It’s nice to hear so much optimism surrounding the election of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in (ahem) Nepal, especially as the outcome of that vote seems to represent the will of a large group of previously disenfranchised people. It is also sensible for non-Nepalese organisations or governments to engage with the new majority party there in order to encourage and assist it in the implementation of policies that they support.
It being a government that sees the secularisation of society as an integral policy issue that needs to be actively addressed rather than an incidental or non-issue to be actively ignored (as the present system has served them very well so far, thank you), it is natural that the International Humanist and Ethical Association should wish to give these views an international voice and be supportive of the new regime in order for it to hopefully develop policies along Humanist lines.
In terms relating to Humanist principles, this new government appears to tick all the right boxes in terms of:
- Being rational
- Its views regarding religious dogma
- Being democratically elected
However, at the risk of being cynical, I think it wise to be cautious in view of the political ideology that forms this party and in view of some of the things that were said in an interview with International Humanist News magazine in November.
It goes without saying, but, for many, Maoism is as much a dogmatic belief system as any religion and has similarly had large amounts of blood spilt on its behalf. We only have to look at China as an example – which would be logical – to see the consequences of dogmatic political beliefs represented in the growth of undemocratic institutions to defend these beliefs. Institutions which soon betray the intentions and hopes upon which the rise of the party were based. Times, of course, have changed within China and there are no longer the purges that took place in the past, but there is a very real danger to the people of Nepal that similar things could happen there in the interest of advancing the party’s aims.
Although, of course, it always pays to be open-minded, it also pays to put your critical-thinking faculties to good use as well, especially where politicians – elected or otherwise – are concerned, and there are a few quotes that can be taken from the interview in November’s magazine to put fear into anyone’s heart who has lived under an authoritarian regime or anyone who fears for human rights when they hear the words ‘Maoist’ and ‘Government’ used in the same sentence.
Twice, within the interview, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai stated that there was a “need for a cultural revolution” and that “[e]ven after the political revolution is over, the economic and cultural revolution will continue.” I don’t think one can overstate the connotations that the phrase ‘cultural revolution’ may evoke in many people’s minds. One can only hope that lessons have been learnt from history, but history also teaches us that this very often doesn’t occur. Once mechanisms are in place and wheels in motion, where does a cultural revolution stop? Is there an agreed destination or is it just that it ‘will continue’? The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions.
Which leads us to: “we would like to bring in land reform.” Again, borne of good intentions, but again, a policy with a history of high human cost. Relatively successful reforms, however, have been carried out in parts of India, for example, so there is hope that the path is more gradual and less violent than the ones that have been travelled elsewhere.
Of course, there is much to be optimistic about and we shouldn’t blatantly dismiss this new government as, aside from not fostering good relations and good will between people, this may only serve to foster the very practices that are feared, but let us not turn a blind eye to one thing if our interests are being served by another.
I guess my final sentence should echo sentiments that have been much uttered since this government’s election and that is: “The true test of democracy is not the ability to be voted in by the people, but the ability to be voted out by the people.”
Original article appeared: http://www.iheu.org/node/3257
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment