Monthly Review has republished this month a March 2005 essay by Bhattarai.
http://monthlyreview.org/commentary/dr-baburam-bhattarai-on-the-royal-dictatorship-and-the-need-for-a-democratic-republic-in-nepal

I'd read it at the time and wondered whether the Spain parallel at the end was appropriate. Anyway it's a nice summation of Bhattari's own position that a "new democratic republic" (even a "bourgeois democratic republic") constitutes a necessary stage between feudalism and socialism.

It concludes:

"As for as the sincere commitment of the revolutionary democratic forces, who aspire to reach socialism and communism via a new democratic republic, towards a bourgeois democratic republic is concerned, the CPN (Maoist) has time and again clarified its principled position towards the historical necessity of passing through a sub-stage of democratic republic in the specificities of Nepal. Particularly, in “An Executive Summary of the Proposal Put Forward by CPN (Maoist) for the Negotiations” presented during the negotiations in April 2003 [See, Some Important Documents of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), 2004] the minimum content and the process of realization of this democratic republic through a Constituent Assembly has been expressed in concrete terms. The fact that the democratic republic is envisaged to be institutionalized through a freely elected Constituent Assembly, should cast away any illusions about the democratic credentials of the revolutionary forces. Further concrete issues like the creation of a new national army after the dissolution of the royal mercenary RNA can be discussed during the process of negotiations.

"The need of the hour is the unity of all democratic forces of the country on the common minimum programme of a democratic republic. If anything is lacking so far it is the real democratic vision and will power on the part of the leadership of the major [parliamentary] political parties. Also, it is the time to win confidence of the masses of the people through a correct projection of the democratic credentials of political parties, and for this the correct practice of inner-party democracy would be a significant component.

"In the end, it may be useful to recollect Engels to understand why a proletarian party needs to uphold the programme of a bourgeois republic in the particular historical specificities of a country like present-day Nepal. Lambasting the Bukuninist anarchists who had opposed the immediate programme of a republic in nineteenth-century Spain, Engels said:

“'When the Republic was proclaimed in February 1873, the Spanish members of the Alliance [i.e. Bakuninist ‘International'] found themselves in a quandary. Spain is such a backward country industrially that there can be no question there of immediate complete emancipation of the working class. Spain will first have to pass through various preliminary stages of development and remove quite a number of obstacles from its path. The Republic offered a chance of going through these stages in the shortest possible time and quickly surmounting the obstacles. But this chance be taken only if the Spanish working class played an active political role.'” [From “The Bakuninists at Work”]

Gary writes:

<blockquote>Anyway it’s a nice summation of Bhattari’s own position that a “new democratic republic” (even a “bourgeois democratic republic”) constitutes a necessary stage between feudalism and socialism.</blockquote>

For clarification, Baburam Bhattarai's position is <strong>not </strong>that there is a need for New Democracy (a revolution aiming to break the power of imperialism and feudalism and build socialism) between feudalism and socialism, <strong>his view is that New Democratic revolution is impossible at this time</strong>, and there is a need to consolidate an <em>old </em>capitalist democratic republic until some unknown date when New Democracy will become possible. It stops at anti-feudalism, and refuses to confront imperialism, but even in its anti-feudal program, Bhattarai does not even call for land reform. It is a profoundly non-thorough capitalist revolution fused with lingering elements of feudalism. That capitalism stops at the ouster of a monarchy and builds "consensus" with reactionary political parties.

And, instead of forcing oppressive foreign powers out of Nepal, Bhattarai's plan it to bring them <em>to</em> Nepal in order to develop the country. It is literally a view that feudalism can only be defeated by selling Nepal to the International Monetary Fund. It seeks to replace feudal land-lordism with globalized sweatshops and "urbanization." The consultations he has been holding with India and the USA at the Indian embassy this week are rumored to be all about brokering that plan to secure his election in the bourgeois parliament.

Well, Bhattarai's position as of 2005 was (to quote him again) that "the CPN (Maoist) has time and again clarified its principled position towards the historical necessity of passing through a sub-stage of democratic republic in the specificities of Nepal." And the above language referring to a "bourgeois democratic republic" suggests (to me, anyway) that the position of the party (as of the "Executive Summary" document of April 2003) was that the "minimum content" towards realizing this "democratic" republic included "a freely elected Constituent Assembly" (that is to say, a stage of undetermined length of bourgeois democracy). But the language above was vague, leaving the relationship between bourgeois democracy and new democracy unclear. At least to me.

I think it's problematic to say that Bhattarai's calling for an "OLD democratic republic" although I understand you're contrasting his stance to that of Mao who advocated and led the struggle to establish "New Democracy" in China. But a bourgeois democratic republic (of any sort) is new for Nepal, is it not? China had thrown off the emperor system in 1912 and established a republic of sorts, even though the efforts to consolidate that republic were challenged by warlords. As of 1949 there was significant industry in the coastal cities. In Nepal there is no city like Shanghai in the 1930s.

Between 1912 and 1936 by one estimate the industrial output index in China grew by 10% per year. Du Xuncheng calculates that annual industrial investment by Chinese nationals from 1914 to 1925 increased by 11 times that of the 1840-1911 period. Some compare this to the contemporary Japanese growth rate. My point is just that China in 1949 was likely much more industrially advanced, with a much more significant urban working class, than Nepal is today.

So if Bhattarai is saying, Mao's strategy for New Democracy in China is inappropriate here, today, he may be right. Many on this site continuously (and properly, I think) blast those who want to apply a historical model mechanically. Certainly the Nepalese should not (and cannot) try to repeat the Chinese experience precisely.

Obviously the two situations differ in that the Chinese PLA, having surrounded the cities from the countryside, seized control of them, while the Nepali PLA stopped in the mountains overlooking Kathmandu Valley. But even had the PLA engaged and defeated the Nepalese Royal Army, would they have been in a position to implement "New Democracy"---to create a coalition of peasants, workers, petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie under CPN (M) leadership? I'm posing this as a question, not suggesting I have an answer.

Do they have the forces, militarily and in terms of class-based support, to assert hegemony in the way the CCP did from 1949? Bhattarai apparently not only thinks not, but thinks that the overthrow of the monarchy and its ideological-religious apparatus, and the Maoist acquisition of 4 out of 10 seats at the table of the new republic, is a major "historical advance."

Perhaps this represents crude historicist thinking (in the sense that there are "inevitable" stages through which all countries must go through) designed to justify the Maoist party resting on its laurels, and depicting the growth of capitalist relations of production (at the expense of feudal ones) as itself a progressive and necessary process, all the better carried out by people with a vision for an EVENTUAL "inevitable" transition to socialism. Or perhaps it's a rational and creative application of Marxist dialectics.

It seems, anyway, that Bhattarai has both the support of the whole party leadership and (based on what I gather from the English-language Nepali press online) commands more respect---partly due to his intellectual attainments and demeanor---than any other public figure in the country. How his leadership role will affect the outcome of the talks on PLA integration into the old Army will probably determine whether he can retain the level of support he has now.

,

An academic can justify almost anything with pseudo-Marxist phraseology.
Judging by the tie, wrist-watch and the plate of chockie biscuits, I think he's probably a sold out.