>Since when were you able to believe in what you believe >(as in republicanism)? what made you refrain from being >a rebel (maoist)? LooTe-jee, It won't be inaccurate to say it was in my blood. I inherited my initial romanticism with republicanism from my father. Then it got sharpened and intensified during my association with Akhil-VI which lasted for 2-3 years some two decades ago. I have shared elsewhere my story of how I got disillusioned with the leftist parties. Basically I was frustrated with their orthodoxy and rigidity. At the same time, my political views were also evolving and I was starting to have more faith in freedom and democracy. A decisive moment was the day (sometime during 1982-83) Akhil-VI and it's mother party CPN(4th convention) organized a rally in Kathmandu to denounce Deng's reform in China as a capitalist anti-revolution. My instinct and little information I had from here and there were saying that Deng's reform was a necessity and for the good of China. And here was a party that was forcing me to denounce it. The protest rally was organized in a hurry (I do not remember why) and Lilamani Pokharel had come to inform us. I did not go to the rally; my instinct and conscience did not allow me. That was also the beginning of the end of my relation with the left politics. During 1990 and afterwards when Madan Bhandari ingeniously transformed current UML into a DEMOCRATIC party, (my perspective here, - http://www.sajha.com/archives/openthread.cfm?threadid=15565&dsn=sajhaarchive#21673 ), I was attracted to it and, as a matter of fact, I had told many of my old "disciples" who were turning to me for advice to join the ML. Years later and still until now, I was sad to see UML in what most people recognize as a perpetual state of self-confusion. I just hope the same does not happen with the Maoists. That brings to how I look at the Maoists. I have explained as objectively as possible about their strength and weaknesses in my article "Why Republicanism" and other postings I have referred earlier. So the Maoists were a mixed bag for me. And so are other political parties, although their weaknesses are heavier in my balance. If I have to say about my emotional position vis-a-vis the Maoists, all these years until I first saw a clear sign of their ideological evolution towards DEMOCRACY (which is May 2003, see below for explanation) I was mistrustful of them for their orthodoxy and rigidity that I talked about earlier. My reading about the Maoists is that, although they have referred to democracy now and then for practical and tactical purposes, they did not integrate it in their ideology until their 2nd National Conference in 2001. In this conference, a very important political proposal called "On the development of democracy in the 21st Century" was submitted. The proposal was discussed for almost two years and finally adopted as a resolution in the meeting of it's central committee in May 2003. Below is an excerpt from that resolution. I have highlighted some lines and clause where the notion of democracy is integrated and accepted. It is interesting but not threatening that they have equaled "democracy" to 21st century version of "continuous revolution", otherwise a Maoist notion. Anyway, Prachanda and other top leaders have reiterated, elaborated and refined it for umpteenth time since they made public appearances in 2006 to reach to several agreements with commitment to multiparty democracy with SPA and the government. So there is no basis to doubt that it is not a real thing. My only concern is whether they will be successful to adapt to an imperfect thing like democracy perfectly or meet the fate of UML's self-confusion to give any able leadership to the country. That said, as of now, the Maoists is the only political party in the country with a potential (only potential, mind that) to be the one we just need to transform Nepal into a progressive and progressing nation. NC is too old, too tired and now hopelessly disarranged. UML is bewildered and confused as usual. Others are insignificant. Unless something dramatic, something miracle of a sort happens within NC and UML, they are going to do their business as usual. However, these