The Workers Dreadnought

The majority of the Central Committees (CC) in the UCPN(Maoist) is in favour of the revised Prachanda proposal that proposes that the Party should move forward and ensure the peaceful promulgation of a Nepalese constitution and bring the successfully complete the peace process. However, by doing so they have raked up another festering problem in the UCPN(Maoist): the very constitution of the CC’s membership. The problem can be stated thus: since the 7-point agreement, the CPN(Maoist) had been uniting with other Left parties (many of which are quite small) to form the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). However, as is the case in most Party mergers there exist a whole host of issues including these three main ones: 1) outstanding ideological disagreements; 2) evaluation of Party history, strategy and tactics and; 3) the allocation of appropriate amount of leadership positions to both parties. In the case of the UCPN(Maoist) mergers that have taken place thus far there is agreement on several core issues, however, a number of issues continue to remain unresolved. Thus, in the UCPN(Maoist) there exist three main problems that have arisen from these mergers: 1) there are new Party leaders and members who fundamentally disagree on a number of basic line issues, for example  Maoism vs. advocate Mao Zedong Thought (this is one of the main reasons that the Party today upholds the unwieldy line of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism/Mao Zedong Thought, and has had to drop Prachanda Path); 2) there are new Party leaders who fundamentally disagreed, and continue to disagree, with the line of Protracted People’s War and the CPN(Maoist)’s recent history and are more interested in being members of the UCPN(Maoist) as long as it remains an electoral Party (this has been accompanied with an open-door policy on new members) and; 3) there are now a hold host of leaders who have been given politbureau and central committee positions without ever having been elected to such positions by majority of the leadership, hence the bloating of the CC to over 140+ people, although this should have been mitigated by given CC seats on the basis of the size of the merging organization.

Now as this article suggests, and as many around the Party have worried, the new Party members and leaders who have joined in the last few years have given greater strength to the Bhattarai and Prachanda factions, rather than the Kiran faction. In fact, leaders like Matrika Yadav, who would have been sympathetic to the Kiran campaign have actually already split from the Party on several occasions. The three issues identified above have already been kicked down the road several times and cannot be formally resolved till there is another congress as only a general congress of the UCPN(Maoist) can determine, in one way or another, any of these issues in a manner with any political legitimacy. Indeed, only at a congress will it become clear whether a majority of the rank-and-file membership of the UCPN(Maoist) actually cares for either the Kiran or the Bhattarai line, as no longer is the CC’s constitution an accurate reflection of the membership itself. Thus, another ugly and unwieldy knot has begun to come undone and it is not clear how the UCPN(Maoist) will be able to disentangle it without it coming complete apart. However, it is only through a resolution of these very problems can the Party begin to realistically start to adopt a more coherent political strategy and develop an appropriate set of tactics. Now the Party just has to ensure that it does not slip and fall into the ravines below.

Majority in Maoist CC for peace, statute

KIRAN PUN

KATHMANDU, April 26: It is now almost certain the line of peace and constitution, floated by Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal in his new political document, will command a majority in the party Central Committee (CC).

The line of revolt and state capture, floated by Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya, fared poorly at the CC after the moderates led by Vice-chairman Dr Baburam Bhattarai also threw their weight behind Dahal´s proposal.

The fact that most of the new entrants have joined either the Dahal or Bhattarai factions has helped the line of peace and constitution gain a majority.

As of Monday, around 60 CC members have backed the peace and constitution line and the rest, from the Baidya faction, support the line of revolt.

Baidya has the support of three members in the Standing Committee including CP Gajurel, Dev Gurung and Netra Bikram Chand, while Bhattarai has the support of Dinanath Sharma and Top Bahadur Rayamaji.

Similarly, Dahal has the support of Narayankaji Shrestha, Ram Bahadur Thapa, Post Bahadur Bogati, Krishna Bahadur Mahara, Giriraj Mani Pokharel and Barsaman Pun. Two other members, Amik Serchan and Lilamani Pokharel, are neutral.

In the 47-member politburo, Baidya has the support of 12 members including Indra Mohan Sigdel, Dharmendra Bastola, Khadga Bahadur Bishwakarma, Kul Prasad KC, Hari Bhakta Kandel, Pampha Bhusal, Hitman Shakya and Narayan Sharma Poudel, besides Gurung, Gajurel and Baidya himself.

In the 148-member CC, Baidya has the support of some 50 members.

Most Maoist leaders and cadres who joined the party after the peace process started have been in the Dahal and Bhattarai factions and that is why these two leaders command such a huge majority.

Ever since the peace process began, around half a dozen fringe parties have joined the Maoist party, and very few of their leaders are in Baidya´s faction.

But Hark Bahadur Shahi from the Workers Peasants Party, Ram Acharya from CPN (ML-Revolutionary) and Krishna Bhujhel from CPN (United) are in the Baidya faction.

Of the 31 CC members who joined the party from the CPN (Unity Center-Masal), Kishan Sharma alone is in the Baidya faction. Three memers, Ghanashyam Sharma Poudel, Sashi Shrestha and Dharma Chandra Lawati, are neutral.

From this group Amik Sherchan, Lilamani Pokherel, Dharma Chandra Lawati, Shashi Shrestha, Ghanshyam Sharma Paudel stand on a middle path.

Baidya has the support of those who lost near and dead ones and suffered the most during the insurgency but are not beneficiaries of the peace process.

Baidya accuses the new entrants of being opportunists who joined the party out of vested interests.

“Many of them are real estate brokers and run foreign employment businesses. They have bank balances and own houses and land,” says a leader close to Baidya.

There he said it. It needed to be said. He finally said it. He should have said it months, nay years ago. But Kiran has finally broken his peace. The latest news from the ongoing Central Committee meeting of the UCPN(Maoist) reports that Kiran has tabled a political document that accuses Prachanda of “revisionism, eclecticism, reformism and dishonesty”. This is perhaps the first time in the long two-line struggle that has characterized the Party’s inner-politics in the last few years that anyone has been explicitly been accused of being engaged in ‘revisionism’ and ‘reformism’, although such epithets have often been bandied about. Furthermore, such denunciations have largely been reserved for Baburam Bhattarai and his line, and have never been addressed at Prachanda himself. However, in recent years one can see a marked change in the personage of Dahal and it is difficult to picture him as the ‘the fierce one’ any longer. It is unlikely that any revolt will occur in the coming months and the Party seems to be nearing a split, although the remarkable thing about the UCPN(Maoist) has been its capacity to reinvent itself through a process of political transformation. There has been a prevalent assumption that if there was to be a vertical split in the Party that it would have resulted in a Prachanda-Kiran faction and a Bhattarai faction, this is no longer the case.

It is no secret that the Bhattarai faction has been calling for a congress for years. However, this is the first time that the Kiran faction has joined that chorus. The Prachanda faction has always opposed a congress as they have the most to lose as many of their faction would have to step aside to make place for a new Party leadership and bureaucracy that will inevitable emerge (the question of how the factions are represented in the Party is already itself a major point of contention that has led to this political impasse). It seems more than likely than ever that a general congress is going to be called to ensure that a premature split does not occur. The ideal situation would be an election of a new leadership and line going forward. Thus, one would ideally  see Kiran’s line of general revolt being adopted on the basic revolutionary strategic questions and Bhattarai’s line on inner-party democracy and social programming also being adopted. Prachanda ideally would be demoted from the Chairmanship and would have to engage in a process of clear rectification, as it is the problem of eclecticism and dishonesty that are the most damaging.

