Maoists not for pluralism or absolutism

From The Nepali Press
Maoists not for pluralism or absolutism
Editorial in Janadesh, 3 August

FROM ISSUE #514 (06 AUG 2010 - 12 AUG 2010) | TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBSCRIBE NT

REFER

WRITE TO EDITOR

UCPN (Maoist) believes in a multiparty system, not in pluralism. Pluralism is a philosophy representative of orthodox thoughts and ideals that negates progress and transformation. It believes in putting together all the oppressed and oppressors, masters and serfs, tigers and lambs into a basket. It opposes the history of dialectical materialism. That's why the Maoists are against this ideal.

The Maoists are against pluralism as well as absolutism. Although it has been made clear time and again, they are portrayed as authoritarian, as wanting to capture power. The Maoists have modified their programs, ideology and policies to suit multiparty competition and then joined the peace process.

As far as the question of authoritarianism is concerned, this is class-specific. The state represents a class. Capitalists are influential in capitalism while proletariats remain at the helm in communism. And the Maoists speak for the proletariat.

If the Maoists were against multiparty competition, they would not take part in the CA elections. People support the party that has concrete plans and programs for a better future. They won the hearts and minds of the people who wanted change despite their opponents' attempts to denigrate them by calling them terrorists. People want change.

1. Arthur
Either the article or the translation (or both) seems incoherent.

The english language political concept of "pluralism" is necessarily implied by "multi-party competition" and also by "federalism".

Could a Nepali speaker please provide the actual word used in the original article translated as "pluralism" and a translation of the definition of that word from a Nepali dictionary?

I am wondering whether Nepali-English dictionaries inadequately translate the Nepali word as simply "pluralism" when it actually has a different shade of meaning in the Nepali dictionary definition. That might be the case with "loktantrik" and "democracy" and the difference in the actual concepts would explain the use of the Nepali word "loktantrik" in many english language articles from Nepal.

The Janadisha article seems to be combatting a concept more like "harmony" or Kunda Dixit's "golden middle", and perhaps "eclecticism" by contrasting it with dialectical materialism.

Is the actual Nepali term something like "bahudha" in the vedic phrase "Ekam sat, vipra bahudha vadanti" ("Truth is one, sages describe it variously")?

My impression is that the meaning attached to "pluralism" in Nepalese political discussion is the entrenchment of party patronage networks each of which is entitled to a share of the loot, as described in Feckless Pluralism.

Posted on: 07 AUG 2010 | 9:38 AM NST