Editorial
Old habits die hard. The communists gain much through propaganda. But, when Prime Minister K.P. Oli claims that his show last week was attended by crowds extending on Durbar Marg south to Tri-Chandra College, east to Jai Nepal Cinema and west to the Thamel Sanchaya Kosh building, he was merely reflecting hopes of his organizers who set his stage in front of the Narayanhitty Royal Palace. The crowds that attended the gathering were aware that Oli was lying. The bluff didn’t work for those who watched his show. He need not have bluffed. The crowd was sizeable but not that sizeable. Ever since the high-pitched mud-slinging that was being exchanged between the two opposing camps in the government party has mellowed somewhat. For understandable reasons at that. Oli’s opponents are aware that the party is vertically split. Oli would want to wish that he was stronger in numbers. Both sections are aware however that a large portion of that crowd was lured in with the hope that Oli would make major announcements. That he refrained from this signals a change and hints at mere strategy encouraged also by his opponents.
Unabashed hopes from a section of ‘rajabadis’ awaiting a congenial Oli announcement belies an intrinsic weakness from this quarter. They are leaderless and not united. The pro-monarchists, Pro-Hindu nation, anti-federal groups on the streets until Prithivi Jayanti are curiously missing from the streets. The recognition that there is a need for unity in these quarters is real. The effort to forge this unity must however recognize certain salient features of this population. Firstly, the mainstream political parties have monopolized cadre for decades now. They have a coherent ideology and leadership. The widespread disenchantment of the population over Nepali politics does not necessarily mean that alternatives to the current establishment will emerge equally coherently of a sudden on the streets. The fact that the street activities as yet are spontaneous, homegrown and local at the moment may be recognized as a weakness while matching the establishment’s clout. The idea that alternative emergence of leadership and organization alone can defeat the mainstream, however, is unreal. A stratagem to gain from both the popular spontaneity and the lack of unanimous leadership would perhaps be the more practical.
For one thing, this alternative is more or less self-financed. For another, this section builds on the popular reaction to the nonfunctioning of a visibly dormant system. In this sense, to seek a political leadership emerging from this reaction would be counter-productive. Politics is a dirty word applicable to the mainstream. That a similar trait is sought for among the disenchanted would defeat the search for an alternative. Again, the defused leadership and spontaneous funding would certainly inhibit the various and variegated groups by being impeded with coherent leadership. It is time the country learns to turn its weaknesses into strength. The decentralized form of the opposition movement should at best be coordinated and not imposed upon by a leadership seemingly unaware of the fact that leadership exists outside of centralized politicians vying for that mantle as an option to the current state of affairs. Be warned. Ham-handed sponsorship can spoil both initiative and popular efficacy.
Login to add a comment