That of course is the most ideal situation and the least likely to occur, although if there is a Party in which such a thing could occur it is the UCPN(Maoist). However, the very real possibility of a split looms. It is clear that Prachanda and several of his lieutenants are no longer trusted by either Bhattarai or Kiran and their respective factions, and it would be difficult to imagine him being in either leader’s faction for a very long period of time. Thus, one would imagine a small Prachanda-led party and a small Bhattarai-led party in the electoral sphere, and a Kiran faction in the extra-parliamentary sphere. I have argued that ideally there would be some form of political rapprochement between the Bhattarai and Kiran factions as they have both helped produce a vibrant and dynamic Party and political line which has aided in its political rise. There have been repeated instances in which the Kiran faction has defended Bhattarai from disciplinary action in recent months, despite the fact that at the time it was clear that Bhattarai’s line could have been as easily explicitly been accused of “revisionism” and “reformism”. Indeed, one may be able to accuse Bhattarai of many things, but he has never been ‘eclectic’ or ‘dishonest’. A twist on this could be a situation in which a Party congress occurs and results in the demotion of Prachanda and him walking out of the Party with his faction in protest, and leaving Bhattarai and Kiran in one Party that follows democratic centralism.

It is a pity that it has taken so much time and energy to finally recognize something that  both those inside and outside of the Party had realized a ling time ago: the Party needs to have a Party congress to actually map out the way forward. No longer can expanded politbureau, CC, and plenum meetings suffice. The Party should have held a congress many years ago when it entered into the peace process and its failure to do so has reduced it to a dithering Party. However, Kiran finally said it and now the Party can take a collective step forward and reorient itself to the project of revolution and a communist Nepal. This will be a most difficult test of the  inner strength of the Party and its capacity to actually engage in the process of ‘unity-split-transformation’ which they have been so proud of.

Hardliners bash Dahal

REPUBLICA

KATHMANDU, April 24: UCPN (Maoist) leaders from the party hard-line faction strongly objected to the political document presented by Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal who has proposed deferring the line of revolt and focusing on peace and constitution.

“The new proposal amounts to surrender to regressive forces,” a leader quoted Dev Gurung as saying. He appeared more aggressive than any other leader who spoke on Saturday.

Gurung also accused Dahal of quitting the party´s vital stances since he became the coordinator of the subcommittee of the CA´s Constitutional Committee.

Similarly, Netra Bikram Chand argued that there was no need to change the party´s line of revolt. “There are no fundamental changes in the objective reality since the Palungtar plenum. So it is wrong to change the line of revolt,” a leader quote Chand as saying.

Chand, who is close to Baidya and is an ardent advocate of revolt, was gentle in his voice but heavily criticized Dahal for changing the line.

CP Gajurel was also very critical of Dahal. “Though we cannot fix a point of time for a revolt, there is no alternative to a revolt. So the party should make preparations and wait for an opportune time,” a leader quoted Gajurel as saying. Gajurel, who is also from Baidya camp, said that the party should formulate policy and programs aimed at achieving the revolutionary goals set ahead of the ´people´s war.

On the other hand, party vice-chairman Dr Baburam stated that he fully supports Dahal´s proposal, and added that the party now needs a new set of leadership on various fronts to implement the party´s programs.

General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa lent support to Dahal, but demanded that the chairman also bring out programs in case the party´s initiatives for peace and constitution fail.

Party standing committee member and Deputy Prime Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara openly supported Bhattarai, while Amik Sherchan and Lilamani Pokhrel did not reveal their leanings to any leaders.

Baidya document lambasts Dahal

KIRAN PUN

KATHMANDU, April 23: Expressing dissent over Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal´s political document, Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya presented a separate document at the party central committee (CC) meeting on Friday, demanding preparations for an immediate revolt to capture state power and write a ´people´s constitution.´

“The chairman has deviated from the party´s revolutionary goals. If the party is to agree to a constitution without ensuring socio-political changes, why did we ask so many to sacrifice their lives,” a leader quoted Baidya as saying at the CC.

Baidya was of the opinion that the country already had the 1990 constitution and the sacrifice of so many people cannot be justified if the party is to accept the spirit of that constitution.

In tones of someone badly cheated, Baidya accused Dahal of “revisionism, eclecticism, reformism and dishonesty”, and said the chairman had betrayed the proletariat and deviated from the party´s goals.

Baidya, who leads the party´s hardline camp, is not for concluding the peace process and constitution drafting through compromises with other parties.

“We should not opt for an integration process that humiliates PLA personnel,” a leader quoted Baidya as saying.

The Maoist senior vice-chairman argued that the Maoist leadership doesn´t want to become mentally prepared to launch a revolt, though the objective situation is conducive for this.

“The reactionary parties are undergoing political crisis while the people are enraged by the government´s inability to solve the problems the country is facing. So the ground is becoming ready for revolt, but the party lacks preparations for that,” he said.

The Baidya faction has argued that the central committee cannot overturn a decision taken by the party plenum. The party CC held immediately after the Palungtar plenum last November endorsed the line of revolt.

“We would not accept an anti-people constitution and the silence of the grave. Otherwise we had better follow the line of Mohan Bikram Singh and Madan Bhandari,” said a leader close to Baidya.

Party hardliners say they would see how the chairman reacts to Baidya´s document and then chart out their strategy.

“The floor is now open. It is yet to be seen how the chairman embraces the message of the Paluntar plenum, and we´ll forge our strategy accordingly,” said Kul Prasad KC of the Baidya faction.

At the CC meeting, Dahal presented his political document proposing that the party defer the line of immediate revolt and focus on completion of peace and the constitution.

Acknowledging deepening differences among the leaders, Maoist Chairman Dahal said that the party can hold a general convention by next February to settle to all outstanding feuds.

General convention will be the right solution to fix ideology differences that has weakened the party and created several cracks, a leader quoted Dahal as saying.

The faction led by Dr Baburam Bhattarai has long been demanding a general convention, which is 20 years overdue. The party establishment has been postponing the general convention citing an unfavorable political situation.

Dahal´s proposal proves divisive at CC meeting

HIMALAYAN NEWS SERVICE

KATHMANDU: Unified CPN-M standing committee members were divided over party Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s proposal stating that the party’s official line of people’s revolt be dropped, at the central committee meeting today.

Vice Chairman Baburam Bhattarai said Dahal’s document was basically correct but it should incorporate the issue of forming a national consensus government. He also said the party should change the idea of the principal enemy of the Nepali people.

Vice Chairman Narayan Kaji Shrestha also said Dahal’s document was correct as it had incorporated neo-Marxism.

However, standing committee member Amik Sherchan questioned where the revolution was heading, while General Secretary Ram Bahadur Thapa said there was no basic difference between Dahal’s and Baidhya’s documents, so they should be merged. 

Secretary C P Gajurel said the party did not have three factions and only a two-line struggle existed. “Now chairman Dahal has adopted Bhattarai’s line deserting Baidhya’s,” he said during the meeting. 

Standing Committee member and Deputy Prime Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara confessed he had erroneously presented the draft of the extradition treaty at the legislature parliament, which had now been returned.

Standing committee member Dev Gurung explained the essence and significance of Baidhya’s political document at this critical juncture of the Nepali political scenario. He alleged that Dahal was heading towards ‘national surrender’.

Another standing committee member Netra Bikram Chand alleged that Dahal was more focused on the internal struggle within the party and had forgotten class struggle 

The standing committee members on Baidhya’s side were Dev Gurung, Amik Sherchan, C P Gajurel, Netra Bikram Chand and Lilamani Pokhrel; while Shrestha, Bhattarai, Post Bahadur Bogati, Dinanath Sharma, Top Bahadur Rayamajhi, Giriraj Mani Pokhrel and Mahara supported Dahal. 

A politburo member close to Baidhya claimed that among the 95 central committee members, who had waged the people’s war, Baidhya had hold on a majority of them.

