Hayley Curry is a second-year law student at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She is a graduate researcher who currently resides in Nepal.
For a People's Revolution to be successful, it needs the support of the people. Nepal's Maoists are learning this lesson the hard way. Just weeks after calling off an embarrassing week-long strike (locally known as a bandh) that shut down Kathmandu but failed to achieve their demands, the Maoists now face an identity crisis and broad public dismay. Where they counted on popular support to ensure a successful strike, they instead found increasing frustration and anger among the people whose lives they brought to a screeching halt with blockades of men and women with bamboo sticks.
For the Maoists, such responses are a new phenomenon. For years their broad public support meant they could utilize drastic tactics like frequent strikes, kidnappings, and "taxes" from trekkers and merchants with impunity. Their platform, after all, appeared to conform well to a modern understanding of democratic government. In 1996, they began a civil war demanding that an elected constituent assembly replace the monarchy as Nepal's governing body. Ten years later, the monarchy fell and constituent assembly elections soon began. By 2008, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) occupied more seats than any other party.
The Maoists' rise can be attributed to many factors, but chief among them is their popularity with the rural poor. Either through propaganda, threats, or genuine good works, they succeeded in convincing many people--particularly in the southern Terai--that the monarchy would never serve their best interests, that no matter how hard they worked they would never be allowed to get ahead by the monarchist rulers. Millions believed the promises and joined the ranks.
Capitalizing on the rural youth's lack of opportunities and angst, the Maoists established the Young Communist League (YCL) in 2006. The YCL's exact role is unclear, but many believe it is a para-military organization whose cadets have been trained in unarmed combat but also regularly carry knives, iron bars, and other weapons. In any case, the potential violent power of an estimated 500,000 motivated young men and women has worried everyone from the Prime Minister and UN Ambassador down.
The most recent strike, which began with a May Day rally in Kathmandu, drew tens of thousands of Maoists and supporters from outside the valley. With the May 28 deadline for the new Constitution drawing ever nearer, the Maoists sensed the time was right to exert pressure on the government and the citizenry at large. They had been attempting to return to power ever since their leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (also known as Prachanda), stepped down as Prime Minister over a disagreement with the Army chief over integrating Maoist forces into the Nepali Army. They believe that since they control the largest number of seats in the CA, the people have granted them a mandate to lead.
Yet the people may well have revoked any such mandate given the behavior they witnessed during the strike. Although the strike was not particularly violent, its level of disruption was extreme. Transportation was blocked, forcing people to walk anywhere in the five square kilometer valley they needed to go. Schools were closed, leaving millions of children without educational instruction. Businesses were shuttered by their proprietors for fear of vandalism and physical beatings. A severe shortage of food and medicine arose when the Maoists prevented supplies from being trucked into the valley, causing prices to soar.
On the sixth day, tens of thousands of anti-Maoist protestors from all walks of life converged on the capital to seek an end to the strike and return to their daily lives and livelihoods. The "peace protestors" took numerous digs at the Maoists in their speeches, even declaring that the Maoists were keeping 28 million Nepalese people hostage. The widespread disgust and disgruntlement must have resonated with the Maoists, who ended the bandh within 48 hours. Realizing so many individuals were against them was a sobering experience. Since then, despite continued threats of more disruption, the Maoists have not acted and instead have attempted to play by the rules and follow the parliamentary process.
Today, mentioning the Maoists to a Nepalese is unlikely to earn you a favorable response. Business owners will recount lost profits from the numerous strikes and being solicited for "taxes" by party leaders. Parents will express anger at the loss of education for their children and the unsafe environment of the protests and strikes. Soldiers will recount the long Civil War and the losses they faced. Intellectuals will lament the negative way the Maoists cause Nepal to be viewed by the rest of the world.
When a group breaks the trust of so many so quickly, failing to deliver its promises and in fact making life worse for its citizenry, no more favorable reception should be expected. Having lost the clout to flout the laws as they had done for years, they may now be faced to permanently play by the rules. Nepal waits to see if that is for better or for worse.