming government — an important event in the history making the ascendancy of communists topower through peaceful democratic elections. CP Mainali took charge of the Ministry of Local Development  His ministerial career was important in the sense that the government gave special emphasis in strengthening the capacity of Village Development Committees — the local bodies at the pyramid. For the first time a sizeable resource was transferred to local bodies directing them to plan for village development. The initiative was hailed and it has been given continuity with added emphasis.

However, the ministerial stint of CP Mainali was shortened due to rift in the cabinet. He was dismissed from the cabinet. The minority communist government was pulled down within nine month of its rule through a court decision that ruled for the reinstatement of the parliament dissolved at the recommendation of the then Prime Minister Man Mohan Adhikari.

CP Mainali took an embrace of nationalist posture when the party got stuck in the Mahakali treaty imbroglio. The treaty ratification issue caused vertical fracture in the party with senior  leaders split into pro-Mahakali and anti-Mahakali camp. The issue sowed seed of division in the formidable communist party. With leaders the Bamdev Gautam, Sahana Pradhan, Ashok Rai coming to resonate with him on several issues CP Mainali found himself in a convenient position to engineer split in the party. Bamdev Gautam and CP Mainali launched an open struggle against what they called as right deviations said to be well entrenched in the UML party. They refused to take part in the Nepalgunj Congress of the party arguing that they did not subscribe to the party positions on ideological issues.

Ultimately they created a new party called CPN (ML). The last parliamentary election saw a complete rout of the ML, as none of its leaders including CP Mainali, Sahana Pradhan and Bamdev Gautam were able to get elected to the Parliament. Even the rationale of split and formation of new party has been questioned now. Recently, ML central committee has decided to unseat CP Mainali from the chief of the organisation department of the party alleging that he has breached the discipline. Bamdev-CP row is said to have reached at the peak.

Spotlight

The spotlight is again focussed on CP Mainali. Why the suave, mild-mannered and intelligent communist leader fails to associate himself with the party comfortably? Why he is accused of breaching discipline? These questions come to the fore when left politics debated and discussed. Why a liberal minded, sharp and erudite CP Mainali searches for conservative communist identity and banks upon obsolescent phraseology? Accusation against him show that his views cannot be trimmed or tamed by straitjacket of the party. Then why he seems keen to create frameworks? These questions beg some introspection.

A Case Of Political Appointees

By Gandhi Raj Kafle

SHOULD the practice of political appointment in the state-owned corporations be stopped? This question has become a major issue of discussion these days. Even in times of liberalisation after 1990 corporation’s heads have been overwhelmingly recruited from decisions of the Council of Ministers or of concerned ministries. The impact is not encouraging. Corporation balance sheets do not show promising trend of profits, their contribution to the revenue of government looks dismal and internal financial crisis of them too in many cases has gone adverse. Though there may be other reasons for the sorry state of corporations, the experts believe political appointment to be the main causes behind it.

Criticism

This time, unlike in the past, the criticism to shun such practice came from the newly appointed Finance Minister Mahesh Acharya. In his words, political interference in state-owned public corporations has resulted in a sharp decline in production thereby demoralising the employees, and checking such interference helps make the administration effective.

Mr Acharya is a politician, a lawmaker of the ruling Nepali Congress and freshly the Finance Minister of the country. He might have maintained reservations about it. If he had done so, he could have easily preserved the right to appointment and political interference in the corporations and companies under the Ministry of Finance.

Yet, there is truth in it. The Finance Minister showed his audacity to accept it. Corporations’ role and future in the prevailing condition of Nepalese economy have not ended yet. Whether it is the banking sector or airlines, industry or agriculture and commercial spheres or service providing fields, corporations make the common people feel the presence of the government. The establishment of these institutions has been made with great investment.

However, our corporations cannot become vibrant to keep their internal functions in order unless they are provided autonomy. To knock the door of the ministry for guidance has not proved to assist in enhancing the efficiency of the corporations. This is what exactly felt here. Finance Minister Acharya’s criticism to shun political interference in corporations reflects the same feeling.

Though the concern of Mr Acharya about political interference shows the prime cause of problems, the other aspects too are equally considerable. To note a few, the state’s ambiguous policy, fragile leadership, corruption prone attitude, slow process of development of internal leadership and government’s lacklustre attitude to provide autonomy are also hurdles for corporate development in Nepal.

