Verdict of the CA Election – Power Sharing

The NC, UML, MJF and other political parties should now accept that the Maoists have the mandate to lead the government while the Maoists should also realise that use of bargaining and threatening tactics to get their demands fulfilled are over and this strategy is no more acceptable to other political parties.

By Prakash C. Ghimire

The result of recent CA poll in Nepal has called for a coalition government in which all political parties with a berth in the CA should have reasonable representations. With only one third of the electorate supporting the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist), the verdict of the CA result demands for power sharing provisions while shaping the structure of the future government. The perception of the Maoists that the power-sharing provisions are inherently unstable and undermine functioning of a government creating more than one power-centre is difficult to be justified. Actually, the type of government depends on the outcome of election result and a splintered verdict by the electorate, as in CA poll, can only result in a coalition. A verdict given by the electorate cannot be visualised as any violation of the electorate's mandate and it should not be treated as undemocratic, unfair and unconstitutional. Learning democracy presupposes planning democracy.

Once parties, possessing different political and social identity, such as CPN (M), NC, UML, MJF and TMLP, become ready to share power by accommodating the views and values of other, the democratic structure becomes strong. Coalition politics is mandatory in present situation, where everyone understands that nobody gets anything until the partnership is formed for power-sharing. The only reason to consider teaming up somebody who could possibly challenge you most, is because that’s the only way you can figure out you can stay alive in politics, and, the Maoists should realise this very truth.

The Maoists should be commended for their decision to accept the provision of a constitutional President as the head of the state supported by a vice-president; and a prime-minister with all executive powers. However, their claim on all these positions seems rather embarrassing and unjustifiable given the verdict of the CA election results. The Maoists leaders are asking NC and UML not to exhibit any more greed for power; however, they are displaying a firm reluctance for power sharing. Such claim will do more harm than good by widening the gap between the political parties and creating an atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion among them. Though the Maoists have emerged as the largest party in the CA election to become the strongest claimant to lead the government, they should not overlook the fact that they have not been able to get a simple majority. They either have to lead a minority government in consensus or seek support form other political parties for coalition. In a situation when majority of the political parties as well as international communities are still questioning the commitments of the Maoists in guaranteeing fundamental rights of the people complying with democratic norms and values, the Maoists should move cautiously not to strengthen the conventional beliefs of the people. The Maoists should not forget that they are still commanding the rebel army and their cadres, the YCL, are still intimidating people who did not support them in the election, as they did in the past. Unless the Maoist leadership is able to legitimise their move to democracy by demonstrating changes in their attitude and practices, other mainstream political parties and the international communities will find difficulties in accepting the government headed by the Maoists. The Maoists should ensure a paradigm shift so that future government could be formed on the basis of political consensus.

In this situation, power sharing should be taken as a strategy for resolving disputes over who should have the most powerful position in the political hierarchy. Instead of fighting over who should have power over whom, power sharing should rely upon the joint exercise of power between the major political parties that have secured berth in the CA. If conflicts can be reframed to focus on how such power sharing might take place, they can become much more constructive. The coalition government in Nepal at this stage will be instrumental in drafting a constitution that is acceptable to all. Political consensus among all the major parties will be effective in enhancing democratic legitimacy, fair representation and national unity. Major policy shifts like economic reforms and grassroots decentralisation, in theory and in practice, are largely attributable to the onset of coalitional governance. Above all, political consensus at this juncture would be beneficial in balancing the extreme left and extreme right political forces. The example of India could be cited here where coalition governments facilitated gradual transition of the Marxist-left and the Hindu-right into the political establishment, and thus contributed to the strengthening of the multi-party system as well as the nation.

However, both the Nepali State and society are yet to resolve the issue of inclusiveness -the accommodation of pluralities and diversities - religious, socio-cultural, linguistic, regional and geographical. The apparent contradiction between centralised political culture and politicised diversities are further compounding the problems. Neither the modernisation theory of homogenised nation-state formation nor the theory of legitimising the `identity' to the extent of fragmentation of a nation is an appropriate model of nation-building for the present Nepal. Rather than suggesting any model or theory of nation-building, there is need to examine the complexities of the problems and the issues involved in the process while drafting the constitution of Nepal. The text and context of diversities and their harmonious accommodation in society and political system should be examined, agreeing basically with the constitutional model of nation-building. For this to happen, all the political forces should have united voice and mutually agreed course of action.