I have consistently argued that the current line struggle inside the UCPN(Maoist) has been characterized by a 3-faction/2-line struggle with the Prachanda faction actually not having an independent line of its own but rather, oscillating between the Kiran and Bhattarai’s lines. But this has not always been the case. It is no closed secret that Baburam Bhattarai and Kiran have always been the chief intellectuals of the Party and that they have always represented different lines. Indeed, this line debate has been one that has animated the Nepalese communist movement since the mid-1980′s with the split inside the CPN(ML)[4th CC] led by Mohan Bikram Singh, and saw Baburam Bhattarai and Kiran on opposing sides then as well. The singularly most important role that Prachanda  has always played in the UCPN(Maoist), and its political predecessors, has been his capacity to develop political documents and strategies that are able to combine in a properly synthetic manner the different lines of the Party in such a manner that promotes ‘unity-split-transformation’ organizationally and political success in the field. In recent years Prachanda, especially with the start of the peace process. has been unable to develop an appropriate line between the Bhattarai and Kiran lines and has thus allowed the Party to drift, and to take a number of contradictory political positions that have confused not only the masses and outside observers, but Party workers themselves. New political programs have not been developed for the countryside and urban programs have only seen modest success. The communes, the Party newspaper and other political organs of the Party have fallen into disrepair due to under-allocation of resources. Furthermore, despite repeated calls for programs that will result in a people’s revolt  from leaders and Party workers alike, no such programs seem forthcoming from the chairman (the one new program that has been developed is the People’s Volunteers and that is being guided by a Kiran-faction member). Worst of all, the untarnished image of a Party of cadre that was willing to sacrifices their lives for a communist Nepal has been damaged by widespread rumors and allegations of corruption and cronyism.

It is difficult to imagine where one should start critiquing Prachanda. We could start with the failures that I have outlined above, but since I have discussed these issues before I feel less inclined to. I think that we should discuss the more damning charge that Kiran has made when he alleged that “a serious ideological deviation had bedeviled” Prachanda and that he engaged in “deception”. These are indeed very sharp words from Kiran and suggest that the Kiran-faction has finally had it with Prachanda and his opportunistic politics and are very close to identifying him with being a revisionist force. It is not clear whether these statements were actually made or whether they will have organizational repercussions, but this latest development seems to suggest that finally in the morass that has been the line struggle there has been a further sharpening of the line. Furthermore, it is clear that all sides have come to recognize the true colors of Prachanda and his bureaucratic faction inside the Party. Indeed, it is clear that Prachanda’s first two reasons for opposing the people’s revolt line are utterly bullshit, and if they are real issues flow from Prachanda’s failure to do “the homework for revolt” which would have included planning for those developments. Prachanda’s latest oscillation has demonstrated that he never intended on pursing a people’s revolt and was simply aligning with the Kiran-faction to shore up his own political support. Unfortunately for Prachanda it is unlikely that the Bhattarai camp will ever warmly welcome him as Prachanda has continuously tried to demonstrate his support for the people’s revolt line by attacking Bhattarai personally and organizationally, rather than developing the necessary structures for the people’s revolt itself.

However, as the article clearly states, Prachanda and Bhattarai have enough CC members to pass this new document in direct contravention to the December resolution on people’s revolt, thus the question that is raised is whether Kiran will simply file a note of dissent or will he split the Party now that he recognizes that the rightist deviation starts from Prachanda and his faction? Indeed, if Bhattarai and Prachanda both represent the rightist deviation then one must conclude that the Party leadership is largely in the hands of the rightist deviation, and Kiran would need to rely on his base, the rank-and-file of the Party. I think the solution should be the filing of a note of dissent, disciplinary action against Prachanda for violating democratic centralism, and the immediate stepping down of Prachanda from the Chairmanship and convening of a Party Congress that would elect a new Party leadership and line.

Dahal swings back to peace, constitution    

POST B BASNET / KIRAN PUN

KATHMANDU, April 20:  Ditching the official party line of revolt, Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has swung back to the line of peace and constitution floated by Vice-chairman Dr Baburam Bhattarai.

In his three-page political document presented at the party politburo meeting on Wednesday, Dahal emphasized the need to conclude the peace process and constitution-drafting to safeguard the political achievements made so far.

“There is a real risk of counter-revolution if we don´t put in best efforts to conclude the peace process and constitution drafting,” a politburo member quoted Dahal´s document.

With constitution-drafting deadline just a month away, Dahal was hard-pressed to choose between peace and a revolt.

The Maoist chairman, who keeps on vacillating between the lines of Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya and Bhattarai, put forward three ´compelling´ reasons for changing his ideological posture.

First, the objective reality for revolution has undergone massive changes since the Palungtar plenum held last November. Second, the ´counter-revolutionaries´ are raising their heads and hatching conspiracies. And third, the party has not done enough homework for a revolt.

The Maoist party had adopted the line of revolt through a majority vote at a central committee meeting held a few days after the Palungtar plenum.

“The chairman´s document has deviated from the line and spirit of the Palungtar plenum,” said leader Kul Prasad KC who is close to Baidya.

Earlier, breaking his ideological alliance with Bhattarai, the Maoist chairman had swerved to the hard-line camp when he fell out with Bhattarai after the infamous Khanna garment episode.

In the politburo meeting on Wednesday, Bhattarai threw weight behind Dahal´s proposal, while Baidya launched lacerating criticism against Dahal and accused him of ´deception´. What irritated Baidya all the more was Dahal´s statement that he never proposed changing the party´s line to revolt in a true sense.

“A serious ideological deviation has bedeviled the chairman. The journey of rightist deviation starts from this point. It is a grave betrayal against the proletariat and their dream of revolution,” a leader quoted Baidya as saying.

Baidya also accused Dahal of being a man without any ideological line. “Your claim that you have your own ideological posture between the extreme right and extreme left has been proven wrong. Now there are two lines only [his and Bhattarai´s],” a leader quoted Baidya who also argued that the politburo doesn´t have any right to change the party line adopted by the CC after the Palungtar plenum. The party has called a meeting of the CC for Friday to discuss the issue further.

What next

The Dahal and Bhattarai together command a comfortable majority in the CC and the new document is likely to be endorsed by a majority vote.

“Now it is Baidya´s turn to register a note of dissent,” said a leader close to Dahal.

The hard-line faction is not likely to accept the document easily, and Baidya is likely to present a separate political document in the CC.

“We will not remain as spectators if the document is passed through a majority vote as was the case while sidelining Bhattarai last time. We will demand a plenum,” said a leader close to Baidya.

But there is virtually no possibility of holding a plenum as the constitution-drafting deadline approaches. “The disputes would be over for now after Baidya registers a note of dissent,” said a leader close to Dahal.

Party hardliners say they never fully trusted Dahal, who has always been dillydallying to bring out programs for a revolt.

The party endorsed the line of revolt in the famous Kharipati meeting, but the party establishment never charted political programs to implement the line. “He is against launching a revolt. We did not fully believe that he would embrace revolt as official line of the party. And he showed his true colors today,” said a leader from Baidya faction, which believes that Dahal had joined hands with Baidya for the latter´s organizational strength.

This is a speech that Dr. Baburam Bhattarai recently gave at the National University of Singapore on “Post-Confict Restructuring”. In his speech Bhattarai articulates in a very clear and thoughtful manner his position on the largest problems being faced in Nepal today and it is not difficult to see, whether one agrees with him or not, that Bhattarai has spent a considerable amount of time thinking these issues through (although his discussion of the army-PLA seems to be a lot vaguer than other sections of his talk). In his talk Bhattarai restates many of his well-known positions on first the way forward, i.e. that any return to the armed struggle or a ‘people’s revolt’ would be disastrous and that the only way forward would be the peaceful promulgation of a constitution through compromise with the other parties; and second that India is not an enemy of Nepal per se, but that there needed to be a reorganization of the relationship between India and Nepal especially in light of the rise of China in the region which shifts Nepal away from the role as a “buffer state”.

