Armed insurrection to parliamentary politics

The recent electoral success of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)-led National People’s Power in the parliamentary and presidential elections in Sri Lanka highlights a less noticeable trend, where left-wing revolutionary groups, once dedicated to armed struggle, are shifting toward democratic engagement. Historically guided by ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, these groups have viewed the state as a tool of capitalist oppression, believing that social and economic justice demands dismantling capitalist structures by force.

In recent decades, however, some of the most prominent insurgencies, including Nepal’s Maoists, El Salvador’s Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), and certain Marxist-Leninist groups within India, have pursued a new path by entering parliamentary politics. This shift reflects a pragmatic blend of ideological adaptation and responsiveness to changing political realities.

Left-wing insurgencies typically emerge with the belief that dismantling the capitalist state is necessary for social justice, viewing it as inherently biased toward elite interests, and armed struggle becomes a key tenet of resistance. This conviction is often grounded in the belief that only through force can the structures of oppression be overturned. Many movements, such as those in El Salvador, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka, have adhered to the principle of “protracted people’s war” to achieve a revolutionary overthrow of the state.

Yet, prolonged insurgency is daunting, requiring extensive resources, popular support, and the resilience to withstand state counterinsurgency tactics. Over time, these factors push revolutionary groups to reconsider armed struggle as the optimal strategy. The harsh realities of insurgency often reveal that public sentiment may shift against sustained violence, particularly when civilian casualties and prolonged hardship weaken popular support. This realisation has spurred some factions to experiment with political engagement to achieve their goals without violence and potentially greater public acceptance.

A striking example in Nepal

The transformation of Nepal’s Maoist insurgency is a striking example of this political shift. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) launched a civil war in 1996 to dismantle the monarchy and establish a people’s republic. After a decade of intense conflict, the Maoists chose to negotiate, signing the Comprehensive Peace Accord in 2006. This historic agreement permitted them to participate in mainstream politics, allowing former insurgents to engage in governance. By 2008, they played a pivotal role in transitioning Nepal to a federal democratic republic, a landmark achievement for a movement once defined by its commitment to revolutionary overthrow. Their participation in mainstream politics demonstrated how revolutionary ideals could be adapted to operate within established political institutions.

A similar transformation took place in El Salvador, where the FMLN, a coalition of Marxist-Leninist guerrilla groups, fought a civil war throughout the 1980s, aiming to overthrow a U.S.-backed government until the 1992 peace accords enabled their shift from an insurgent group to a legitimate political party. The FMLN eventually won national elections, illustrating how left-wing insurgent groups can channel their social and economic agendas through democratic processes, winning significant support in the electoral arena. Over time, the party shifted from revolutionary Marxism to a more moderate leftist stance, aligning itself with democratic socialism.

What drives the shift

In India, the story is more complex. The Communist Party of India (Maoist) continues to pursue armed insurgency, especially in rural areas where government presence is weak, holding to Mao’s concept of a “protracted people’s war”. However, other Maoist factions, such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, have abandoned armed struggle. By the 1980s, the CPI (M-L) Liberation shifted to democratic participation, contesting elections and becoming a political entity.

In Sri Lanka, the JVP provides the latest example of insurgents-turned-politicians. Initially a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party, the JVP led two uprisings in 1971 and the 1980s, using ingenious methods in their violent strategy to capture power. The brutal suppression of both insurrections led the group to shift course and embrace parliamentary politics. Since the 1990s, within the democratic framework, the JVP could advocate for economic reform, social justice, and workers’ rights without the costs and sacrifices of warfare.

The shift from armed struggle to electoral politics is driven by several factors, with strategic realism being among the most significant. Protracted insurgencies are resource-intensive and often unsustainable, as seen in places such as Nepal and El Salvador, where negotiated peace accords opened the door to political influence without ongoing violence. Shifting public sentiment is another key factor. Over time, the persistence of violence often alienates civilian populations, making it difficult for insurgent groups to sustain a loyal base of support.

International pressure has also encouraged insurgent groups to transition to peaceful political engagement. International actors have been instrumental in mediating peace agreements in a global context that often condemns violent insurgencies, particularly in regions where insurgencies have been prolonged. In El Salvador, for example, the United Nations played a vital role in brokering peace between the government and the FMLN, enabling the transition of insurgents to legitimate political figures.

Insurgent groups often undergo significant ideological evolution, adapting rigid revolutionary doctrines to fit within democratic frameworks as prolonged conflict pushes them to reassess their methods. The JVP in Sri Lanka, for example, reoriented its Marxist-Leninist-Maoist roots to advocate for social justice within a democratic structure, thereby reaching a broader social base without resorting to armed confrontation. While the JVP has softened its revolutionary rhetoric to appeal to a wider electorate, it has remained committed to its core values of social and economic justice.

The transition from insurgency to electoral politics reveals a paradox among revolutionary groups once rooted in rigid ideologies. While they may have dismissed democratic systems as capitalist instruments, many now use them to drive change. Some view this as a dilution of revolutionary ideals, but it reflects a pragmatic shift – recognising that violent revolution is not the only, and perhaps not the most effective, path to power. By entering mainstream politics, these groups gain avenues to expand representation and amplify marginalised voices. For example, Nepal’s Maoists have prioritised rural and marginalised communities, fostering more inclusive governance.

The responses

Operating within established political frameworks gives former insurgent groups legitimacy and greater capacity to address the social injustices that motivated their struggle. Yet, whether this shift leads to genuine reform or co-option by existing systems remains uncertain. These groups often face public scepticism about their commitment to democratic norms, as citizens may remember their violent past. To succeed, they must build credibility and balance their ideals with the practical demands of governance. This raises questions about whether ideology drives their actions or merely serves as a tool for power. Often, their transition reflects political realities rather than an abandonment of ideology.

Integrating insurgent groups into democratic politics can strengthen the legitimacy of democracy. These groups often bring with them large support bases, and their inclusion can reinforce trust in the democratic process, fostering a more participatory and resilient political system — especially when these groups commit to democratic principles and contribute to the development of inclusive governance structures.

While some may view this adaptation as an ideological compromise, it could also be seen as an evolution. Left-wing insurgencies adapting to parliamentary politics could be rationalised as a new phase of ideological struggle, reinterpreting revolution in a modern democratic context. In this view, parliamentary engagement is not an anathema but rather an adjustment to contemporary realities where the state can be reformed from within.

This transition from armed insurrection to political participation is reshaping the narrative of contemporary insurgencies. It reveals that radical movements can evolve within democratic frameworks. It also rekindles confidence in certain forms of democratic socialism, offering paths that address the systemic issues of capitalism.

Ajay Darshan Behera is a Professor at the MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi