FINALIZATION OF INTERIM CONSTITUION
Emerging
New
Polarization
After the agreement of seven parties and Maoists finally to promulgate a new interim constitution, country's political forces seem to be heading towards a new political polarization. Nepali Congress leaders and leaders of its communist allies have already indicated the new polarization between liberal democrat with limited monarchy Vs Communists demanding Communist Republic . The promulgation of interim constitution has already intensified the process of political polarization. It seems that unnatural alliance between the authoritarian communists and liberal democrats is inevitable to collapse. Although Nepal's internal political forces - which have virtually no determining role in making and breaking political alliance - find themselves in uncomfortable situations at present, how long a decisive external power - which is itself promoting alliance with forces with radical ideals and principles – will be able to see comfort in the name of fulfilling its own strategic interest remains to be seen
By KESHAB POUDEL
 |
Nepal and Koirala : New honob
|
Following final agreement between seven parties alliance led by Nepali Congress leader Girija Prasad Koirala and CPN-Maoist to promulgate the new interim constitution on the early morning of December 16, 2006, a political course charted for a game-plan has come to an and it seems that internal political forces are heading for a new political polarization.
As the new interim constitution is in table, there is a question mark how long and how far the alliance between the liberal democratic parties and totalitarian communists can last. When Nepali Congress decided to align with communist parties, one could justify unnatural alliance on the ground that only their joint strength could challenge rightist monarchists backed by the army. This case is no more true now as monarchy is deprived of all power in accordance with the line of Nepali Congress. The polarization is clear as
there is communist republicans Vs liberal democrats who want monarchy deprived of all power.
In the last five decades, Nepal has seen many forms of political alliance and most of them were unnatural. Most of the time, these unnatural alliances were made to destabilize the political system.
Although most of the political alliance seemed to be impossible in terms of their ideology, it has been happening one after another in the country among the internal political forces for the benefit of external power. "Till now the game seems to be at the control of one fierce player. It will be a calamity for the whole region, if the provocation for the game is reciprocated by the other more fearless player," said a political analyst.
.jpg) |
Rightists and Leftists against Koirala : Picture of Contradiction
|
In the course of making and breaking the internal political polarization, external element always emerged as a decisive force. As internal forces are divided among themselves, the external force has the determining role.
Following the 12-point agreement signed in Indian capital New Delhi in November 2005, the recent political polarization of seven parties and Maoists against the monarchy was possible.
As the objective of previous alliance has been achieved, CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal and CPN-Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai in their recent interviews indicated the possibility of new political polarization between communists. Everyone knows that they cannot alone do it but they have floated the idea.
Whether the new alliance can be made or not remains to be seen but the communists are already in negotiation process for new political alliance. "Now everything is settled and time has come to make alliance among communist forces to defeat reactionary and feudal class led by Nepali Congress," said CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal .
“As CPN-Maoist has already joined the mainstream politics renouncing violence, we don't have any problems to ally with CPN-Maoist,” he said.
.jpg) |
Nc-Rpp : Natural alliance?
|
CPN-Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, too, has similar views. "We all communists who hold similar ideology must unite to make a new class-less society," said Dr. Baburam Bhattarai. "Nepali Congress is lately demanding certain role for monarchy and opposing republican agenda. It is impossible to go along with monarchists."
Role of External Forces
Sandwiched between two Asian powers India in the south and China in the north, Nepal's internal political forces have little choice in making alliance. As two neighbors have their own agendas, they always back one alliance against another to protect their own security interest.
"A stable Nepal has always been prerequisite for China 's security in south and the greatest stabilization has always been there as an institution of monarchy. Whenever the monarchy goes along with democratic institution, China has no record of creating division and playing between these two forces," said the analyst. "Without minimizing the importance of monarchy, China had the best of relation with B.P. Koirala from 1960 up to the last. The great power psychology of China inhibited when it apologized for a
border incident in which two securities personnel of Nepal were killed. Whenever there was conflict between democrats and monarchy, China preferred the institution of monarchy as a stabilizing force. But whenever there have been readjustment between them, China never lagged behind to welcome that in a convincing manner."