If we consider the expansion and development of corporations, it should have taken a definite direction on its own. But the situation today is not like this. They are not only directionless, but dependent too. Only a very few corporations are in a position to pay revenue to the government. Majority of them are hard pressed to sustain even everyday administrative costs. In this condition, privatisation may be an immediate option for the government. But, it too has its complications because of the slow development of the private sector.

Besides this, corporations in Nepal hold huge resources of which the government has the major share. This financial position, if we keep aside some privatised companies and corporations, has not changed until now. Nepal Bank Limited, the country’s first bank, however floated some shares to the general public. The big corporations like Nepal Telecommunication Corporation, Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation, Nepal Oil Corporation and Nepal Electricity Authority have not come up until now to do that. The proposals to become lion share holder have a big significance while general public’s participation does not draw encouraging publicity. This trend has to be changed, if the government is interested in strengthening the participation of the public in the process of privatisation.

If privatisation is a set course of the government, the need of the hour and an unavoidable part of the global economy, the government should pursue a non-intervention policy as per the corporations. And, to do this, the practice of political appointment for the posts of corporations heads should come to an end in the first phase.

The Finance Minister, who spoke of the need with the term of political interference recently, is certainly right while addressing the issues of troubles of state-owned corporations. But, will it be practised in reality?

However, to the talented and result-oriented managers, the practice will not be an obstruction. In the past, when there were coalition government, this was not given much attention. Only political affiliation were cared for. Managers were appointed en-masse, they were fired en-masse with the frequent change in the government. Political interference at state-owned corporations was the reality of the day.

The troubles of the practice were felt because such appointees’ credential as managers was debatable. So, their leadership and performance did not help the corporations of Nepal gain a definite direction as profit-making and expanding organisations.

Today the era of coalition government has ended, at least for four years to come with key to the government. But, will the stability help our economy grow fast? Will our public corporations catch a service conscious and sustainable path of progress relieving the financial burden of the government?

Models

The different kind of models of the Ministry of Finance to privatise such corporations need attention. So, there is ground to expect justifiable and practical treatment from the government side for public-owned organisations.

The Road Ahead

By PNK

  THE summer months are on and it seems besides the need to quench the thirst of the people in general the Opposition Party is out to moisten its parched tongue at least for the time being. The heat is on both on the natural front as well as on the political front.

  The change of the ruling party head has made the Opposition come out in a great way for trying to justify its motives for bandhs and nationwide stirs. For a good cause everything is justified but the disruption of the people’s lives in the name of politics can never be justified.

  Nepal Bandh or Chakkajam or whatever it may be causes several pains to the general people on the move. Where the nation should be moving forward everything comes to a halt. And the cry for rapid national development just becomes a hoarse cry for going back and not forward.

  Just when the new government was formed, the spate of bandhs has started causing untold miseries to the people. Who knows that this may be called for the relief of the people. In fact, it just cannot be for the people’s benefit. Everyone knows that a new government has to be given time to prove its worth. But before it gets started
the blockades and uncalled for bandhs just doesn’t allow the government to prove that it’s capable of doing the needful.

  In fact, the political leaders of all the concerned parties know what is good and what is not. In spite of this knowledge, the great urge to make their presence felt seems to be predominant. In this tussle the people or their interest gets lost and all the while it becomes a show of muscles.

  Muscles are necessary for the body to be strong but the wrong use can cause more problems than solutions not only in the short run but in its long impact as well. This humbly yours does hardly have the backup to show his muscles in public but the big parties do have. It simply denotes that unity is strength. This fact is important when we talk of the fact that  arriving to a national consensus is a much talked about topic for some time. But where has the consensus vanished?

  A State Minister’s houses get blown up and a series of events unfold themselves. Who is to be blamed but the Maoists. But when others get the knock on their heads it’s rather regrettable. After all, muscle power is not everything in this world as far as the most rationale being are concerned.

  A clear investigation is necessary into the matter before the move goes to stall House proceedings. This means that stalling House proceedings is just going to cost the taxpayers a little more than what it normally would have been. The people don’t have a field day in the real sense of the word. The people seem to be mere mute spectators rather than active participants. Now it’s upto the political leaders concerned to do the right thing at the right moment and not create disarray when the country’s economy is in the doldrums.