Why did communism continue to be attractive in Nepal when it was weak in the entire South Asia? Although some Indian states formed provincial governments in the name of communism for a while, communists could not reach the leadership role of the central government of India. The communist wave could not spread in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and other provinces, which are considered very poor, and today it has reached the point of dissolution everywhere.

Compared to India, its influence was greater in Nepal and communists have reached the leadership of the government many times. Although communists ruled West Bengal for 34 years, the Trinamool Congress, which suddenly emerged, has been running the government for so many years to the point of eliminating the existence of communists, and now its main competitor is not the communists but the Bharatiya Janata Party. It is expected that even if the power is changed in the upcoming elections, it will fall under the BJP's control. 

 It is not certain whether the National Independent Party, formed three-four years ago, won about two-thirds of the seats and the existence of the so-called old parties will be questioned only temporarily or whether it will have a long-term impact on Nepal's politics. Is Nepal moving towards the elimination of communists like other South Asian countries? Since the election results this time have shown such signs, it is necessary to ask whether the existence of established parties is about to end. It is not certain whether the National Independent Party, formed three-four years ago, won about two-thirds of the seats and the existence of the so-called old parties will be questioned only temporarily or whether it will have a long-term impact on Nepal's politics. But this article focuses on the issue of whether the communist dominance in Nepal will continue in the coming days or whether a situation similar to that of South Asian countries will arise. For this, the following aspects should be taken as a basis for analysis. 

First, the misinterpretation and use of Marxist-Leninist or Maoist principles. As a slogan, it is very attractive and easy to organize, from the educated to the common people, and has succeeded in increasing its influence in some countries and regions and has survived to this day. Although Marxism is somewhat attractive in the context of Nepal, a one-party dictatorship based on Lenin or Maoism is not possible in the social, political, historical, cultural and geopolitical environment here.

Second, the Communist Party of Nepal was born in Calcutta (Kolkata) in 1949, but since its slogan and political background are different, this party, like the Nepali Congress, was trained in liberal democracy, and as Marx said, it too became bourgeois and landed in a parliamentary system and arrived here.

Since it participated in the 2015 elections and won four seats in the House of Representatives and was involved in a multi-party system, it can be said that the people's multi-party democracy propounded by Madan Bhandari was not a new invention. The emergence of the Male, which emerged on the strength of the violent movement in Jhapa, was used as an excuse to enter the parliamentary system. Later, the transformation of the Maoists also took place in this way, and today, various divided communist groups have played roles in the multi-party system like other non-communist parties.

Many have gradually faded away and disappeared, some are struggling to survive. From a theoretical point of view, their slogans are no longer useful. Because today the form and style of implementing attractive slogans have changed. Not only have the people not found a fundamental difference even when 6 communist leaders have been prime ministers 11 times, but they have adopted the same political culture and style, which is why people are becoming disgusted with them. Some leaders may be exceptions in terms of corruption, but since other parties accepted the Maoist agenda (republic, inclusiveness, secularism, etc.) and created today's constitution, the contribution of this party can be discussed. However, the word Maoism is nowhere confirmed.

Third, it has been proven that people cannot be attracted by mere principles. On the other hand, since issues such as liberal democracy, republic, social justice or fulfillment of the basic needs of the people, and the end of all kinds of discrimination have become common concepts of all parties, the criterion of progressivity has also become a matter of action, not a matter of words.

If the delivery method of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) remains the same as that of the previous party, it cannot be said that its lofty position will not fall. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his book ‘On Leadership – Lessons for the Twenty-First Century’, considered service delivery to be the only basis for the survival of a government in today’s world and emphasized this by saying ‘delivery, delivery, delivery’. Therefore, good governance, corruption prevention and service delivery have now become the main pillars of governance. Although some say that the theory has ended, liberal democracy has not ended, however, even the most democratic countries in the world are found to be oriented towards authoritarian tendencies. As democracy itself has transformed into a leader-dominated system, traditional democracy is being undermined. With new technology adding newness, the practice of democracy has also changed.

Nepal’s recently concluded elections have also added new dimensions to democratic practice. On the one hand, the dominance of new social media has been found to have more influence on the people. On the other hand, the so-called old parties have also been punished based on the work of their leaders. But this time the influence of regionalism, ethnicity, religion, etc. remained less. Rather, the assessment of work, the desire for the new, and the anger and distaste for the ruling parties have led to a major change in the voters' perspective. But no one expected that such a terrible landslide would happen, that the old parties would be overwhelmed by such a large public opinion and that the new party and its miraculous leader would be crushed.

Perhaps the leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) themselves did not expect that such a tsunami of public opinion would come and bring them to this place. Even though the new Nepali Congress tried to stop the destruction, it could not be overcome. But the line taken by the new Congress is relevant to the time. Since such unexpected moments come in electoral politics, if a dynamic leadership moves forward with patience, hard work, and a specific goal, it is unlikely that it will not return to the lost position in some time.