Unfortunately, the same thing was not with India though both the institution of monarchy as well as democratic forces have greater attachment with India due to several commonalities in terms of political ideals, religious and cultural values. Coolheaded strategists in India have always reversed trend with the attitude of common people of India .
 |
Nepal and Koirala : New honob
|
"External contradictions are such that a Maoist China had provided traditional institution of monarchy to fight against Maoists. In the same way, Gandhian democratic India had provided arms, logistic and other support to Maoist communists to fight against democratic parliament in 1996 and later on against the Hindu monarch which Indian people had high regard for in their heart,” said the analyst.
Both the countries remain value-free on the question of their own security and strategic interest. " India has to readjust with new political situation in Nepal and Nepal too has to reciprocate India by taking care of security sensitivities of India ," said former Indian foreign secretary and ambassador to Nepal Shyam Saran.
People to people relations have always been excellent between Nepal and India . A large Hindu population of India respects the independence of Nepal considering that it is the only Hindu Kingdom which was never subjugated by aliens. "That kind of belief of the common people of India has nourishing effect in the independence of Nepal . But Indian bureaucracy, security agencies and security strategists have been indifferent of that sentimental regard for Nepalese identity and independence," said the analyst.
"Due to complications of modern states, India , which has greatest stake for the security of their own, always remains alert and active to manipulate the situation in disguise. India has entered into a big power game in the region and therefore for this it required a huge super structure for covert operation," said the analyst. " India needs more useful and manageable regimes in the region. Different countries of this region have different
experience in the past in this power game. Indian strategists have strong preference on the security in their neighborhood. Ever since the elimination of Tibet as the outer buffer, India has regarded Nepal and Bhutan as its inner strategic buffers. India 's security would be gravely imperiled if it were to lose the two inner buffers. Chinese efforts to make strategic inroads into those buffers thus challenge India security," writes Brahma Chellaney, a leading strategic analyst and professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research, an independent think tank in New Delhi and a member of the policy
advisory group headed by the foreign minister of India, in his recent book Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China, India and Japan.
"All in all, by beefing up Chinese logistic support in Tibet, the railroad arms China with multiple strategic benefits vis-à-vis India: enhanced power-projection force capability; the option to step up direct military pressure; superior transport links with states that are part of Indian security system (Nepal and Bhutan); a greater potential to meddle in India's restive northeast; and the ability to dump goods in the Indian market via Nepal and the Chumbi valley's Nathu-la pass. Eventually, China would like to extend the Tibetan railway to Kathmandu even as it presently expands its road links with Nepal ," writes Chellaney.
Indian strategists consider security as prime concern in Nepal and they always watch the event in north of Himalaya carefully. Whenever something changes drastically in the north of Nepal in China , immediately the response comes from India .
"There was drastic change in north in 1950 when China entered into Tibet that caused revolution in Nepal . Though there were dissensions and repulsions due to autocratic regime in Nepal . Had there not been new changes in north, then leader of democratic India Jawaharlal Nehru would have preserved Rana autocracy as manageable as it did with autocrats of Bhutan and Sikkim ," said the analyst. “After more than half a century, there again was a drastic change in the north after arrival of Railway in Lhasa and the proposal of Chinese official to bring it close to capital Kathmandu, this has brought mesmeric revolution in Nepal with an utopian road map of integrating Nepal with Indian security arrangements. Politicians of Nepal have become pawns in the hands of shortsighted bureaucrats in the South. The future is uncertain to both Nepal and India ."
Nepal 's political stability should have been preferred by India like it was for Chinese but unfortunately all the major destabilizing events of Nepal have a record in the past to have been originated from and based in its south. Strategically, India needs its military presence on the Himalayan height to match the Chinese in Tibet . All major instabilities of Nepal have ultimately concentrated upon acquiring those strategic needs.