What I did interesting are his comments on democracy in Nepal to be incredibly interesting as it seems that Bhattarai has shifted somewhat from his earlier position of multi-party competition within a socialist state (effectively a democratic process that would effectively ban all comprador and feudal parties), and seems to have replaced it with a more conventional social democratic vision although, as Bhattarai notes, adapted for Nepalese conditions that attempt to develop structures that would enable greater electoral participation by the masses in the organs of power (this could be an interesting way to revive the village-level people’s governments). Furthermore, Bhattarai seems to want to strike a balance between federalism that allows for greater rights to ethnic minorities, linguistic groups etc on the one hand and oppose any separatist movements on the other. The other aspect of the talk that I found interesting was his economic plans which seem to resemble in many ways the Great Leap Forward economic program for the countryside. For example the emphasis on radical land reform and modernization (not sure whether they will encourage the development of farm-sized industrial production though), and the emphasis on the communes for economic production. However, it is odd that Bhattarai seems to overlook the economic tasks in the urban centres.

Excerpted from Maoist Vice Chairman Baburam Bhattarai’s speech at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore (NUS), on March 25, 2011

The conflict or social class struggle in Nepal so far has been the fight of the overwhelming majority of  people subjected to class, nationality, regional, gender and caste oppression by a feudal, autocratic, unitary state system backed by internal and external retrograde forces. In other words, the struggle is for complete democratisation of society, economy and polity of the country. Hence post-conflict peace and development can be achieved only by total restructuring of all existing political, economic, social, cultural and international relations on a democratic basis.

a) Democratic restructuring:

The most fundamental and perhaps the most important question in the current peace process in Nepal is that of finding a mutually acceptable model of democratic system of the state to be institutionalised through the CA. The traditional parliamentary forces and Maoist communist revolutionaries had joined hands since the 12-Point Understanding to abolish the monarchy and introduce a democratic state system through an elected CA. There was a basic agreement on the process of institutionalising democracy, but not on the content or form of democracy. As is well known, the bourgeois democratic forces subscribe to liberal democracy, whereas the communist revolutionaries aspire for people’s democracy or socialist democracy. This great ideological-political divide is so deep-rooted in Nepal that the prolonged impasse in the constitution drafting process in the CA basically hinges on this.

There is general agreement in the Maoist radical democratic camp that principal impediments to social progress in  present-day Nepal are the feudal remnants in different spheres of society, economy and state. Hence the UCPN (Maoist) has identified its principal immediate task as the completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution. Furthermore, the party has already declared its commitment to multi-party competitive politics, periodic elections, freedom of press and assembly, rule of law, human rights, etc, which are considered inalienable features of liberal democracy. The party’s only insistence has been that this political democracy should be grounded on concomitant democracy on economic, social and cultural fronts so that the basic masses of workers, peasants, women, dalits and people of oppressed nationalities and regions, too, can avail the real fruits of democracy. For this, certain specific measures to ensure the real participation of the basic masses of people in the state organs should be enshrined in the very constitution. As A.D. Benoit has rightly said, “The highest measure of democracy is neither the ‘extent of freedom’ nor the ‘extent of equality’, but rather the highest measure of participation”. Similarly, fundamental rights to education, health, employment, food security, shelter, etc., should be guaranteed to every citizen by the constitution.

The liberal democratic camp led by the Nepali Congress, however, has so far not exhibited much ingenuity and flexibility to develop a realistic model of democracy suited to the specific conditions of the country, apart from harping on the traditional model of parliamentary democracy of the Westminister type. The prolonged deadlock over the form of governance, whether the presidential or the prime ministerial system, is its direct manifestation. Since both sides have more or less unified understanding about the need to sweep away all feudal remnants and complete the democratic revolution, it would be prudent to unitedly develop a transitional model of democracy incorporating the positive features of both liberal and socialist/people’s democracy.

b) Federal restructuring:

Though Nepal is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-regional, multi-religious and multi-cultural country, it has been ruled by a unitary and centralised state system dominated by the hill Arya-Khas nationality with Kathmandu as the centre of power. The Maoist People’s War, the United People’s Movement, the Madhesi Movement and various Nationality Movements in different periods of time had federal restructuring of the state as a common agenda. Federal restructuring of the state, therefore, should be an important component of overall restructuring of Nepal in the post-conflict phase.

Even if there is general consensus in the country about the need for restructuring the current unitary state along federal lines, there are divergent views and positions on the modality of federalism. The traditional parliamentary democratic parties are still dragging their feet on the issue of federal restructuring. There is a distinct polarisation between the UCPN (Maoist), Madhesis parties and other janajati parties, on the one hand, and the parliamentary democratic parties, on the other, on this crucial issue, which threatens to wreck the whole constitution-making process. As there are multiple nationalities within the country, like the Madhesis and others, and there are regions with their own distinct identity, like the far-western Seti-Mahakali and Karnali regions, the basis of federalism should be the national and regional identity with adequate autonomy. Accordingly, UCPN (Maoist) has proposed 12 federal units, but has remained somewhat flexible on the number of units.

There is a need to be cautious and guard against two extreme positions on the question of federalism. While, on the one hand, the parliamentary democratic parties are virtually against federalism by denying national, regional or linguistic identity of oppressed nationalities and regions, some of the Madhesi and other janajati parties, on the other, over-emphasise the ethnic identity and border on separatism while talking of federalism. Both of these are erroneous and extremely dangerous positions, which unwittingly feed on each other to wreck the federal restructuring of the state and the ultimate constitution-making process. Also, Special Rights to compensate for past oppression against women, dalits and Muslims have to be enshrined in the new constitution.

c) Restructuring of security sector:

Security forces, including the army, paramilitary and police, are indispensable and the most important component of any state system. Hence, any democratic restructuring of the state is unthinkable without the accompanying restructuring of the security sector, principally the security forces.

There are two aspects of restructuring of the security sector in the post-conflict context of Nepal. One is the democratisation of the traditional Nepal Army (NA) and the other is the integration and rehabilitation of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), according to the CPA.

After the successful anti-monarchy democratic movement of April 2006, a special provision was inserted ‘to democratise’ the NA in the CPA signed in November 2006. This was also incorporated in the Interim Constitution, 2006. By ‘democratisation’ it was meant “to fix the appropriate size, to create democratic structure, to introduce national and inclusive character and to train it with the values of democracy and human rights.” It was a calculated move to restructure the entire security forces so that the Army may not be used against the people and democracy as was done in the past. Unfortunately no tangible progress has been made to democratise the NA so far, and rather the leadership of the parliamentary parties are vying with each other to pamper the NA in its original form.

Another cardinal question is the integration and rehabilitation of the PLA. If making of the new constitution through the CA is the most important political dimension of the peace process then the integration and rehabilitation of the PLA is an equally, if not more, important military dimension of the peace process. One cannot be completed without the other. Unfortunately the progress on the PLA front has been glacial. There have been irresponsible remarks from the leaders of parliamentary parties, including the concerned Ministers, against the spirit of integration, as if it is equivalent of individual recruitment into the security forces. As the PLA was politically victorious and not defeated militarily, we have to devise our own indigenous modality of its integration into the security forces.

Among the various options proposed by the UCPN (Maoist) are: the creation of a separate force, or a mixed force with matching numbers from other forces, or integration into different security forces including the NA, Armed Police Force and the civilian Nepal Police. Whatever modality is followed, there is no alternative to integration of the PLA. If it is not handled correctly, it could prove the ultimate flash point for the breakdown of the peace process. Restructuring of the security sector also entails the formulation of an overall security policy of the country to suit the new democratic restructuring internally and to keep up with the changing security dynamics externally.

Restructuring the economy

The ultimate objective cause of any social or political conflict is the economy. The 10 years of armed conflict was fuelled by rampant poverty, unemployment, inequality and dependency. It is, therefore, imperative that the prevailing semi-feudal and semi-colonial socio-economic formation be restructured progressively. Transformation of the traditional agriculture sector into a modern industrial sector should top the agenda of economic restructuring. A radical land-reform programme with judicious redistribution of land and promotion of modern farming systems should be implemented. Promotion of cooperatives among small producers should ensure reasonable growth with substantial social equity. The next focus should be a campaign of national industrialisation based on the principle of public-private partnership. The current Kathmandu-centric development model must be reversed to make maximum utilisation of local resources and potentials. Also, Nepal should follow a strategy of taking maximum advantage of the rapid economic development of both China and India. Only through a strategy of rapid economic restructuring and development can the democratic change be sustained and institutionalised. Democracy amidst rampant poverty, unemployment and inequality will be ever susceptible to revert to autocracy.

 Restructuring of international relations

The internal dynamics of Nepal have been largely conditioned by external dynamics, particularly that of India. Because of its sensitive geo-strategic position between two giant neighbours, it has attracted disproportionate attention from international power centres.

Now with democratic transition in Nepal and the rapid growth trajectory pursued by both India and China, the traditional notion of an inanimate and static ‘buffer zone’ may be discarded in favour of a vibrant bridge between the two neighbours. This calls for change of old perceptions on the part of both Nepal and its immediate neighbours. Though China and the US both have some strategic interests in Nepal, it is India that has larger interests, both in strategic and economic sense. Hence relations with India demand more careful consideration and restructuring to suit the mutual interests in the new context.

First of all, the historically developed dominance-dependence relationship with India needs to be restructured in favour of an equal and mutually beneficial relation. With the economic might India has acquired and the democratic transition Nepal has undergone in recent times, it is no longer necessary and prudent for India to try to maintain its influence in Nepal through force. Also, a democratic Nepal is the best bet for safeguarding genuine Indian interests here. UCPN (Maoist) being the largest political formation should be in a better position to assure India of this. Unfortunately the relations between the UCPN (Maoist) leadership and India have further soured to the detriment of both in recent times. However, as India has played a very significant role in promoting the current peace and democratic process and peace, stability, democracy and prosperity in Nepal will ultimately benefit India, it is in the enlightened self-interest of India to assist the current peace process reach a successful conclusion. The dominant public perception that the Indian establishment may not be very happy with the emergence of the Maoist forces as leading political actors in the neighbourhood has helped neither side. As long as the Maoists play by the rules of the game as defined in the CPA and other agreements and contribute to promote stability with change and prosperity, it may be better for India to encourage, rather than to stall, the peace process, irrespective of whoever is at the helm in Nepal. On the Maoist side, it may be more prudent to try to restructure the relationionship with India for mutual benefit through political and diplomatic means than to choose the path of confrontation.

Nepal’s relationship with China has remained more or less frictionless over a long period of time. However, with the emergence of China as a global economic and military power and recent democratic changes in Nepal, it is quite natural for China to try to expand its influence south of the Himalayas, especially for safeguarding the security of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. This may lead to an increased rivalry between India and China to keep Nepal under their area of influence. As the US, the sole superpower of the world, too, may try to maintain its strategic hold in this sensitive geo-strategic zone, there may ensure a triangular contention between international power centres for supremacy over Nepal. But geographically, economically, socially and culturally, India enjoys a distinct advantage vis-à-vis its other rivals in the country. In this context, it is imperative for Nepal to restructure its foreign policy according to the changing dynamics in the region and especially maintain objective and balanced relations with its immediate neighbours. Any policy of courting one neighbour at the cost of the other may be counter-productive for the country’s national interests.

The prospects

The current political deadlock in Nepal can end one of two ways.

In the first scenario, the traditional parliamentary democratic forces led by the Nepali Congress and backed by the international status-quoist forces, may defeat the proletarian democratic forces led by the UCPN (Maoist) and impose the traditional bourgeois democratic system. Though this probability cannot be ruled out, it is unlikely on two counts. On the one hand, it cannot fulfill the objective necessity of progressive restructuring of the Nepali state, society and economy for which the masses of the people have struggled for more than six decades, and the other, the political balance of forces in Nepal over the past decades has decisively taken a left turn, which has been clearly manifested in the CA elections as more than 62 percent of seats were won by left candidates. As for the probability of a Maoist revolutionary takeover at the cost of the parliamentary forces, the existing internal military balance and international situation do not favour this and it can be safely ruled out for the moment, though there are occasional reports of an impending ‘people’s revolt’ led by the UCPN (Maoist).

The second scenario would be a new historical compromise between the two contending political forces, i.e. parliamentary democrats and Maoist revolutionaries, to take the peace process to a successful conclusion and make a new constitution through the CA to restructure the state, society and economy. Given the current stage of development of the Nepali society transiting from feudalism to capitalism and the prevailing balance of political forces both internally and externally, this is a historical necessity and the most sensible political move on both sides. Of course, the agreement should be for progressive restructuring of state, society and economy, and not for maintaining the status quo. For this, the UCPN (Maoist) and the Nepali Congress should take the lead of the respective camps overcoming the serious trust deficit on both sides at the moment, which needs to be backed by international actors, particularly India and China. Agreement on basic content of the new constitution, including a suitable model of democracy, federal restructuring of the state, form of governance etc, and the modality of army integration, should form the cornerstone of the new political understanding.

The third and the most undesirable prospect would be the breakdown of the peace process and the constitution-making process and relapse of the country into a new phase of armed confrontation. The scenario would be the most alarming as it is likely to trigger a regional conflict with involvement of the immediate neighbours, India and China, and also other international power centres, for example, Afghanistan. This needs to be avoided at any cost. Otherwise we may be cursed by history. As George Santayana had rightly said, “Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.”

I would like to thank JMP at M-L-M Mayhem! for telling me about this and the good folks at Signalfire for making this translation of a press communique by the Revolutionary Action Cells, who several weeks ago mailed bullets to several high profile German leaders, available. Apparently since their first action in December 2009 (a bombing of an employment agency in Wedding), the cells have conducted at least two other attacks besides this latest one. The second attack in February 2010 was a bombing, using a gas canister, of the Economy Ministry in Charlottenburg and a fire bombing of the Federal Office of Administration in November the same year. German newspapers report that CSU-Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich did in fact receive the bullet.

The group is interesting because it feels like a throwback to the 1970′s, especially because of the name of the organization which seems to be a play on the Revolutionary Cells (an urban guerrilla organization that coordinated attacks from 1973-1993) and the consistent references to the RAF and June 2nd Movement (indeed the cell that sent the bullets bears the name of Georg von Rauch, the founder of the June 2nd Movement). Even the language and style used seems very retro, however, since I don’t know German I cannot gauge whether the original text itself shares in this stylistic choice. It is difficult to grasp what the ideology is of these new cells, however, it can be assumed that it probably concurs with the anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, feminist, anti-racist and anti-Zionist politics of its forbearers. Furthermore, I would speculate that they are most likely much closer to an autonomist politics, rather than a more traditionally established Marxist-Leninist(-Maoist) politics because of their use the term “construction of a revolutionary process” rather, than “construction of a revolutionary party” towards communism. Also, it is interesting that the statement makes no mention of an accompanying mass movement which they an armed wing of, rather they seem to be provoked by a generalized state repression of the working class and the revolutionary left. It is difficult to say much else about the organization, but the German left just got a little more interesting to say the least.

The state repression against both members of  our class in general, and against the revolutionary left in particular is booming: Oury Jalloh burned to death in a police cell in Dessau, Dennis is shot in Berlin during a vehicle check by a cop, Slieman dies in Berlin as the result of a massive use of pepper spray – the state murderers are covered and remain undisturbed.

National security trials against alleged members of clandestine militant groups and revolutionary movements at home and abroad, raids against leftist bookshops, criminalization of leftist media (radical, interim and prisma), a spy system, eviction of houses and threats of jail against former members of the RAF are just the tip of the iceberg . The repressive state apparatus, believe that they can intimidate and silence us through threats and intimidation . We say to the rulers: “Forget it!” If the repressive state apparatus believes it can intimidate us by a chain of repression,  and beatings, it has miscalculated.

The protagonists of the state’s assault will find obstacles in their path. As our contribution to the organized resistance of the revolutionary left, we have left three “eminent personalities” a special greeting in which we sent them an 8mm cartridge by post. The next delivery is by express…

Today’s selection strikes:
1) the new CSU-Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich. We handed over our little break on  his motivation  as a welcome gift
2) the deputy of the Attorney General (BAW) and our direct opponent Griesbaum. For his tireless activity against former comrades from the RAF, he has our special attention.
3) And lastly  the years of “theoretical extremism” propaganda from the academic ivory tower by Uwe Backes and Ekkehart Jesse was found “worthy”.

Class against class – War on war!
For a militant platform – for the construction of a revolutionary process – for communism!

Revolutionary action cells (RAZ)
- Cell Georg von Rauch – ”

I would first like to apologize for not updating the blog in close to 2 weeks however, my political/academic/personal responsibilities have really not permitted me to take out the time to update the blog as often as I would like, however, in the coming weeks I hope to develop a more regular rhythm.

In the last week or so, I have been reading an excellent book on education reform during the Cultural Revolution called, “Rise of the Red Engineers: The Cultural Revolution and the Origins of China’s New Class” by Joel Andreas. Andreas’ account is perhaps the most conventionally “Maoist” account of the GPCR, however, unlike many of his predecessors and contemporaries Andreas has attempted develop a theoretical framework through which one could explain the rise of a new elite class in China. He has dubbed this new class, “the red engineers”, as most of the current Chinese political regime, like their Soviet forbearers, have engineering degrees and have developed a technocratic regime through the uneven distribution of cultural and political capital. Andreas argues, as many have, that the GPCR was a great attempt to deepen the socialist revolution through the redistribution of cultural and political capital. Andreas posits that the GPCR could be characterized by attacks on 1) cultural capital but not political capital; 2) political capital but not cultural capital and 3) on both political and cultural capital. Prior to the GPCR most of the political leadership of the CPC was not highly educated and the majority of the revolutionary membership were peasants and workers who had very low if any education at all. But their involvement in the Chinese revolution had given them enormous political capital. On the other hand, the oppressing classes and the petit-bourgeoisie (teachers, professors etc) had incredibly high levels of cultural capital. Indeed, in the post-liberation years universities remained largely in the hands of these oppressing and petit-bourgeois classes. These classes did not possess political capital and few joined the communist party. However, the failure of the GPCR was caused by the actual merging of cultural and political capital in the formation of the ‘red engineers’ i.e. the rise of a set of individuals that were both educated at Tsinghua University, largely in engineering, thus possessing a great amount of cultural capital and had also accumulated a large amount of political capital through their membership in the YCL and the Party.

Anyways, one of the initiatives that the CPC, led by the radicals, had in 1972/1973 was the idea of a labourer with socialist consciousness and culture. These were students that enrolled in university classes but were forced to actually gain real world skills and engage in manual labor (these students were soon to be supplemented by part-time students who were workers etc. who took classes in the evening and worked in their factories and fields during the day – these were called the worker-peasant-solider students). These labourers with socialist consciousness an culture were required to be part of a worker, peasant or military brigade and engage in manual labor like the rest of the masses. Often the engineering students for example would have had to work in the factory that was affiliated to the university. They were no longer red and expert, but rather simply parts of the working class that had worked hard like everyone else and had enjoyed the privilege to attend university classes full time and thus had develop a socialist consciousness and culture. Needless to say that the revisionists in the CPC fought this tooth and nail.

This is a form of education that I actually wish we got around the world. I know that many of us have worked in service sector jobs, I definitely have and hated it, but I think it would not be a bad thing for us to be required to occasionally work in the physical field that we study as part of the education process. So, someone like myself, who largely studies politics should ideally be required as part of my formal education to be involved in a military brigade for example; it would probably would result in a lot fewer professors and politicians speaking in favour of war. Furthermore, I think it would ameliorate a crisis that many graduate students have about lacking a tangible skill. I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t study theory/philosophy or any abstract field but that we should see the entire process that flows from our studies. Otherwise, we risk simply reproducing the division of mental and manual labor which finally caused the death of the communist movements in all of the former socialist countries around the world.

I was recently reading about the Saint Patrick’s Battalion (a historical fragment about them is forthcoming) and it reminded me of Comrade Gopal Mukund Hudder, the only Indian to have ever fought in the Spanish Civil War as part of the International Brigades, and wanted to share with you the only mention of him that I have ever found. For myself Com G.M Hudder is a representative of a true form of proletarian internationalism that does not simply limit itself to cheering/criticizing from the sidelines, but rather decisively chooses to actively side with the anti-fascist movement and demonstrates a revolutionary fidelity. This is from an interview with communist leader Promode Sengupta published in “Naxalbari and Indian Revolution”:

Promode Sengupta: One other thing, I must mention about this period, about our [Progressive Writers' Association] activities in London and Europe. It was in 1935, just one year before the Spanish Civil War started, four Indian students, including Dr. Z. A. Ahmed and I, decided to visit Spain and study Spanish, which was coming to the forefront in the anti-fascist struggle. We took a circular trip of forty-five days and made a trip of the whole country from north to south and from east to west. We had a very first-hand experience of the country. Of course, in 1935, we could not see that the Civil War would start so soon. As soon as the Civil War started and when the International Brigade movement started in London, we Indian students, also decided to send an Indian contingent with that International Brigade. We made up a list and one of us, Gopal Mukund Hudder by name, a Maharashtrian, did succeed in going to Spain with the International Brigade in one of the first batches. But, later on, we found that the rest of us could not go to Spain on the ground that none of us had military training. The Spanish government told us, that in Spain, they had millions of people, who also required training, and after giving them military training, they could send them to the fighting line. But foreigners, without military training, would have immense difficulties and, therefore, it was better for us not to join the International Brigade movement. This is how our plain to join the International Brigade fell through. Anyway, it is worth-while mentioning  because many people probably don’t know that an Indian had actually taken part in the fighting in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the progressive forces there.

The Communist Workers’ Party of Tunisia is one of the key communist organizations in Northern Africa and has played a central role in the recent January Tunisian revolution which, least we be reminded,  was the original spark that started the prairie fire that has resulted in mass uprisings across Northern Africa and the Middle East. The Communist Workers’ Party of Tunisia, whilst the focus of the world and the “Left” has shifted to Egypt and now Libya, has continued to fight in the last 3 months to deepen the revolution of January and to carry it to its proper conclusion: a revolutionary pro-people democracy. Thus, the first section of the recent statement from the Communist Workers’ Party of Tunisia that I have reproduced from Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal provides a very analysis of the current situation in Tunisia and clearly outlines the immediate tasks in front of the revolutionary movement there. It truly is unfortunate that the Tunisian struggle has largely already been forgotten by the Left that applauded it in January, especially at this juncture at which the Tunisian masses need international support and attention.