The NC, UML, MJF and other political parties should now accept that the Maoists have the mandate to lead the government while the Maoists should also realise that use of bargaining and threatening tactics to get their demands fulfilled are over and this strategy is no more acceptable to other political parties. The spirit and tradition of unity among the parties that helped in ousting the deep-rooted feudalism should be maintained until the democracy is safely institutionalised and firmly strengthened. This is one of the major challenges for the political parties in the days to come. It is now high time for Maoists to prove their democratic credentials. People are wise enough to evaluate - just because you call it a democracy does not mean it so. With the Maoist leaders ruling like the kings, the Maoists controlling the government and the YCL cadres implementing policy, Nepal could easily end up like Iraq under the dictator Saddam Hussein or the Republic of North Korea - where there is not the slightest resemblance of freedom. It is difficult to assume that Nepal will be a country of true democratic freedom with a Maoist leader at the steering wheel, the YCL policing the nation and the Maoists in general attempting to crush all who oppose them. There is no question that the Maoists should be given opportunity to lead the new government however, if the Nepalese people are to stop them from achieving their aim of one-party proletariat state, an aim which they have not renounced till date, then all who value democracy, individual freedom and cultural diversity, will have to show the courage to challenge them.

Even after the successful entry of CPN (Maoist) in the mainstream politics, it is not strange to hear news about highhandedness of the YCL cadres. The continued wrong-doings of the Maoists, for example, the recent killing of a businessman in their cantonment and the desperate attempt to hide the case with false information, intimidation in different parts of the countries to those who did not support them in CA polls; are terrorising the people. The reputation that they have earned in recent days should not be faded. Amnesty International (AI) has charged that the Maoist youth wing - Young Communist League (YCL) - was involved in massive human rights violations including torture, intimidation and violence. In its 2008 global report, launched on May 28, the AI said, ‘Maoist’s youth wing Young Communist League reportedly committed a number of human rights abuses, including abductions and ill-treatment in captivity, assaults and violent disruption of political activities. It also reported that CPN (M) activists were also accused of abductions, torture and killings including the killing of a journalist. The recent barbarism staged by the Maoists in abducting and killing of their own supporter has raised eyebrows of all. The contracting statements given by the leadership are more embarrassing. As for Maoist leader, if the only thing they can offer for such crime is a lame excuse, as in the past, of ‘a grave mistake committed in the process of historic transformation of the armed political party in peaceful politics’, then not only are their democratic credentials in serious doubt but also the suitability of its leaders as a head of the new government. The main problem with the leaders of Maoists and their colleagues and followers is that they have a very monolithic view of the world which boils down to a single notion: they are absolutely right and every one else who does not accept their view is wrong, and, therefore, whoever opposes them is simply a casualty of the “historic (revolutionary) transformation”. The urgent need, therefore, for the Maoists is to be accountable and honest to the people who voted them with every hope that they will lead the nation towards peace and prosperity. The Maoists should now realise that the destiny of the country is significantly dependent on what they would contribute for the peaceful settlement of the political crises and how they drive the country forwards where the fundamental rights of the people are not compromised. The recent statement of the Chairman of YCL that they will stop some of its controversial activities like taking action against individuals based on complaints registered with it, mobilise cadres in development works, and end the camp settlement of YCL cadres has shown some rays of hope.

It is not unusual for NC, UML and MJF to claim for a respectable and reasonable share in the government structure. The people of Nepal have strongly supported the power-sharing provision which is manifested in the result of the CA poll. With the maximum number of members in the CA, the NCP (M) should undoubtedly and unarguably be given mandate to lead the government. However, NC, UML and MJF have every right to claim for the positions of the President, Chairman of the CA and Vice-president respectively. The Maoists leadership should be fair enough to acknowledge the commitment and unfailing dedication of other political parties in successfully steering the peace process and establishing the country as the newest democratic republic in the world. There is no comparison between Girija Prasad Koirala and Ram Raja Prasad Singh for the post of the President. If the latter is acceptable for the post of President – as the Maoists have suggested, there is no valid reason to reject the former. The former has dedicated his whole life for the establishment and institutionalisation of democracy in Nepal. Besides, taking the responsibilities of the controversial bomb blasts in some places in Kathmandu in 2042 BS and spending a respectable life in Indian territory thereafter, the later has not any convincing facts in his credential to claim the post of the president.

The Maoists’ transition to the mainstream politics is perceived by large section of the society as the light in the other side of the tunnel. Unquestionably, there are substantial numbers of people in Nepal who consider the Maoists as the only genuine alternative to the old, repressive social order. It is high time for them to fulfil the aspirations of the people who voted for them by showing flexibility and compromising behaviour for power-sharing. The Maoists should realise that turning cold eyes on the inclusiveness in politics will be counterproductive which may invite further conflicts and detrimental impacts.

(Ghimire is associated with Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV) as a Senior Advisor for Renewable Energy Programmes in Asian and African countries with duty station in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. He can be reached at: prakashchgh@gmail.com)

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to editors@mos.com.np)

Have your say ! (Registration required)