"Having vastly upgraded its support infrastructures in Tibet having begun expanding its transportation capabilities right up to its southernmost borders, China has developed influence over Nepal and Bhutan . To reduce Nepal 's and Bhutan ’s economic dependence on India , China would like to employ its growing transportation capabilities to help link them with Tibet 's economy. Its interest is greater in Nepal ," writes Chellaney.
To pursue its own security interest, India does not mind even to support radical communists in Nepal . "It is therefore a Gandhian India has always instigated and harbored extreme leftist and radical push whereas its natural alliance should have been the monarchy and democratic forces. Some well meaning politicians in India have been all the time emphasizing upon these two forces which have been termed as twin pillar adjustment. But politicians have very little role at present anywhere and that case is more in India ," said the analyst.
Even in the past, Chinese always prefer the reconciliation between the democrats and the monarch. "It is the irony of the situation that Maoist China had highest regards for B.P. Koirala and latter on King Mahendra whereas latest show in New Delhi had highest regard for Nepalese Maoist leader Prachanda than any other Nepalese leader," said the analyst.
From India 's former bureaucrats of south block to highly reputed columnists, all of them regard CPN-Maoist leader Prachanda as outstanding leader. A highly reputed columnist in India had to say in one of his recent articles that Prachanda has emerged as outstanding leader of Asia . Nobody knows whether is it real or is it just a gimmick to rebuff Chinese support to the combination of traditional institution of monarchy or modern institution of
democracy.
Nepal , because of its geo-political situation, has come to face a polarization of internal as well as external forces. There are lessons in the history in the past that Nepal 's external responses determine internal arrangements.
"Due to the external influence, Nepal 's political polarization is always unnatural and it has never lasted for long. What the enemies of India could not do in Nepal , agencies of India are doing in Nepal to fan up hatred and conflicts between communists of Nepal . The animosity between the communists will surprisingly erupt with an alarming consequences that may seriously affect the peace and tranquility of next door neighbor India ," said the analyst.
History of Unnatural Alliance
With the revolution of 1950 till holding the elections for 1959, all kinds of political alliances were made. A so called nationalist Tanka Prasad Acharya joined hands with so called anti-national Dr. K.I. Singh and monarchists with republicans. During the last thirty years of Panchayat, there were strange political alliances, too.
With the return from exile, B.P. Koirala, who defended the institution of monarchy and rejected any broader alliance with communist against the institution, was criticized by the diehard monarchists or Panchas.
Following the promulgation of constitution and holding the elections for parliament in 1990, the process of making unnatural alliance began with earnest. When Nepali Congress emerged as ruling party, the communists joined hand with rightist Panchas against their revolutionary partner.
Then, the communist formed minority government in 1995, Nepali Congress who treated rightist Panchas as untouchable, joined hands with rightist RPP. After voting out of minority government, Nepali Congress and RPP formed coalition government - which lasted for 18 months.
This natural alliance of liberal democrat and traditional forces broke and RPP-CPN-UML formed another unnatural alliance to form the coalition government. These kinds of making and breaking alliances continued under the parliamentary democratic experiment.
Following popular uprising of April 2006, the alliance between monarchy and army was broken and army is now backing the government of seven parties alliance.
So far as the monarchy is concerned, it has never been sole determining factor as it is either with army or democratic parties. Monarchy does not have any instrument with it to be despotic. It has to rely either with democratic parties or army.
Constitutional monarchy was limited monarchy. Following the limitation imposed by a popular politics, it is multi-party or pluralistic democracy which rules the country. There have been several successful cases of liberal democratic system where monarchy is highly respected and very stable like in the United Kingdom , Norway and Denmark .