If the delivery method of the RSSP remains the same as that of the previous party, it cannot be said that its sky-high position will not fall. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in his book ‘On Leadership – Lessons for the Twenty-First Century’, considered service delivery as the only basis for government to survive in today’s world and emphasized on this by saying ‘delivery, delivery, delivery’. 

Fourth, the stability of the heights achieved in populism depends on understanding in leadership, organizational discipline, agile governance style and ability to implement policies, minimum fulfillment of people’s aspirations, economic management and job creation and fulfillment of other basic needs. The stability of the government also depends on these issues. If the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) can achieve stability, its main competitor is more likely to be another non-communist party, the Congress. Although the organizational base of the UML is good, it will suffer from the lack of attractive leadership and time and circumstances seem unlikely to bring it back to the top. The popular base of the Prachanda-led NCP is also not encouraging.

There is no possibility of a new communist leadership. But in the political scenario, these parties are not in a position to dissolve anytime soon. The effectiveness of the role of the RSVP and the extent of its support will determine the future of other parties. But given the changing global and regional environment, it is unlikely that communist parties in Nepal will be able to build a popular base and be as attractive as before. The incompetence seen in running the government and the tendency to become a new bourgeoisie have now lost their old charm. The same applies to other parties, as exemplified by the election results.

There is also no possibility of a new communist leadership. But in the political scenario, these parties are not in a position to dissolve anytime soon. The effectiveness of the role of the RSVP and the extent of its support will determine the future of other parties. Fifth, the communist wind blew in Nepal after the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution. Its wave was effective in the slogan that the upliftment of the poor and disadvantaged classes would be possible through such changes. During the post-2017 royal rule, in the fight for democracy, some communist leaders and activists moved towards a non-party system under the pretext of nationalism. Some continued to engage in anti-establishment activities both within and outside the country.

But their rise to power was made possible by the opposition politics within the Panchayat system. The Maoist war was waged in opposition to the multi-party system, but after 10 years, like the UML, it lost its identity by merging with parliamentary politics. Its wartime principles and slogans were all transformed. But examples of countries that can only run a one-party system are China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, where communism can be ruled in the name of communism. When Russian communism collapsed after 70 years, the left wing disappeared in Central and South American countries and a wave of authoritarianism began.

Sixth, many link the rise and fall of parties to geopolitics and believe that India played a greater role. But the fall of communist parties was not caused by foreigners, but by their own personal politics, interests, etc. This series began in the 1950s. Although the dispute between Kesharjung Rayamajhi and Pushpalal was linked to Russian revisionism and Maoism, it led to a division over whether or not to become a royal communist.

Pushpalal, on the other hand, called himself a republican and considered himself a purer Marxist than others. He did not support the violent activities of Jhapali. Many communist leaders used to stay in India and run anti-establishment campaigns. During the royal rule, they demonstrated their anti-India stance by supporting the king's foreign policy in the name of nationalism. While opposing the liberation movement of Bangladesh, Manmohan Adhikari used to point fingers at BP Koirala by saying, 'There is a lot of Rahman (Mujibur) in Nepal', because the Congress had also increased armed activities against the establishment from India. Since China opposed Bangladesh and supported Pakistan, the communists here also took the same line.

After the establishment of the republic in Nepal, China became active, so the US also took more interest. But the fact that China could not reconcile the Nepali communist parties even if it wanted to is before everyone. It is not that China did not try many times to reconcile the communist parties, but it was not possible. When the Maoist Center and the UML merged, they had almost two-thirds of the seats in parliament. However, they remained divided.

The Congress had formed the government by winning a majority in the 2048 elections, but it collapsed due to internal conflicts and personal ambitions. Similarly, Oli and Prachanda toppled the government of about two-thirds. In this too, one can see the play of foreigners. In other cases, although the role of neighbors has been seen, it has not been found to be successful in forming or destroying big parties. Their interests or self-interest may incline them towards a party, but it seems that their role in winning or losing them has not been effective.

When the relationship with India is linked to nationalism (not national) and the irresponsible speech of the leader, the relationship has also gone up and down. UML leader KP Oli especially falls into this category. When one speaks insensitively on foreign affairs, one is unnecessarily displeasing the other side. In some cases, diplomatic sensitivity should be shown. In that too, the relationship with India is not just as discussed at the public level. It should be understood objectively and on the basis of reality. Not in the wave of populism.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has said in its manifesto that it will adopt developmental diplomacy, which is a welcome issue in today's context. Because now the country will not develop only through traditional thinking and strategies. Development has become a very necessary condition for national security. For this, adopting cooperative relations strengthens development. If there is development, the people become strong, and since the people are the nation, nationalism automatically develops.

Finally, Nepal's politics is not influenced by communism. Even though a party runs under the banner of communism here, liberal democracy has become universally accepted. If there is a strong, people-oriented, selfless, committed leader, democratic culture will be established and therefore it will provide stability. This election has confirmed that people will no longer vote by looking at the banner of a political party. Therefore, there is no need to keep dividing people into communists, democrats, and progressives. Whose role is what, that is determining the state of the parties. ( Baral is a former ambassador and professor of political science .)