“People’s revolution”, “class struggle” and “communism”. These are the oft-repeated phrases in any communist party documents.

But Nepal’s Election Commission does not seem to like that.

A debate has ensued between the Election Commission and Nepal’s communist parties after it asked the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) to remove those terms from the party statute.

In its statute submitted to the commission, the Maoist Centre says “communism” is the party's ultimate goal, which it wants to achieve through “class struggle” and “people’s revolution”.

The Election Commission last month wrote to the Maoist Centre to remove those terms from the party statute.

The Maoist Centre refused to oblige.

And on December 21, days before the Maoist party’s convention, the commission itself removed the terms before authenticating the party statute for its official record.

“The commission found those terminologies contradicting the Constitution of Nepal,” Shaligram Sharma Poudel, spokesperson for the commission, told the Post. “They have been removed before keeping the statute in the office record.”

According to Poudel, political parties cannot set their goals that contradict the constitution.

Commission officials say since Nepal’s constitution envisions socialism, it would be unconstitutional if the parties set the goals which the constitution doesn’t envision. Article 4 of the constitution says Nepal is an independent, indivisible, sovereign, secular, inclusive, democratic, socialism-oriented, federal democratic republican state.

The Maoist Centre has taken a serious expectation to the commission’s decision.

“Communism is at the heart of communist parties. There can be no communist party without communism,” said Krishna Bahadur Mahara, spokesperson for the Maoist Centre. “We object to the commission’s decision. We will discuss it before reaching a conclusion on how to deal with it.”

The CPN-UML too has drawn the commission’s attention to its decision.

A team of party representatives on Friday told commission officials that the decision to remove communism from the Maoist Centre’s statute was wrong.

Ramesh Badal, a former attorney general, who was among UML team members to talk to commission officials, said if the parties can be named communist, they can set communism as their goal.

The UML too has submitted its statute endorsed by the recently concluded 10th general convention at the commission, which also talks about achieving communism.

“The commission said the Maoist Centre can challenge the decision in the court if it is not convinced,” said Badal. “Let’s see what it does with the UML’s statute.”

Theoretically, communism is a form of government largely associated with the ideas of Karl Marx, a German philosopher, who outlined the prescription for a utopian society in the Communist Manifesto written in 1848.

Marx, or the communist ideology for that matter, entered Nepal about a century later. Communism in Nepal dates back to 1951. Since the formation of the Communist Party of Nepal, the first communist party, Nepal’s communist movement has gone through several ups and downs and seen many splits.

In the 1960s, some youths took up arms, inspired by Charu Majumdar, a Bengali communist fighting an anti-state war, in Jhapa to behead landlords in their attempt to create a ‘class-less society’, marking the launch of search for communism in Nepal.

After King Mahendra staged a royal coup to install a partyless Panchayat regime, Nepal’s communist movement took a back seat. However, after the restoration of democracy in 1990, Nepali communists once again brought up class struggle as a means to achieve communism. The Maoist Centre [then CPN (Maoist)] even waged the “people’s war” in 1996, which continued for a decade.

Though the Maoist party has changed its tactical line since coming above ground, as a communist party which pledges to stick to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, it continues to strive for achieving communism.

Party leaders say it is natural for communist parties to achieve communism and the commission has no authority to remove it from their statutes.

“Parties are formed based on specific ideologies. Our constitution doesn’t restrict us to subscribe to any ideology,” Lila Mani Pokhrel, a Standing Committee member of the Maoist Centre, told the Post. “The Election Commission’s decision is unconstitutional. Our party, after the ongoing general convention, will take a formal decision regarding the commission’s move.”

Experts on constitutional affairs say by removing the three terminologies from the Maoist Centre’s statute, the commission has restricted them from having their opinion.

“It is unconstitutional to bar anyone from having an opinion and setting out an ideology,” Raman Shrestha, a former attorney general, told the Post. “The commission, as a constitutional body, should perform its duties by remaining within the constitutional jurisdiction.”

According to Shrestha, except for what is prohibited by the constitution, any party can have any ideology of their wish.

Shrestha says the parties can set the goal of communism if they have the strength to do so. When the goal can be achieved or not is a completely different matter, according to him.

The constitution itself is flexible when it comes to amendments, barring some provisions.

Article 274 of the constitution says all other provisions in the constitution other than those against sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence of Nepal and sovereignty vested in the people, can be revised.

A two-thirds majority, however, is necessary to amend the constitution.

“The parties cannot set a goal of secession or other attacks on sovereignty. Except those, they are free to set their goals,” Shrestha told the Post. “If a party sets the goal of reviving the monarchy, it should be allowed to do so, as our constitution guarantees this freedom.”

Nepal transitioned into a republic country in 2008 after the abolition of the centuries-old monarchy. The 2015 constitution guaranteed Nepal as a secular federal republic. There, however, are some forces that are rooting for the return of the monarchy and the Hindu state.

In March 2017, the commission had removed the terminologies like “reinstating Nepal as a Hindu state” and “monarchy” from the statute of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, the only organised political outfit trying to revive the monarchy.

Some constitutional experts, however, argue that the commission’s decision to ask parties to remove what contradicts the constitution from their statutes is right.

They say the commission, as a constitutional body, has every right to reject the party lines that do not conform to the constitution.

“There is no space for communism or people’s revolt in the constitution,” said Chandra Kant Gyawali, a constitutional expert. “The commission’s decision is right.”