Armed Insurrection to Parliamentary Politics

The recent electoral success of Sri Lanka’s Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power highlights a global trend where left-wing revolutionary groups, once committed to armed struggle, are adopting democratic means to achieve their goals.

Table of Contents

Historical Context and Ideological Roots

Left-wing insurgencies are grounded in ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, viewing the capitalist state as an instrument of oppression.
Armed struggle has traditionally been a central strategy for revolutionary groups like Nepal’s Maoists, El Salvador’s FMLN, and India’s CPI (Maoist).

Challenges of Prolonged Insurgencies

Resource Intensity: Insurgencies require sustained resources and popular support.
Public Sentiment: Prolonged violence often alienates civilian populations, weakening support.
State Counterinsurgency: Many insurgencies face powerful state retaliation, making armed resistance unsustainable.

Key Examples of Transition

Nepal’s Maoist Insurgency (1996-2006)

Initiated a civil war to dismantle the monarchy and establish a people’s republic.
Signed the Comprehensive Peace Accord in 2006, allowing integration into mainstream politics.
Played a key role in Nepal’s transformation into a federal democratic republic in 2008.

El Salvador’s FMLN (1980s-1992)

A coalition of Marxist-Leninist guerrilla groups fought the U.S.-backed government.
Transitioned to a political party after the 1992 peace accords.
Won national elections, shifting from revolutionary Marxism to democratic socialism.

India’s Maoist Factions

CPI (Maoist) continues armed struggle, particularly in rural areas, adhering to Mao’s “protracted people’s war.”
CPI (M-L) Liberation abandoned violence in the 1980s, contesting elections and becoming a legitimate political entity.

Sri Lanka’s JVP

Led two violent uprisings in 1971 and the 1980s, both brutally suppressed.
Shifted to parliamentary politics in the 1990s, advocating for economic reform, social justice, and workers’ rights.

Factors Driving the Transition

Strategic Realism: Insurgencies face diminishing resources and public support.
- Peace accords in Nepal and El Salvador allowed political influence without violence.
Public Sentiment: Civilian casualties and prolonged hardship erode support for armed resistance.
International Pressure: Global condemnation of insurgencies and mediation by actors like the United Nations (e.g., in El Salvador) encourage peaceful engagement.
Ideological Evolution: Insurgent groups adapt revolutionary doctrines to fit democratic frameworks, maintaining core values of social and economic justice.

Responses and Implications

Legitimacy in Democracy: Transitioning to political participation enhances trust in democratic processes.
- Former insurgent groups can address the injustices that motivated their struggles.
Challenges in Governance: Groups must balance revolutionary ideals with practical demands of governance.
- They face public scepticism about their commitment to democratic norms.
Evolving Ideologies: Parliamentary participation is seen as an adaptation to modern realities, reforming the state from within.
Inclusive Governance: Examples like Nepal’s Maoists show how these groups prioritize marginalized communities, fostering inclusivity.