Having no decisive power, monarchy is positive element for the country. In the words of B.P Koirala, "What I feel is that if there is a good King it makes things easy for an elected government. If there is an elected president and prime minister there would be a question of who is superior in terms of power."
The polarization in Nepal is between opposite ideologies, one liberal democratic party and other totalitarian communist. In such a polarization of ideology, no democracy will last for long. It would be miracle in Nepal if politics of these two opposite poles could ensure the functioning of democracy.
There may be personal rivalries for leadership and personal clashes but both CPN-UML and Maoist preach the same theme and lead the same mass of people that is extremist at the grass root level.
"It has been time tested strategy of communist all over the world that they instigate the people on caste, creed and linguistic basis in the beginning but ultimately they try to put all these into their own melting pot of totalitarian ethos," said the analyst.
Some sensible persons have already started realizing this thing but they don't have the leadership responsible to it. G.P. Koirala has always been a hardened activist and he never played a role of ideologue in his career but all power has been centralized upon him since not only person of his own party but others also don't have better alternative.
Due to the rule of King Gyanendra who intruded into mainstream politics violating the constitution, the democracy was thwarted and country was destabilized. Ultimately, the monarchy seems to have lost all its past glories.
A very serious vacuum is there in the leadership for liberal democratic force. Unfortunately, young leadership of NC are also disappointing. The democracy all over the world has a role to give moral as well as material support to the democratic experiment in Nepal which has been time and again derailed by great games going on under current in the region.
Time for Reconciliation
Has situation changed or not? Will this pro-King and anti-King struggle continue? There are communists and rightists including the King. All have committed mistakes and atrocities in the past. Instead of political vendetta, they must let bygones be bygone.
If atrocities of communists have been forgotten, why that of the palace could not be in the changed context? As it is said there is no permanent enemy and permanent friend in politics, the future course has been determined by commonalities of interest. As long as the communists have conviction of the class struggle that will automatically incline them for a dictatorship of certain class upon the others.
The very essence of communist ideology will be lost, if they do away with the conviction of class struggle.
Democratic experiments of history have enough lessons to assure that slowly and gradually democracy involves all traditional forces into its fold. In a highly, industrialized and enlightened societies, ideology of class struggle has lost its appeal. But amazingly in a highly uninformed and underdeveloped situation like in Nepal , the ideology of class struggle is being spread like any religious belief. Logic ends where fanaticism prevails. Unfortunately, Nepal has been suffering from a fanatical disorder through an upsurge for plural democracy.
Although it is still in horizon, the coming political polarization of various internal political forces will be decisive. The new political polarization will be inevitable to come but what results it will bring remains to be seen.
Box 1
Democratic Front
1. Nepali Congress
2. Nepali Congress (Democratic)
3. Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandadevi)
4. RPP
5. Rastriya Janshakti Party
6. Nepal Sadbhavana Party
Communist Front
1. Communist Part of Nepal - Unified Marxist and Leninist
2. United People’s Front
(a) Unity Center
(b) Nepal Communist Party (Masal)
(c) United People’s Front (Subedi)
3. United Left Front
(a) Communist Party of Nepal Marxist Leninist
(b) Nepal Communist Party (United)
(c) Nepal Communist party (Marxist)
(d) Nepal Communist Party - Marxist, Leninist and Maoist
4. Nepal Majdoor Kisan Party ( Nepal Workers and Peasant Party)
5. Nepal Communist Party (Maoist)
Box 2
Total Seats in the Interim Parliament 330
Democratic Front 130
1 .Nepali Congress 79
2. Nepali Congress Democratic 41
3. Rastriya Prajatantra Party 5
4. Rastriya Janshakti Party 2
5. Nepal Sadbhavana (Anandidevi) 2
6. Nepal Sadbhavana Party 1
Communist Front 152
1. CPN-UML - 73
2. CPN- Maoist – 73
3. United People’s Front - 5
4. Nepal Peasants and Worker Party – 1
Nominated - 48
