The November 20 General Election did not bear pleasant result for the CPN (Maoist Center).
The party won only 18 first-past-the-post (FPTP) and 15 proportional representation (PR) seats out of the total 275 seats in the Federal Parliament. The Maoist Center is divided amid poor performance in the election.
Informal meetings of Maoist Center office bearers held on Saturday and Sunday concluded that the party ought to be strengthened and reach out to the public. So, where does the Maoist Center stand after the elections?
Nepalkhabar talked to the party's Deputy Secretary General Shakti Basnet. Excerpts:
What message has the Maoist Center got from House of Representatives (HoR) and Provincial Assembly elections?
I see two messages from the election. Firstly, some new parties have emerged in the Nepali political sphere and the space of the major parties has shrunk to some extent. Nevertheless, people are not fully convinced of the new emerging forces, which went to the masses vowing to the lead the country. The public seems to have tested these new forces by placing them at fourth, fifth and so on -- behind mainstream parties.
Secondly, people have questions about the old mainstream political parties. Despite harboring doubts, the result of the vote indicate the people have granted one last opportunity to the old parties. This must be viewed as a public warning. But, surely the public is giving a last chance to the mainstream parties.
There was no drastic upside down change. The order of winning parties is, more or less, intact (Nepali Congress, UML and Maoist Center followed by new and smaller forces).
Voters shrunk the Maoist Center and ensured rise of new powers. Isn't it so?
Views differ from people to people. Analyzes are also based on one's point of view. There is no compulsion to accept one particular analysis as correct. We analyze our situation in our own way.
What was the conclusion of the meetings held on Saturday and Sunday about the election results?
Election results were not as expected, even in terms of the alliance. Considering just the Maoist Center, we could have won 10 more FPTP seats and increase our share in PR category. But it did not happen. Results were affected by a host of things: we had to coordinate with ruling parties in electoral sharing and had to give up some of our constituencies to partners, and we were also not able to manage some technical issues. However, we are thinking about preserving and reawakening our political ideology, organization, working style and our relationship with the people.
The meetings also decided to keep open the option of coordinating with the CPN (UML). Is it true?
Our discussion was not based on that line. The Maoist Center does honest politics. We do not strive for just power; the party always puts the interest of the country at the center of politics and, thinks of the protection of the achievements gained by the people's struggle.
We built an alliance for political stability, protection of the constitution and democracy, and economic prosperity. Looking at immediate results, there is no need to think of an alternative to the alliance. That was the conclusion of our discussion.
After entering parliamentary politics, the Maoist Center has always been in power, except for a few times. It is also said the party desperately longs for power and sees nothing but power!
It is not so. We are only trying to build and shape the future. These allegations are refuted by facts themselves. We have always been a decisive power and it is true even for today. We mostly have decisive number, however, we never keep ourselves at the center.
We won the 2017 elections on behalf of the left alliance. As soon as the election concluded, the Maoist Center was offered to lead the government for five years. If the Maoists had only thought about itself and power, at that time only the Maoists would have formed a government under its leadership instead of forming a government of the left alliance.
We see the same situation even now. However, we do politics of honesty and possess political ethics and think morally. Our party has always contributed to steer the nation out of political impasse. The party has been thinking about protecting the political system and order. A single fact is stronger than a thousand arguments.
If Maoists only thought about power, there was a point of time in which it could single-handedly led the government. However, we don't think like that, even now.
The Maoist Center has staked claim for leadership of the government. Is this claim from within the coalition or outside of it?
The claim is with regards to the alliance. Let's be clear, Maoists are not thinking of leading the government beyond the alliance. We are reviewing the election within the coalition and are advocating a minimum common program and power sharing between the parties. How things will unfold is to be known when we move ahead in a process. For now, the question of government formation is certainly not from outside the coalition.
Various leaders within the Nepali Congress are staking claim for the parliamentary party leader and thus the prime ministership. Is your party feeling pressured due to it?
This is not a matter to feel pressured into. It is natural for various ideas to emerge within political organizations in a pluralistic society. However, the main thing is institutional decision. We see only what decision is made institutionally. It is not possible to create an impression by taking into account individual voices. The image of the party is reflected in the institutional decisions made by that party. Therefore, we look at the institutional decision of the party. We are not talking about the people of any party within the coalition. We take our decisions based on institutional decisions made by parties.
There is also discourse that the political course could advance beyond the coalition. What do you say?
There are areas to analyze possibilities. Alternatives are abundant. But which is the most suitable option among several alternatives? Probabilities and attitudes are to be considered. For now, the major and most suitable possibility is that of a coalition government.
Is there some 'gentleman's agreement' because of which the Maoist Center so confident of the coalition?
The commitment to the coalition has a political reason and not technical one. It is not like the coalition is not good anymore after performing poorly in the elections, and had it performed better, the coalition would have been best. Now is not the time to question the legitimacy of the alliance. At that time, we told the alliance was made for defending democracy and the constitution. The alliance was formed on the basis of political values.
What are the possibilities of forging an alliance with the UML?
There is no such thing as impossible in politics. I do not rule out the possibility since there has been a situation in which parties in favor and against the armed conflict united and reconciled.
However, currently, the possibility of alliance with UML does not seem to take a practical form.
Who will lead the government from coalition?
This is a technical matter. Who will lead the government, who will be the prime minister – these are not important. The issues make sense and are important during cooperation in the alliance. However, these matters solely do not decide the existence of the alliance.
