Oped»
The way out
MAY 03 -
Nepal is in turmoil. It is not only democracy which is in peril; the country itself is facing an unprecedented crisis of survival. Weakening trends of the Nepali state, lack of political direction and failure of the
political parties to live up to minimum public standards, let alone consolidate democracy, have made the present transition more complex and difficult. As a consequence, the state has been turned into a rudderless ship. The ongoing Maoist agitation is part of the reflection of such a trend.
The two main agendas of making democracy a success and bringing back normal life across the country with the promise of peace and order have suffered a setback due to the discord sown by the amendment to the Interim Constitution which made a departure from the politics of consensus. The politics of consensus was essential till the peace process reached a logical conclusion and a new constitution was written.
The majority/minority game originated from the fear psychology and distrust following the Maoists’ emergence as the largest party in the CA. Moreover, the failure of the parties to put up a common presidential candidate as well as the decision of the Nepali Congress to sit in the opposition during the Maoist-led government further widened the differences between the Maoists and the other parties. Maoist impatience and lack of maturity in running the coalition government and internal party pressures for taking such decisions that were unpalatable to their coalition partners and the main opposition NC punctured the initial understanding reached between them and the other parties.
Thus, bewildered as he was due to the non-cooperation of his coalition partners during the crucial time of taking a decision on the issue of the chief
of army staff, Prime Minister Prachanda was forced to quit the government
turning the political arena into Maoists vs the rest. It was a major setback to
the constitution making process for which the cooperation of the Maoists was crucial as no constitution would be possible without the two-thirds majority for which the Maoist party has a veto power for overcoming such a constitutional hurdle.
Surprisingly, no political parties, while in government, seemed to be serious about making the writing of a new constitution and the peace process a success. For, integration, rehabilitation and supervision of ex-Maoist combatants was to be accomplished soon after the implementation of the Interim Constitution. A committee for it was to be set up to expedite the process, but it could not be done by the governments led by G.P. Koirala or Prachanda themselves. Why it did not happen is still a subject worth pondering.
Now the UCPN (Maoist) is on the warpath since President Ram Baran Yadav overruled the decision of Prime Minister Prachanda to sack the chief of army staff on the grounds that such a decision went against the spirit of consensus politics enshrined in the constitution and also on procedural grounds. It provoked the prime minister and his colleagues that the president’s action was against the spirit of civilian supremacy, which is the essence of popular sovereignty. Since then, the Maoist party has been on the streets protesting first against the presidential decision and now for the resignation of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, who was defeated in two parliamentary constituencies in his own home district, Rautahat and the capital, Kathmandu.
The Maoist party, which is also the formal opposition party in parliament, is now on the streets protesting to force Madhav Kumar Nepal to step down so that the Maoist party could itself head a unity government to accomplish the task of writing the constitution and taking the peace process to a logical end. Since Madhav Nepal had become prime minister with the support of most non-Maoist parties on the basis of majority/minority divide practiced after the constitutional amendment, he is challenging the Maoists to garner an adequate majority (301 in a House of 601) to form a government under Prachanda. The UCPN (Maoist) itself fell into a parliamentary trap when it supported an amendment to the constitution to enable the parties to form the government by a simple majority. Now this device has turned out to be a hurdle for reaching a consensus on constitution making.
In the midst of such mistrust and animosity, the political parties are adrift with the Maoists trying to be in power through street power after having exhausted all other options and the other parties making a bid to prevent the former from coming to power. The two coalition partners — the NC and the CPN (UML), the latter itself being a divided house — are challenging the Maoists to prove their majority as if today’s politics is only concerned with government
formation. Instead of trying to form a unity government as per the spirit of the movement as well as other agreements reached between the UCPN (Maoist) and the other parties, all seem to be preoccupied with obtaining a simple majority, a mere technicality rather than the spirit of the peace process and the constitution making exercise for which support of two-thirds of the members is essential. And the Maoist party reserves the veto for smooth sailing of the constitution making process.
So the present time is not for forming a majority government as the parties both in government and the opposition have been demanding. The wrong path chosen in the past should be changed in order to forge the politics of consensus. If the political parties recognise the intricacies of peace and the constitution making process, and if they are really serious about peace and prosperity in the country, they should immediately form a small unity (national) government on the basis of their position in the legislature-parliament. Obviously, the UCPN (Maoist) would head the government along with other parties to accomplish the task of constitution making and peace building. For making it possible, the Maoist leaders should reaffirm their commitment to address some of the demands put up by the other parties. Among such issues, a Maoist commitment to peace, multiparty (pluralistic) democracy, reassessment of the activities of the Young Communist League (YCL) and restoration of confiscated property seems to be important for other parties.
It is also important to generate similar trust and understanding between Maoist leader Prachanda and Nepal’s neighbours, especially India. Prachanda’s political rhetoric might have given rise to India’s fear and suspicion, but such public posturing should in no case be allowed to spoil the relationship between the two countries. As perceptions often work for creating mistrust between the political parties in
Nepal and Indian policy makers, Nepal-India relations should not become a hostage to such trends. Nepal’s political leaders should move forward to define vital national interests without being Indophobes.
Posted on: 2010-05-04 09:31
Headlines
Advertisements