The second part of the statement and perhaps the more controversial section for some sections of the Left is their clear opposition to the imperialist intervention by the US and its NATO allies in Libya. The statement very quickly contextualizes the intervention into Libyan as an imperialist intervention based on the need to better exploit Libyan oil resources, and reminds us that the imperialists will never support a revolution that actually does not formally reflect their own interests. This strategic interest in the region is of course something that the Obama regime has consistently emphasized to its own population in its bid to sell its latest military adventure. I must admit that I find it odd that some sections of the Left have been unwilling to condemn noted “Marxists” that have taken the Christopher Hitchens-road by supporting an American war of aggressions under the guise of “critical anti-imperialism”. Indeed, I fail to see how the claims of an impending “humanitarian crisis” in Libya differ that dramatically from those made by the Bush government in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq besides the fact that the Democrats are better at packaging the same old imperialist adventure. As a republican recently reminded us: the Americans had twice the number of international allies for the Iraq war than they do in this most recent imperialist intervention.

What about the rebels you may ask? Should we not support a revolutionary movement? I am not convinced at all by the argument that the rebels of Benghazi constitute a revolutionary force in some progressive sense. Indeed, it is clear that the opposition forces largely consist of radical Islamist elements close to Al-Qaeda, sections of Ghaddafi’s government that have opportunistically jumped ship in recent weeks as the tide has changed, monarchists who want a return to pre-Ghaddafi Libya, former CIA-funded political organizations and a few scattered tribes. I do not think that such a coalition bodes well for the peoples of Libya or for a revolutionary movement there. Furthermore, even reporters on all of the major news sources have reported that the rebels consist of less than a thousand young men with little weaponry, training, discipline or military command. This does not sound like a popular insurgency to me and there is little evidence of the exuberance that marked the early days of the Benghazi uprising. This must raise some serious and troubling questions for any critical person paying attention to the war. At the same time, I also find claims from some sections of the “Left” regarding Ghaddafi’s “socialist” or “anti-imperialist” credentials unconvincing to say the least, especially as it has been time and again demonstrated that Ghaddafi has always been a “critical pro-imperialost lap dog”. Furthermore, I do not think that a) we can permit a civil war to be settled either way by the Americans and Western European powers, especially in light of Libya’s colonial history and their imperialist designs; b) I do not think that we should mistake imperialism as humanitarianism, whether it be under the guise of rescuing the women of Afghanistan or stopping a possible genocide; and c) overturn sovereignty in fear of something that may happen as this returns to the realm of preemptive war. I am not suggesting that there may not have been reason for intervention if a genocide was in fact taking place however, till date it is not and it is not clear besides some initial fear-mongering whether such a possibility was indeed in the offing. Finally, I think we must ask why have the Americans failed to invade Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, both American allies in the war on terror, which also have brutal dictatorial regimes that recently used military resources against popular civilian uprisings. Or is it simply as a high-ranking American general said on “Meet the Press” the fact that those countries remain such close Americans allies demands a radically different approach which in effect permits the brutal repression of the people’s movement in those countries?

Communist Workers’ Party of Tunisia/Parti communiste des ouvriers de Tunisie (PCOT) حزب العمّال الشّيوعي التونسي

Translated by John Catalinotto for Tlaxcala

March 23, 2011 — This event [the legalisation of the the Communist Workers' Party of Tunisia] has important symbolic significance. It is the result, among other things, of the January 14 revolution that deposed Ben Ali, won the right to organise and inaugurated a new era for Tunisia and its people.

The PCOT was established January 3, 1986, the second anniversary of the glorious “bread uprising”, which was a way to show our determination to link our fate to that of the Tunisian people, to defend its interests and legitimate aspirations for a decent life, where freedom, democracy and social justice rule. The PCOT translated these commitments into its political program and its militant practices, under the slogan of “national and popular democratic revolution”, which it continued to defend at the price of enormous sacrifices: Nabil Barakat died in martyrdom, among hundreds of our activists who have been tortured, imprisoned and denied their most basic rights, many of them forced into exile.

Our party stood shoulder to shoulder with our people during this quarter century, making the fall of the dictatorship a primary objective, considering that it constitutes a major obstacle to the emancipation of the people and the rebirth of the nation. The party had full confidence in our people; it fought against the reactionary thinking that underestimated them, accusing them of helplessness and resignation. It has continually worked to raise consciousness and organise clandestine action to the extent that the lack of freedom permitted. It participated in all the people’s struggles and helped unite the opposition to secure victory against the dictatorship.

The revolution of January 14 is the culmination of over 20 years of struggle and sacrifices of the Tunisian people, of its sons and daughters making up the different ideological and political opponents to the dictatorship, organised in parties, associations and trade union and human rights organisations or unorganised.

This revolution took on various dimensions: It is a political revolution against tyranny and subjugation, a social revolution against exploitation and corruption, a patriotic revolution for dignity. The revolution did not stop inside Tunisia; it has spread to other Arab countries, where people are rising up against corrupt and tyrannical regimes and making them fall one after another.

Revolution not yet complete

The revolution of January 14 is not yet complete because it has not achieved all its objectives, despite the progress it made. Reactionary forces are still lurking and trying to abort the revolution. They are supported in this by the United States and France, which want to reduce the revolution to a mere reform of the old regime, leaving its economic and social foundation intact. The fundamental issue in any revolution is power, and if the sectors of the population that made the revolution do not hold power, we must conclude that it neither complete nor victorious. This is the case in Tunisia where the people rose up but have not yet taken power.

In the first phase of the revolution, the people brought down the dictator. In the second phase for the victory against the dictatorship, the people, through its vigilance and determination, brought down the Ghannouchi government and imposed the demands for a constituent assembly, and dissolution of the RCD [ruling party] and the political police. It also significantly expanded the scope of freedom of expression and organisation.

However, power remains in the hands of reactionary forces, deployed in different units and institutions that continue to preserve their economic interests. These forces are committing crimes against people (assault, looting, riots …). They try to break its unity through fueling regional, tribal and religious differences and sowing fear and terror in order to discourage the people from continuing the revolution and achieving its objectives.

The interim president and transitional government are bent on sabotaging the revolution’s legitimacy and reject any control over their decisions (appointment of delegates, security officials, the judiciary …); this process serves the interests of the enemies of the revolution. They refused to deal with the “National Council to Defend the Revolution”, which they replaced by a “body” whose members they have appointed unilaterally. In the same way, the decision to dissolve the RCD can be rescinded by returning this party under a new form. This is also the case regarding the decision to dissolve the political police, which is surrounded by doubts and raises serious questions about its application.

Revolution stolen?

The masses, particularly in the country’s interior, are beginning to feel that nothing regarding their political and social conditions has changed, and that their revolution is about to be stolen. It is a legitimate feeling with understandable reasons. The old regime is still in place, with its apparatus and its administration. The interim government took no action, although an urgent action is needed to alleviate the burden of unemployment and the high cost of living, stop the deterioration of public services that hit the regions — which have also suffered repression and looting before and during the outbreak of the revolution. This is the case of the mining region, of Skhira of Benguerdane and many other regions.

The Communist Workers’ Party of Tunisia believes that the revolution is not over. The Tunisian people must remain vigilant to avert the dangers threatening it. The continued mobilisation, conservation and revitalisation of the “National Council to Defend the Revolution” and its committees are urgent tasks today.

Today, the people remain the only force capable of exercising control over the interim presidency and the provisional government, which it has the right to monitor and hold accountable.

The election of the “Constituent Assembly” is an important event in the coming period. Workers, toiling strata and all our people can, in conjunction with the PCOT and all democratic and revolutionary forces, make this moment a turning point to impose the will of the people and stop the enemies of the revolution in their tracks.

