Was Bhattarai's visit successful?

New York, It was the second time a Maoist Prime Minister from Nepal visited the United States—which still places the party on the watch-list under the title Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons—to make an address at the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Apart from the address, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai who has been a favorite of many including the non-Maoists delivered a talk on Marxism at the New School University; listened to the issues of Nepali diaspora where black flags also greeted him; and managed to meet his teachers after 30 years.

Concluding his US visit, at the office of the Nepal's Permanent Mission to the United Nations, he said his visit was successful. But what did he mean by 'success'? At the General Assembly, he said he brought "the voice of the voiceless of the world". The United Nations has very well heard the voice of the Nepali people, if by the word 'voiceless', he referred to the citizens of Nepal. It was the UN that supported the Nepali people in getting their leaders come to an agreement to end an era of war and autocracy and create history—especially by writing a new legal document and addressing the issues brought forward by the 10-year war.

When then Prime Minister Prachanda addressed at the UNGA three years ago, he assured the representatives of the world that he would do justice to their votes. He had said: "People have overwhelmingly voted for my party and made us the single largest political party in the Assembly with great hope and expectations." He still had eight months before he resigned from the government but the 'people' (in whose name he had taken his oath) could not see significant change. Yes, they saw the exit of a monarch (which was actually before Prachanda became the prime minister) but they saw most of the time controversies revolving around Pashupati's priests, PLA's number, and later on the Nepal Army issues which led to the fall of their government. The governments formed subsequently couldn't do much either except for extending deadlines.

So, this time Prime Minister Bhattarai did not give many hopes to the international community that they can build peace by themselves, rather 'voiced out' to the UN that it needs to provide "comprehensible package" and a "new Marshall plan" to post-conflict countries such as Nepal. Lip-services and symbolic supports, he warned, are not enough.

Three years on since the first Maoist's address and two years beyond the intended timeline of the interim constitution, the peace process and a new constitution still remain to be completed. But why hasn't this constitution, which the PM Bhattarai claimed at the UN assembly would be 'life-changing for all', been written? Professor Andrew Arato at the New School University, who is also a constitutional expert, says Nepal is "caught up in a situation in which government and constitution-making process are too mixed up with each other" in a way that they are "incapacitated or weakened." He points out at the loopholes in the interim constitution that has allowed the governments to keep on extending the deadlines in such a manner that "the punishment's going to be very grave" and that it could lead to "the rejection of all parties eventually". But does it make it easier for the Maoists to complete the peace process, as claimed by the Maoist leaders, when they're leading the government? Prof Arato says it could've helped well if it was a national government but the present one could help only the former Maoist combatants to have faith in their party for their integration and rehabilitation.

Was the visit successful? Some determinants:
Taking part at the UNGA alone cannot be termed successful as Professor Arato says, "Nothing really happens this way with the big and important powers" which seems true as the US President for instance has met Maoist PMs twice yet the delisting hasn't taken place. Fixing a visit to the big power next door shows some support though. In terms of US, if the delisting happens during PM Bhattarai's tenure, it would be an achievement for the party.

More important to him as a government head is the drafting of the constitution, which if could be completed during this year, if not during his tenure, then whoever would address at the UNGA next year would feel proud and then the real notion of 'setting example and drawing lessons from the Nepali experience' would materialize.

When PM Bhattarai met his former teachers in Connecticut during this US visit, people spoke highly of him. But student leaders belonging to the Maoist party in Nepal oftentimes smear the faces of campus chiefs and deans black. In one of the instances, his own daughter was involved and when this scribe had asked about it, Mr Bhattarai did not deny or denounce the act. Well, the word 'success' could find its connotation if his followers can abstain from conducting such acts and not turn into near criminals from students.

Finally, if the PM was able to get commitments from the Nepali community to invest in Nepal, rather than donating hundreds of dollars, then the visit would have been really productive as he said before heading back to Nepal with the message of 'successful visit'.

A version of this article appeared in the Nepali Times on September 29, 2011.