KATHMANDU: Speculations are rife regarding the future trajectory of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) under the leadership of Rabi Lamichhane.
One school of thought posits that Lamichhane’s recent coalition with established political entities will gradually erode his influence, weakening his power by the time the 2084 elections roll around.
Conversely, another perspective suggests that by participating in a coalition government and actively combating corruption while showcasing exemplary governance, Lamichhane could position himself as a viable candidate for prime minister post-084 elections.
At present, it remains uncertain which of these scenarios will ultimately prevail for Lamichhane.
Nevertheless, both prospects carry substantial weight, leaving Lamichhane standing at the crossroads of opportunities and challenges, albeit with challenges seemingly outweighing opportunities.
Even assuming a decrease in votes for the Congress and UML in the forthcoming elections, securing victory over these two major parties would necessitate the RSP to accumulate more than 10 million additional votes, totaling approximately 20 million votes.
Former Prime Minister Dr. Baburam Bhattarai says Lamichhane faces an array of challenges and possibilities.
“RSP is emerging as an alternative force. Lamichhane has been advocating for good governance, raising expectations. He is also a friend of mine. He aspires to make a difference. However, my advice to him is to tread carefully; if he perches atop a heap of dirt and attempts to clean it, there’s a risk of getting mired in the same filth. He must exercise caution, and I wish him the best.”
In the 2079 general election, the RSP emerged as the fourth major political force, garnering 1,130,344 votes nationwide.
By comparison, the Maoist Center, securing the third position, amassed 1,175,684 votes in collaboration with Dr. Baburam Bhattarai’s Nepal Samajwadi Party.
Considering this electoral data alongside the prevailing political landscape, it appears increasingly likely that the RSP will surpass the Maoist Center’s influence in the upcoming elections.
However, the question remains whether the RSP can transform into a formidable political entity capable of eclipsing the CPN-UML and Nepali Congress in the 2084 elections.
A cursory examination of the 2079 electoral arithmetic suggests that achieving such a feat through conventional means may prove challenging.
CPN-UML garnered 2,845,641 proportional votes nationwide, while Nepali Congress secured 2,715,225 votes.
Is the arrest of individuals like Krishna Bahadur Mahara, Dipesh Pun, and others a source of pride or shame for Prachanda? This question warrants careful consideration.
Based on these figures, simply surpassing the Maoist Center might not suffice.
To surpass Nepali Congress, Lamichhane would need to amass an additional 1.6 million votes, and to outdo UML, 1.7 million more votes are necessary, a formidable task indeed.
Even assuming a decrease in votes for the Congress and UML in the forthcoming elections, securing victory over these two major parties would necessitate the RSP to accumulate more than 10 million additional votes, totaling approximately 20 million votes.
This figure is double the number of votes garnered in the previous election.
Achieving such a significant increase demands meticulous organizational efforts by the party and a simultaneous rise in the popularity of RSP leaders.
However, if the current controversies persist, the potential transfer of Congress and UML votes to the RSP might diminish.
This presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the RSP.
However, the focus of this discussion shifts from Rabi Lamichhane to Prachanda, the Chairman of the Maoist Center.
It is crucial to recognize that the votes received by the RSP in the last election not only reflected hope and trust in the party but also symbolized dissatisfaction with the established political entities.
The more unpopular and discredited these parties become, the more advantageous it is for the RSP.
At present, the old parties are continuing on a trajectory of diminishing popularity, with even the Maoist Center party experiencing a rapid decline.
A significant factor contributing to this decline is the power-centric approach adopted by Prachanda.
It appears that Prachanda’s current agenda is oriented more towards dismantling his own party and bolstering the success of Rabi Lamichhane rather than ensuring the success of his own party in the upcoming elections.
This appears to be the fate of the Maoist party.
Now, let’s delve into some of the pertinent questions raised regarding Prime Minister and Chairman of the Maoist Center, Prachanda:
Pride or Shame?
Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda has pledged to uphold good governance in the country and has vowed not to spare anyone found guilty.
In a meeting held in Kathmandu, two investigative committees were tasked with probing financial irregularities within the party, as demanded by grassroots activists.
However, with Maoist leaders being arrested in cases such as the gold scandal and cooperative fraud, the Prime Minister’s stance on governance is being scrutinized.
Is the arrest of individuals like Krishna Bahadur Mahara, Dipesh Pun, and others a source of pride or shame for Prachanda? This question warrants careful consideration.
Let’s take a moment to reflect on the individuals produced under Prachanda’s leadership within the Maoist faction.
What kind of legacy has Prachanda cultivated through his leadership?
Are political figures like Top Bahadur Rayamajhi and Krishna Bahadur Mahara truly representative of Prachanda’s ideals?
Mr. Prachanda, what values of civilization and culture have you instilled in your cadre?
What education have the children of your party leaders received?
Why did Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal’s son feel compelled to flee?
These questions weigh heavily on Prachanda’s conscience. Consequently, the recent arrests of Mahara and Pun are not moments of pride for Prachanda, but rather sources of shame.
Their arrests are unlikely to bolster the Maoist vote in the days ahead; in fact, they may lead to a decline.