This cannot be accomplished without an immediate mobilisation to postpone the elections and put space between them and the dates of the examinations, to enable the people and political forces to be well prepared, given the importance of the issues that the Constituent Assembly will determine.

We must also prepare a suitable political arena, through the purging of the administration, the judiciary and the media, by the effective dissolution of the political police and the establishment of an electoral law that resolves the issue of financing the elections to ensure transparency and equality among all participants and ensure that these elections are not tainted by corruption.

The character of the transition period in no way precludes the need for urgent economic and social measures, particularly for the unemployed, or for the regions that are neglected despite their wealth and potential.

The transitional government continues to cling to the budget decided under Ben Ali, which provides a significant portion for the Department of the Interior and for the repayment of debt incurred by the dictatorship. Why should the government not cancel the debt or at least suspend it for a while, as did countries that have experienced the same conditions as Tunisia? Why not devote the full budget to improving the lives of the people? Why not revise this budget to reflect new priorities?

Libya

The Tunisian revolution has spread to many Arab countries. Egypt’s dictator fell, while authoritarian regimes in Yemen and Bahrain are fiercely repressing popular uprisings, in Bahrain, with the help of Saudi Arabia. Our neighbour, the Libyan people, rose up against their tormentors, but events took a bad turn with the intervention of the United States and its allies, under the pretext of protecting civilians. The US administration has hardly mentioned the killing of civilians in Yemen and Bahrain, as it has also never done regarding Gaza, Lebanon or Iraq and Afghanistan, countries it occupies. And didn’t Sarkozy support the Tunisian dictator until the last moment?

What drives Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron to intervene is the frantic race to grab a portion of Libyan oil, after the failure of its revolution. We support the Libyan people in their uprising, but we are against any foreign intervention, which not only hurts the revolution in Libya and Tunisia but also hurts all Arab countries. We oppose the use of our territory or our airspace in the aggression against Libya. The US, French and English colonialists have no interest in the triumph of the Arab revolution, given the danger it represents for them.

• Long live the revolution of the Tunisian people.
• The revolution should go on until it achieves its objectives.
• Power to the people.
• Long live the uprisings of the Arab peoples for freedom and dignity.

I have been unable to write any new blog entries since last week as my laptop died. The motherboard simply died. I still have to retrieve my old hard drive and data. However, I am now the proud owner of a brand spanking new laptop. So as part of getting this new laptop, and at the insistence of some who know me, I have decided to slowly overhaul the look of the blog. This is not going to happen immediately or any time before the middle of May, but it will happen.

Anyways, since none of you are reading this blog to hear about my laptop woes or ever cared about the look of the blog, I should probably start talking (nonsensically to most readers) about “politics”. I have been involved in the Canadian Federal Boycott Campaign, initiated by the RCP(Canada), and their allies and would like to give some initial thoughts about two of the basic objections that I have encountered in my discussions with others in the broad Left about the campaign itself: 1) Lenin denounced abstentionist/strategic electoral boycott politics and the wholesale rejection of the Labor Party as a form of ultra-leftism or left-wing communism and; 2) that a strategic boycott campaign is out of step with other Maoist formations like the UCPN(Maoist) who have in recent years sought to utilize the parliamentary arena to promote their political views and a tool by which to organize the masses.

On Lenin: First of all, I have to say the fact that I am having to explain why I differ from Lenin on an issue like electoral strategy demonstrates to me that we in the Left have ceased to critically think about what a living Marxism actually looks like and have reduced it to dogma. I didn’t realize that all of Lenin’s works were sacred texts and that Lenin’s word was akin to that of God’s. The fact that we cannot discuss the issue of whether there should a federal election boycott without the “Leninist” starting the conversation with a smug smile and the obvious air of arrogance which happens to be predicated on some weird conformity to Lenin’s views on electoral strategy in Britain in 1920 is evidence enough of what is wrong with the Left. Secondly, “Left-wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder” has been trotted out repeatedly by those who could be best be called crypto-social democrats as way of refuting any politics or actions that they disagree with; for example, Khruschev in 1960, during the Great Debate with Mao, ordered that the pamphlet be reprinted to remind Mao of his political deviations. Thirdly,  I do know my Lenin. I also did the background reading which includes the social history of British politics in the 1920′s. So I must ask my “Leninist” friends two simple questions: 1) where is the our contemporary stewards movement? and 2) what about the fact that the entire adventure of the CPGB into the Labor Party was a dismal failure?

I think that we need to recognize that the conditions in which bourgeois parliamentary elections now occur are incredibly different from those in  which Lenin was writing, especially with the development of a massive electoral-media machinery. These are no longer the days in which electoral campaigns consisted in hours of rabble-rousing oratory from a soapbox to workers in a square. We need to recognize that Lenin is talking about a Labor Party that was still braying a social-democratic message and had yet to be elected which thus helped produce electoral illusions amongst the working classes. Lenin thus advised the British comrades that they may have to follow the path used in Russia and Germany by which to demonstrate that the social-democrats were in fact an anti-working class party which would aid in the development of the revolutionary movement. I do not think that the Canadian working classes harbour any illusions about the NDP and its Blairite “Third-Way” faux social-democratic message and thus see no reason to promote these illusions amongst the working class either! The entire point of Lenin’s strategy was to aid in the disillusionment of the Labor Party through support for them. Today large swathes of the working class are already disillusioned with the NDP. Also we must remember that the Labor Party of the 1920′s was a very different party than the NDP today, for example, the NDP’s base basically consists of labor and party bureaucrats and does not have any mass participation in it, whereas the Labor Party in 1920 contained within it a very strong section of the active stewards movement which was connected to thousands of militant workers who had been part of mass strike waves in the years prior. Finally we need to recognize that the CPGB’s efforts in the Labor Party did not result in the development of a stronger communist party but rather, a weaker communist party. Indeed from the get-go the Communist Party was blocked from being involved in the Labor Party and finally was forced to tell its members to join the Labor Party as individuals and to then reconsolidate once within the Labor Party. This wonderful strategy made it incredibly easy for the CPGB to lose members and remain a largely ineffective force within the Labor Party, and despite being a large force were finally purged from the Labor Party. Similarly, the Canadian-Left loves to romanticize the Waffle, but what the hell happened to  them? They were expelled from the NDP and then degenerated into numerous Trot sects. A rousing success indeed!

On Nepal: I did not realize that we lived under a brutal dictatorial monarchy. I mean I have no love for the Queen of England either, but she definitely is not a tyrannical despot who believes herself to be a reincarnation of Vishnu and has underdeveloped the rest of her territories to amass all of the nation’s wealth in her city of residence. The situation in Nepal (and even the Philippines) is dramatically different from that of Canada inasmuch that we have a well-developed and entrenched bourgeois democratic system and they currently do not. It is understandable that in the Nepalese context for the comrades there to promote parliamentary elections inasmuch that the broad masses, peasant and working classes, have yearned for generations for that right and until recently have been consistently denied it. This parallels the situation in Tsarist Russia that Lenin describes in the aforementioned pamphlet. Finally, it is not clear to me that the Nepalese comrades have actually summarized their electoral experience and its role in the development of the revolutionary movement in Nepal as positively as some seem to suggest. In fact, it seems to me that in that in the case of that Party’s ongoing two-line struggle, the largest section of its membership and leadership has attacked and rebuked the parliamentary strategy and has called for a ‘people’s revolt’. Indeed, many argue that the parliamentary strategy and peace process has been a dead-end road and that they are now having to turn the truck on it. Thus, it does not seem clear to me at all that Nepal can be actually be cited as proof in the pudding as to the advisability of other Maoists using the parliamentary process, rather it seems that the warnings of the Indian comrades may have been correct.