Submit your Article

Former prime minister and ex-Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai is these days busy spreading and strengthening the organiza­tional base of his Naya Shakti Party, which he founded in July 2016. He believes old political forces are incapable of bring­ing about the kind of complete socio-economic transformation that will help Nepal become a first-world country, and hence his new party. A federal MP from Gorkha, Bhattarai is also a close observer of Nepali econ­omy and foreign policy. Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhatta­rai caught up with him to dis­cuss the performance of the Oli government, Naya Shakti and the recent split in Bibeksheel Sajha Party.

 How do you evaluate the performance of the Oli govern­ment that has now been in place for over 11 months?

The government presented some statistics in the parliament and claimed significant progress in dif­ferent areas. That could be partially true. But people expect more than gradual changes. They want a quan­tum leap from an under-developed, backward economy to an advanced one in the shortest possible time. By that yardstick, the government has failed.

What in your view accounts for the government’s poor performance?

There could be several factors. First, there is the question of polit­ical vision. The political leadership should have an objective and scien­tific vision to guide the country to a certain goal within a given time. The prime minister makes vacuous state­ments, and does not seem to have a concrete vision, plan and program. Second, our political leaders were good at leading political revolution and making political sacrifices. But I think they lack the expertise on economic, social and international issues in order to pursue a viable plan for the country’s development.

But even if our political leadership do not have those qualities, they should be able to mobilize the tal­ents in the country. Why not have a team of experts to advise on crucial issues? Third, our political leaders have made huge sacrifice in their life, and spent several years in jail or underground. By the same token, they felt they had the liberty to rule as they pleased. This led to bad gov­ernance and rampant corruption. Because of these factors, the gov­ernment has been unable to deliver.

 Earlier you talked about making a quantum leap. Could you elaborate?

We are still a least developed country with a per capita income of around $1,000. The world average is about $10,000. We are way behind the rest of the world. To make a leap from third world status to first world status, you need rapid economic development. In my understanding you should have double-digit growth for at least two decades to make that jump. That is the quantum leap I was talking about.

But that has not been possible in the past three decades. What makes you think we can achieve that now?

Earlier, our agenda was political revolution. As we could not com­plete our revolution in one go, we had to make repeated attempts: in the 1950s, the 1990s and again in 2006. We spent most of the past half century on different phases of politi­cal revolution. Now, with the prom­ulgation of the new constitution, this political revolution is over. We have an elected government with a two-third majority. Now, it is time for the political leadership to deliver on the economic front. It is possible if there are concrete vision and plans.

How do you see the emergence of new political forces like Naya Shakti, Sajha and Bibeksheel?

With the start of the 21st century, people were saying we had entered a phase of the fourth industrial revo­lution, brought about by digital, bio­logical and economic revolutions. So old ideologies and political forces are not going to work. We will have to devise a new political program, and we need new political parties to carry out the new agenda of the new political era. In that sense, we are trying to build alternative political forces that will go beyond the dog­mas of capitalism and communism.

With this view, we started the Naya Shakti Nepal party. Bibekshel and Sajha also came up. What hap­pens in history is that at the start of a new phase, different tendencies and groups sprout. Ultimately either they coalesce or one of them swal­lows the rest. In Nepal’s case, two Nepali Congress parties were estab­lished at the same time. Ditto with our first communist forces. Even in the case of the regressive royalist party, two Rastriya Prajatantra par­ties were established on the same day. New alternative political forces will also follow the same rule.

 Why do you think the Bibekshel Shaja Party split? Is it part of the same evolutionary process you talk about?

Yes. My contention is that Bibek­sheel and Sajha were based on differ­ent political and ideological planks. Their political backgrounds were also different. In my understanding, Bibeksheel leaders were more inno­cent and committed youths who wanted to develop a new political force through people’s movements and campaigns. Therefore, they attracted the educated youth. On the part of Sajha, old profession­als and retirees came together and thought that would be enough to create a political force. Even after the split, with good guidance, these two parties could be a part of the new political firmament, a viable third force we are trying to create.

Our party Naya Shakti Nepal start­ed on a firm ideological and political ground, with a five-point principle of equitable development, participa­tory democracy, good governance, balanced geopolitics and participa­tory socialism. Unfortunately, since we had to face elections within a year of the party’s formation, we could not spread our organizational roots in rural areas, and in urban areas the space was already occu­pied by other forces. In the next election, there will be a repolariza­tion of political forces and we will emerge as a strong alternative force to the NC and the NCP

In a separate context, the UN and some countries with representa­tives in Nepal have come up with a joint statement on the TRC pro­cess. What is your take?

Our TRC is basically a home-grown process based on political consensus. It stands on the back of the Comprehensive Peace Agree­ment (CPA), the interim constitution and the new constitution. But yes, it is about time we completed the protracted peace process.