Prachanda’s attempts to validate himself through Mahara’s arrest are akin to delivering a speech with a forced smile.
It’s evident that Maoist leaders need to conduct a thorough investigation into how individuals who once championed the people’s war and espoused noble ideals became ensnared in corruption and moral decay.
Lost Reports of Amik Sherchan and Post Bahadur Bogati
The Maoist leadership’s descent into greed, opportunism, and corruption did not occur overnight but has been evident since the onset of the peace process.
The trend of amassing wealth through illicit means, including misappropriating funds and gold seized during the People’s War, was already prevalent during the insurgency.
Despite serious questions looming over Prachanda’s leadership, no Maoist leader has dared to confront their chairman with the inquiry: “Prachandaji, why have you withheld these two reports and failed to hold the culprits accountable?”
Following the peace accord, reports emerged of large-scale misappropriation of combatants’ assets.
In response to mounting financial discrepancies and internal discontent, the party established two investigative committees.
However, Prachanda’s failure to act upon the findings of these reports exacerbated the situation, leading to the party’s eventual decline.
Had the recommendations been implemented promptly, perhaps the Maoist party wouldn’t have suffered such a precipitous fall.
In a meeting held in Kathmandu, two investigative committees were tasked with probing financial irregularities within the party, as demanded by grassroots activists.
One committee, led by then-Secretary Posta Bahadur Bogti and comprising members Hitraj Pandey and Dorprasad Upadhyay, was assigned to investigate financial improprieties in militant camps.
While Bogati has since passed away, Pandey and Upadhyay remain affiliated with the Maoist movement.
Similarly, another committee, led by Amik Sherchan, alongside Lokendra Bista Magar and Navaraj Subedi as members, was tasked with investigating the amassed wealth of Maoist leaders.
Despite Sherchan’s committee uncovering substantial evidence suggesting that Maoist leaders, who purportedly championed the proletariat during the People’s War, had amassed significant wealth, the report has been kept under wraps to this day.
A decade ago, Sherchan, now serving as the provincial head of Lumbini province, warned neutrals, stating, “If this report is acted upon, 50 percent of Maoist leaders could face prosecution.”
Amik Sherchan, the investigator into the substantial wealth acquired by Maoist leaders, now heads a province, while Subedi currently serves as the ambassador of Saudi Arabia.
Lokendra Bista, another committee member and former tourism minister, disillusioned with the Maoists, has retreated to Dang, engaging in agriculture.
Had the Nepali Congress declined to form a government, the UML would have stepped in. The notion that the government couldn’t function without Prachanda’s party in the third position is unfounded.
Despite serious questions looming over Prachanda’s leadership, no Maoist leader has dared to confront their chairman with the inquiry: “Prachandaji, why have you withheld these two reports and failed to hold the culprits accountable?”
Finally, the misappropriation of combatants’ funds has come under official scrutiny.
However, due to bureaucratic hurdles and alleged tampering, the investigation has stagnated.
Prime Minister Dahal, who advocates for good governance, has remained conspicuously silent on the matter.
Curious Case of the Third Party Prime Minister
The inclusion of a third party in the prime ministerial position begs scrutiny.
Good governance transcends merely apprehending corrupt individuals; it encompasses demonstrating political ethics and upholding parliamentary democracy’s general principles.
However, Prachanda, commanding 32 parliamentary seats, appears to overlook even the fundamental norms of parliamentary democracy.
While he may retain his seat through political maneuvering, the Maoist party has failed to reap any benefits.
Instead, the party finds itself teetering on the brink of self-destruction, with other parties poised to capitalize on the situation.
Prachanda contends that following the 2079 elections, Sher Bahadur Deuba was reluctant to accept the premiership, leading Prachanda to forge alliances with UML, RSP, and RPP.
Prime Minister Dahal asserts that there was a pre-election agreement with Deuba to share the prime ministership, which Deuba reneged on.
Even assuming the existence of a secret pact between Deuba and Prachanda regarding the division of the premiership, such backroom deals lack political legitimacy and hold little relevance for parliamentary democracy or the Nepalese electorate.
Ultimately, it is the people’s mandate that determines which party assumes which role in government.
In the 2079 elections, Prachanda did not receive a mandate to secure 32 seats and claim the prime ministership.
In practice, Prachanda has found himself isolated repeatedly. What transpired between him and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, who emerged victorious in the Gorkha elections? Where is Mohan Vaidya?
Even if the Maoists were to join a coalition government with a major party, they would likely need to maintain a low profile, akin to the UML’s current stance.
However, Prachanda, emboldened by his 32-seat victory, aspired to the premiership.
This underscores a clash between parliamentary values, political ethics, and the Maoist party’s allegiance to the people.
Let’s be candid: Without Prachanda’s intervention, the government formation might have proceeded differently.
Even if it had materialized, the primary and secondary parties would have borne greater responsibility.
Had the Nepali Congress declined to form a government, the UML would have stepped in. The notion that the government couldn’t function without Prachanda’s party in the third position is unfounded.
Ultimately, why did Prachanda not ascend to the prime ministerial role? He attributed a psychological factor to this decision.