prospects should not make us pessimist. In fact, I think, no matter how incompetent our political parties and leadership remain, Nepal will still be a much better democracy than it ever has been and it will make unprecedented stride towards it's development. The awakened people with the awareness of their strength and rights is it's assurance. *** *** *** *** *** *** From the Maoist resolution "On the development of democracy in the 21st Century" (adopted by CC in May 2003) Nepali version: - http://cpnm.org/new/Nepali/Dastabej/dastabej.htm एक पटक एक निश्चित कम्युनिष्ट पार्टीको नेतृत्वमा जनवादी वा समाजवादी राज्यसत्ता स्थापित भइसके पछि सो पार्टी सधै र्सवहारावादी भइराख्छ भने झै [गरेर] त्यसका विरुद्ध राजनैतिक रुपले जनसमुदायद्धारा स्वतन्त्ररुपमा जनवादी वा समाजवादी प्रतिस्पर्धा गर्ने वातावरण नहुनु, नबनाउनु वा त्यसमाथि प्रतिबन्ध लगाइनुले एकातिर सत्तासीन पार्टी जनसमुदायका बीचमा कसैसंग राजनैतिक प्रतिस्पर्धा गर्नु नपर्ने हुंदा त्यो क्रमशः विशेष सुविधा सम्पन्न यान्त्रिक नोकरशाही पार्टी र त्यसको नेतृत्वको राज्यसत्ता पनि क्रमशः यान्त्रिक र नोकरशाही मेसिनरीमा परिणत हुने तथा अर्कातिर जनसमुदाय औपचारिक जनवादको शिकार भएर क्रमशः उसको असीमित सिर्जनशीलता र गतिशीलताको उर्जा कुण्ठित हुन जाने खतरा इतिहासमा स्पष्ट देखा पर्ने गरेको छ । उपरोक्त समस्या समाधानकालागि निरन्तर क्रान्तिको सिद्धान्त अनुसार राज्यसत्तामा जनसमुदायको नियन्त्रण, निगरानी र हस्तक्षेपको प्रक्रियालाई सजीव र वैज्ञानिक ढंगले संगठित गर्ने आवश्यकतामा जोड दिइनु पर्दछ । ..... यदि पार्टी आफैलाई निरन्तर क्रान्तिकारीकरण गर्न नसके त्यसको खिलाफमा अर्को क्रान्तिकारी पार्टी वा नेतृत्वलाई राज्यसत्तामा पुर्याउन सक्ने जनसमुदायको अधिकारलाई संस्थागत गरेर मात्र प्रतिक्रान्तिलाई प्रभावकारी ढंगले रोक्न सकिने छ । ..... विभिन्न राजनैतिक दल, संघ, संस्था जसले जनवादी राज्यसत्ताको सवैधानिक व्यवस्थालाई स्वीकार र्गर्दछन्, उनीहरुका बीचमा कम्युनिष्ट पार्टीलाई सहयोग मात्र गर्नुपर्ने यान्त्रिक सम्बन्धमा होइन जनताको सेवामा जनवादी राजनैतिक प्रतिपर्धा गर्ने द्वन्दात्मक सम्बन्धमा जोड दिइनु पर्दछ । .... एक पटक राज्यसत्ता कब्जा गरिसके पछि पार्टी नेतृत्वको हैशियत साबित गर्न आफ्नो विचारको सहीपना, जनसमुदायका हितहरुसंग एकाकार हुने आवश्यकता, त्याग, तपस्या र बलिदान एवं वर्ग र जनताप्रतिको निष्ठा साबित गरिरहन नपर्ने स्थितिको प्रारम्भदेखिनै अन्त गर्न जोड दिइनु पर्दछ । English version: - http://cpnm.org/new/English/worker/9issue/document.htm However, as if a particular Communist Party remains proletarian for ever once a New Democratic or Socialist state is established under the leadership of that Party, there is either no opportunity, or it is not prepared, or it is prohibited, for the masses to have a free democratic or socialist competition against it. As a result, since the ruling Party is not required to have a political competition with others amidst the masses, it gradually turns into a mechanistic bureaucratic Party with special privileges and the state under its leadership, too, turns into mechanistic and bureaucratic machinery. Similarly, the masses become a victim of formal democracy and gradually their limitless energy of creativity and dynamism gets sapped. This danger has been clearly observed in history. To solve this problem, the process of control, supervision and intervention of the masses over the state should be stressed to be organized in a lively and scientific manner, according to the principle of continuous revolution. Once again the question here is to dialectically organize scientific reality that the efficacy of dictatorship against the enemy is dependent upon the efficacy of exercising democracy among the people. For this, a situation must be created to ensure continuous proletarization and revolutionization of the Communist Party by organizing political competition within the constitutional limits of the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist democratic state. ..... Among different anti-feudal and anti-imperialist political parties, organizations and institutions, which accept the constitutional provisions, of the democratic state, their mutual relations should not be confined to that of a mechanistic relation of cooperation with the Communist Party but should be stressed to have dialectical relations of democratic political competition in the service of the people. _____________________________________