Editorial
Seeing things
Dahal’s blaming foreigners for his party’s poor showing makes him sound like a sore loser.
Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal should be the last Nepali politician to complain of foreign interference. During the decade-long insurgency, the Maoists under him dug trenches on Nepali soil purportedly to fight the Indian Army that was supposedly invading Nepal. Then, when he became prime minister in 2008, he tried to sack a sitting army chief, this time inviting India’s real wrath which resulted in his being pushed out. After that, he made a concerted effort to prove his fealty to New Delhi. His relations with the Chinese are no less patchy. Over the years, they too have come to trust the over-promising and under-delivering Dahal less and less.
When his party was relegated to a distant third position in the November 20 elections, Dahal expectedly espied a foreign hand. He didn’t name names, but said that some foreigners had meticulously chosen winners and losers in the elections, and that the whole exercise had been orchestrated from outside. While a level of foreign interference in Nepal’s electoral process cannot be ruled out—especially given the increasing geopolitical battle for supremacy in the country—it does not behove a leader of Dahal’s standing to imply that the Nepali electoral process is controlled from outside.
One, such blaming of foreigners makes him sound like a sore loser. Rather than accusing outsiders, he should look at his own doings—entering into an alliance with an ideological foe and handpicking cronies as election candidates—that cost his party dear. Moreover, the Maoist party’s ideological slide since its entry into mainstream politics in 2006 has been pronounced, alienating its core constituencies. Two, and more importantly, such reckless remarks undermine public faith in the country’s electoral process, and by extension, the whole democratic apparatus. In any case, the extent of the foreign interference in the electoral process is impossible to determine.
Nepali communists are especially notorious for pointing at foreign meddling, whether from the "imperialist" United States or "expansionist" India. But as they have traditionally been getting around 50 percent of all votes cast in each and every election, don’t such statements imply their own failure to safeguard the country’s interests? And while they are all being self-righteous, who invites foreign interference? It is an open secret that the likes of Dahal, Sher Bahadur Deuba and KP Oli routinely cosy up to New Delhi or Beijing when it suits their interest. Yet, when convenient, they blame the same forces of intervening.
With the Dahal-led party set to become an integral part of the new government, he or his party leaders should not be making such casual remarks. Such comments only add to our foreign friends’ suspicions: If one power is indeed trying to control Nepal’s democratic exercise, the other too may feel the need to jump right into the game lest it be beaten in the battle for geopolitical supremacy. Nepali political leaders should have the maturity to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. Moreover, if our top political leaders put national interest first in dealing with foreign powers, such interference would be considerably reduced.