It revolved around the poignant wish of his ailing wife, Sita Dahal, who desired to see her husband as Prime Minister in her final moments.
Prachanda disclosed this intimate detail during a discussion with editors held in Baluwatar a few months after assuming the premiership.
The question then arises: Should a party that secured a mandate of 32 seats in the election lead the government or opt to operate from outside, championing the people’s issues?
Should such decisions be driven by the nation’s needs or by personal familial sentiments?
Should they be determined through collective deliberation in party meetings or by the leader’s solitary judgment?
These are questions that Maoist leaders must grapple with.
During the vote of confidence in Parliament recently, the Prime Minister reached out to the first and second largest parties, expressing his desire for harmony: “I hope you reconcile and collaborate soon. Should you agree, the CPN-Maoist Center is prepared to assume the main opposition role and continue the fight for the nation, the people, constitutional defense, and national unity. Do you believe Prachanda is apprehensive?”
A pertinent inquiry arises for Prime Minister Dahal: Why has he been drawn to Baluwatar and Budhanilkantha after securing 32 seats?
Who, based on the people’s mandate and self-determination, prevented him from assuming the opposition role and championing the country, constitution, and nationalism?
Leaders under his purview, such as Narayankaji Shrestha, Barshman Pun, Agni Sapkota, Janardan Sharma, and Dev Gurung, are embroiled in internal strife, driven by factional mentalities.
Why did the Maoist leadership lack confidence in strengthening their party through grassroots activism, by addressing the people’s concerns directly?
United or Alone?
As Prime Minister Dahal asserts his capacity to foster reconciliation and national consensus, he highlights his penchant for accommodation.
He proudly states, “I have the ability to accommodate everyone. I assigned the presidency to the Nepali Congress, the Speakership to the UML, and the Deputy Speakership to the RSP. Collaboration is inherent in my nature.”
In practice, Prachanda has found himself isolated repeatedly. What transpired between him and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, who emerged victorious in the Gorkha elections? Where is Mohan Vaidya?
Despite Prachanda’s professed commitment to reconciling former Maoists, why has he failed to quell internal rebellion?
Why do factions within his own party fail to appease sub-factions?
In light of these developments, Prachanda appears not only incapable of reconciling everyone but also unable to unify his own party, let alone the Maoist faction.
Is it not selfish for a leader who cannot maintain party cohesion to claim to have reconciled everyone? These questions cast serious doubt on his leadership.
Why the Failure in the Peace Process?
Prime Minister Prachanda has touted his decision to abandon armed conflict in 2006 and embark on the peace process as a significant achievement.
However, 17 years on, the peace process remains incomplete. Is this a testament to Prachanda’s ineptitude or his legacy?
This question poses a significant challenge to his leadership.
While it may be lauded as a milestone to engage in peace talks, how does one justify taking up arms?
There’s a prevailing distortion of the Maoist-led people’s war within society.
Prachanda has aligned with the RSP, arguing that the Congress, a key player in the peace process, has misconstrued the people’s war.
Yet, it is the RSP, not the Nepali Congress, chanting ’17 thousand plus 2′ on the streets.
Its repercussions will become starkly evident in the forthcoming elections. In today’s parliamentary session, Prachanda advocated for “prohibition of prohibition,” effectively endorsing policies that favor the RSP at the expense of the Maoists.
The RSP hasn’t embraced the ‘People’s War’ to the same extent as the Congress.
In light of this, how many more years will the peace process be hindered? It’s time to seek answers together with the supreme commander.
It’s easy to speculate that following his departure from government, Prachanda no longer holds the reins to steer the Maoist party. It wouldn’t be surprising if he were to merge it with the CPN-UML.
Prachanda’s Successor?
Identifying Prachanda’s successor within the Maoist Center seems like an insurmountable task.
Prachanda’s erratic and power-centric policies have alienated the party from the populace.
Leaders under his purview, such as Narayankaji Shrestha, Barshman Pun, Agni Sapkota, Janardan Sharma, and Dev Gurung, are embroiled in internal strife, driven by factional mentalities.
Even younger generations have become ensnared as satellites of various factions.
In this climate, finding a viable successor within the party’s organizational structure appears futile.
Politically, from an external standpoint, it appears that Prachanda is inadvertently paving the way for Ravi Lamichhane’s ascension, whether he desires it or not, albeit tacitly.
Prachanda’s actions are increasingly benefiting Rabi Lamichhane. Prime Minister Dahal has openly obstructed efforts to prosecute Rabi, signaling Prachanda’s alignment with his potential successor.
Hence, it’s not an exaggeration to suggest that Prachanda is orchestrating Rabi’s path to the premiership after the 2084 elections.
Prachanda’s “upheaval” theory of “leap and catastrophe” has inadvertently weakened the Maoist movement while bolstering the RSP.
Its repercussions will become starkly evident in the forthcoming elections. In today’s parliamentary session, Prachanda advocated for “prohibition of prohibition,” effectively endorsing policies that favor the RSP at the expense of the Maoists.
Had Prachanda prioritized politics based on class interests and values, he might find himself alongside cooperative victims on the streets, aligning with the people’s cause.
Comment