As a member of the Maoist move­ment and an active participant of the peace process, I am also concerned about the delay. But I wonder why the international community issued such a statement in haste. I think there was no need to get worried that way. We are on the right path.

There are voices that the TRC Act should be amended in line with the Supreme Court order.

We should be guided by the CPA and the new constitution. They are the main documents. Thus the TRC process should be completed within their framework. The role of the judiciary and other bodies is only to interpret these provisions. If there are loopholes, there is the parliament to plug them. There is no other way: you have to go by the constitution and the CPA. And this is the right path. Otherwise, there is a danger of the whole process falling apart, with serious consequences for the country.

As a former finance and prime minister, can you tell us why the national economy is in such a bad shape?

The government lacks clear think­ing. When I spoke in the parliament, I told them you should dare to dis­card the garb of communism. I still believe in Marx and many of his principles, especially his critique of capitalism. But he was critiquing a post-capitalist society. Nepal is in a pre-capitalist stage and transitioning into capitalism, and in this phase you have to promote private invest­ment, both internal and external, and industrialize rapidly. This is the root of the problem. Nepal’s com­munists have to recognize it.

 Do you think the Oli govern­ment’s foreign policy has been on the mark?

I think it has been quite imma­ture. Given our geopolitical reality and the fast-changing regional and international dynamics, we need a new foreign policy suited to the cur­rent context. That means a policy that takes into account the interests of India, China and the US. These three major forces have consider­able interests in Nepal and these interests are likely to clash in coming days. We should formulate our for­eign policy with this on mind.

Of course, we should have good relations with all three countries. We should follow a pacifist policy that promotes national, regional and world peace. Maybe we can even propose Nepal as a peace zone. Though this issue had been raised by King Birendra, there was no question of peace in an autocrat­ic system. Now, if we pursue this policy sincerely it is achievable. It will also be the best way to preserve our sovereignty and independence, and to embark on the path of peace and prosperity.

Q. A question you wish more people would ask?

A. I wish more people asked me about my profession, whether it’s exciting and about the most memorable event or show I have done.

Q. Your alternate career choice?

A. Either marketing or public relations.

Q. One thing you do to cheer yourself up?

A. Go out with friends.

Q. Most misunderstood thing about you?

A. Some think I am arrogant.

Q. Something people would be surprised to know about you?

A. I cook well and I am a very good dancer.

Q. An outfit you cannot go wrong with?

A. Blazer pants and a nice white shirt.

Q. If you could have coffee with one Nepali celebrity, who would it be?

A. I am a tea person and I would love to have it with Vlogger Sisan Baniya.

Q. Best compliment you have received?

A. Each one has been the best.

Q. An advice you would give to your younger self?

A. Listen to your heart and decide with your mind.

The main opposition Nepali Congress has been disrupting the federal lower house as the government tries to forcefully pass a watered-down version of the Medical Education Bill and as it looks to rename some hospitals named after past Congress leaders. Notwithstanding its recent show of strength in the parliament, many feel Congress is rudderless and has been a feeble opposition. Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Gagan Thapa, NC Central Working Committee member and a federal MP, on government functioning, his party’s future course and Dr Govinda KC’s fast.    

Was the recently concluded Mahasamiti meeting helpful in resolving the outstanding issues in Nepali Congress?

The primary agenda of the Mahasamiti meeting was the amendment of the party statute, which was necessary given the country’s new federal structure. The Mahasamiti was also expected to pave the way for the General Convention. Both objectives have been achieved.

However, we failed to discuss many dimensions of the party’s reform. In fact, we are not ready for a serious discussion on party reform. We have to understand this is not the first time the NC lost an election. Our presence in the parliament would have been even weaker had the communist and Madhes-based forces been united in the second Constituent Assembly (CA) election in 2013.

Do you think Congress will be able to regain its past strength?

As I said, this is not the first time we performed badly in an election. We began to do so after the 1999 parliamentary elections, but we are only talking about our performance in the 2017 elections. The votes our party gets has ranged from 27 to 36 percent of the total votes cast, and the various communist forces get the rest. Of late, some voters are attracted to the Madhes-based parties as well. Why couldn’t we attract more voters? Even in the elections we claim to have won, we got the same percentage of vote.

This percentage will not be enough to lead the government in the future. Our leadership is nostalgic about our glorious past and wants to regain it, but that’s not the right approach. Congress should have a forward-looking approach, identify new ways of thinking and set new targets.

Has there been any change in the party functioning after the Mahasamiti meeting?

There are two aspects to our party’s mismanagement. The first is the political aspect, which depends on the conscience and the working style of party leadership. It is a continuous test of party leadership.

Second, every political party is a modern organization with millions of cadres who have their own expectations. A party is an outcome of cooperation and competition among its members and leaders, a concept that seems to have eluded our leadership. If we do not follow certain procedures, we cannot function like a coherent party unit. But even after the Mahasamiti, our working style remains the same. It requires a major overhaul. 

Are you hinting at the monopoly exercised by the party president?

Our CWC meeting has not been held, but the party is making big decisions without extensive consultations. Our party statute has envisioned a ‘Kendriya Karya Sampadan Samiti’ for making vital decisions in the absence of the CWC meeting. The party president invites leaders close to him to his residence and they make decisions. This goes against the party statute. As the party president has a super-majority in the organization, he can appoint his close aides to the Samiti and formalize his decisions. 

Party leaders do not care about party statute until some decisions affect them personally. They object to the president’s monopoly if their personal interests are hurt. The competition among leaders can only be managed if the party operates on the basis of established norms. Intra-party betrayal was rampant during the last election. Had we followed some rules while distributing tickets, we could have won another 20 seats in the national parliament.  

It seems the party’s reform process will begin only after the general convention? What plans are afoot to hold the convention?

I do not think only convening the GC would trigger reform. While the Mahasamiti was focused on amending the party statute, the GC would concentrate only on electing the party leadership. What we need is clear vision and policy to function as an effective opposition. Obviously, the current government has failed to deliver, and we are criticizing it. But the NC should give a clear message about how the current situation could have been different had the NC been in power. How would it have governed differently? Answering this requires a serious discussion on party ideology, policy and programs. Mere rhetoric about the current government’s shortcomings won’t do.

What is happening with the agenda of changing party leadership?

We have high respect and love for our incumbent leaders, but it’s clear that they cannot reform the party. The public will no longer accept them as the party’s face. A change is the need of the hour.

How do you evaluate the performance of this government?

The government was elected by the people and given a five-year mandate. At the same time, the tenet of ‘constitutional liberalism’ suggests three tests to check if any government is democratic—whether it respects the rule of law, whether it respects the separation of powers, and whether it respects people’s fundamental rights. This government fails all three tests. So I won’t hesitate to say it is not a democratic government. 

KP Oli is perhaps the luckiest prime minister in that he has a super-majority in the parliament and strong control over his party. Late Girija Prasad Koirala and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai had a majority in the parliament but they faced strong opposition in their party. But although Oli is in a comfortable position, he couldn’t bring about systematic and institutional changes in the country. He has failed to perform; he has failed to deliver. The country’s economy is spiraling towards a crisis and people are losing faith in the government.

Why then has the opposition’s role not been satisfactory?

What matters is what people think about us and whether they are happy with our performance in the parliament. There are some issues about which the opposition just raises questions in the parliament. Some issues demand strong resistance to make the government accountable. On some other issues, we can provide suggestions to the government. And there could be some issues in which we can work together with the government. The NC is confused as to how to deal with various issues in the parliament.

There is a powerful government but a weak opposition. Can your failure to play the role of an effective opposition pose a threat to democracy itself?

It can. The government, with a two-thirds majority, is mighty. If the prime minister’s focus had been on building a robust system and enhancing institutions, we would have fewer reasons to worry even if the opposition was weak. But the PM does not care about the basic principles of democracy. He believes that those principles are an obstacle. The head of the government wants to violate democratic principles, and the opposition is not capable enough to protect them. Given such a scenario, it’s reasonable to fear that hard-won democracy could be undermined and civic space could shrink. 

What is the status of the shadow cabinet that Congress was supposed to form?

I first proposed this concept when we drafted the statute of NC parliamentary party.  All leaders were convinced that it was a good idea and it was incorporated into the party statute. Earlier, a sense of urgency was missing, but in the last meeting, I pushed this proposal again and some progress has been made. Still, if the party leadership does not take ownership of this concept, it would be difficult to form a shadow cabinet and problems could arise even after its formation.

The NC should set the principle of the role of the opposition party. We do not have a long experience of being an opposition party, and there is no particular yardsticks by which to measure a shadow cabinet’s success. The shadow cabinet will fully inform the parliamentary party. If there is an informed decision, there is a high chance that we will take the right decisions on national issues.

That questions are being continuously raised about our leadership show that people are not satisfied with the performance of either the government or the opposition. Top party leaders should realize this fact.

Finally, how do you see government’s role in addressing Dr Govinda KC’s demands?

There are two aspects to it. First, the government’s recent action indicates it is not ready to heed the small but powerful and legitimate voices of society. This is a dangerous trend. Earlier, even powerful prime ministers used to heed the voices of a few influential people who stood for truth. Now, the government is trying to create a situation where you are either on its side or Dr KC’s.  Unlike the past, there is no middle ground. Dr KC and his supporters are forcefully being portrayed as NC supporters.

Second, the government is trying to protect some private interests. The interest groups close to government are upbeat with government stonewalling Dr KC’s demands. The government is serving a narrow interest, which is also a dangerous sign.