|
“Peaceful Political Coexistence Is The Bedrock Of Nation”
-- PROFESSOR DR. SURYA SUBEDI
Dr. SURYA SUBEDI is a well-known name in Nepalese law circle. Professor of international law at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom , Dr. Subedi briefly visited his home country last week en route to Vietnam for which country he is a legal advisor. Despite living in the United Kingdom , Dr. Subedi has been paying close attention to the events taking place in Nepal . Chairman of Nepal Britain Academic Council – a council of scholars of two countries – he has written a number of books specializing in international relations. He also gave a talk program on his book on Nepal-India relations during his brief stay in Kathmandu . Dr. Subedi spoke with KESHAB POUDEL and SANJAYA DHAKAL on various issues of political and constitutional nature that are vexing Nepal currently. Excerpts:
How do you see the present political crisis in Nepal in the wider context of regional situation?
The crisis, as I see it, is the result of incapability of our political leaders to solve our national problems. There are different models of democracy. We can follow any model and strengthen our nation. The first and foremost thing is nation and national interest. All political forces should come together and identify what are our non-negotiable national interests. Then you can work out the modality to achieve those national interests. Elsewhere, whenever there is any problem, people do not disagree on fundamental national interests – all political parties will have, more or less, similar views. Unfortunately, in our country, I have not been able to see the degree of consensus and the degree of willingness to work in support of national interest. I find this frustrating.
There are two different opinions competing these days, - one stating that the present constitution can still function and another calling for constituent assembly. What are your views?
I am not opposed to the idea of constituent assembly – it is also a way out. However, the constituent assembly becomes relevant only when there is a complete political vacuum. We do not have that political vacuum. When there is a revolution; when a new nation is born out of colonial administration; when there is a break-up of a nation; when there is clear political vacuum then you need to have constituent assembly to prepare new constitution. Therefore, although I am not opposed to it, I have not supported the idea of constituent assembly. In my opinion, the basic framework of the present constitution is fine. It is, by and large, a democratic constitution. Of course, there are deficiencies in the constitution. There are many things that have to be improved but there is a way out from within the constitutional structure. My view is that the present constitution should be activated as soon as possible. We should make it fully functional. At the moment, the parliamentary and executive matters of the constitution are not fully functioning. I am not convinced why this constitution is an obstacle to nation building. Only when something is an obstacle to nation building, do you need to change that one. For instance, in Sri Lanka , the Tamils were elected to parliament and they did their best to have that their demands met by the government. When they could not get anything, only then they decided to take up arms. Did the Maoists get elected to power? Did they try to see whether parliamentary system of government could deliver what they were trying to achieve? Without doing this, they decided to take up the arms and rise against the very democratic system. That is why, I think, the solution can be found through present constitution if all political forces are of the view that the only way to strengthening democracy is through parliamentary supremacy. Lets have parliamentary supremacy and lets give more power to the parliament. Genuine representatives of the people can be elected and once they are elected, they should have the ultimate say in the governance of the country. That can be achieved within the present constitution.
A section of people are demanding absolute monarchy while a section of parties are calling for absolute democracy. How do you see this tussle for absolutism?
Those who are arguing for absolute monarchy are not going to serve the national interest. Nor are the people who are in favor of abolishing the monarchy altogether. Because the monarchy is an institution with a long history in this country. We have to do what it takes to make sure that monarchy can be used for nation building and development of the country. The way the King has been governing the country since February 1 is not satisfactory. But that does not mean the institution of monarchy itself is not needed in the country. We need to separate the occupier of the throne from the institution of monarchy. No matter how the present monarch behaves, the institution of monarchy is part and parcel of Nepali national institution and Nepali psyche. So, on the basis of some events taking place within past one or two year, we cannot say that the monarchy is an obstacle to nation building.
Sandwiched between two major powers – India and China – how do you think the growing chaotic situation in Nepal will have implications in the regional scenario?
People have been talking about China card but I do not think China card is that effective. After all, if China is a good neighbor they will also like to see a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Nepal . Since we are a multilingual, multiracial and multicultural society, democratic path is the only path to prosperity. I think Chinese understand our aspirations and desire. And these desires can be met under the present constitution. Of course, we have to maintain our political neutrality as well as political equilibrium with both of our neighbors. Both India and China , in my view, would like to see democratic and peaceful Nepal where people can compete and prosper.
How do you assess the role of institutions created by this constitution?
I have said all along that the weakest link in the governance of our country had been our parliament. It should have played much more effective role. During the 1990s, the parliament was not that much effective. In a democracy, it is parliament that has to play the decisive role. My focus is how to make the parliament effective. First of all, make sure that elections are conducted in free and fair manner. Second thing, the parliament should be given the ultimate power in the governance of the country. That is what people’s sovereignty means.
How do you see the role of international community?
Role of international community is an important one for a small nation like ours. There are three things that the international community is concerned about. One, the major powers of the world including the United Nations have a commitment to reduce poverty. To reduce poverty, they have concluded that a country should have a democratic, accountable and transparent government. They have an interest in making sure that wherever they give assistance, their money is used as wisely as possible, which would benefit the poor people. That is why they are saying that unless and until there is a democratic and transparent government, the funds given by foreign governments may not be used properly. Two, all these countries are, by and large, democratic countries and their taxpayers ask how the money provided by them is being utilized. They keep asking these questions in the parliament. For instance, in the UK , every now and then, MPs raise such questions about Nepal and other countries. Three, we now live in a globalized world with its own set of vale systems. These values are democracy, rule of law, good governance and human rights. If you depart from those values, the international community will be concerned. Because once you say you are a part of international community, you have to subscribe to the values of the community. Otherwise, you could end up a pariah state.
What are your views on the escalation of political conflict?
In my opinion, the very idea behind democracy is the peaceful political coexistence. Nowadays, politics is based on consensus. In this county, I find it frustrating that people are not seeking such consensus. Having your rigid position is one thing but moving forward on the basis of peaceful political coexistence is the very basis of democratic governance, rule of law and civilization. This message should be conveyed to all the people and political forces here. If you do not accept the existence of monarchy, they why do you expect the monarchy to accept your existence as a Maoist force. So, we need to accept the existence of all political forces and find some sort of a national consensus to move forward.
What do you think is the main obstacle to reaching this peaceful political coexistence?
I think all sides have made mistakes. For instance, look at their various 40-point or 75 point proposals, more than two-third of them can be included in any political manifesto of any party. This is a wish list. You have aspirations to build nation and you have listed a number of things that you want to achieve. And in order to achieve them you do not need to fight with other political forces. You need to bring other forces on board and move ahead. I think the problem in this country is not giving enough time for democracy to mature. Our experience with democracy was short-lived. In countries like UK , the system they have now has evolved through decades and centuries of hard work. They have gone through these phases of crises that we are going through. But here, people have not given enough time for democracy to work.
Who didn’t give the time – the King, the Maoists or the parties?
I would say where we are today is the result of the Maoist rebellion. When the country had just embarked on the democratic path, the Maoists did not try to achieve what they wanted to achieve through parliament. The Maoist rebellion, which began some ten-eleven years ago, is the problem why we are in the present situation.
Do you say that they (Maoists) are foolish, then?
I would not necessarily say they are foolish. They are backward in their thinking. In today’s world when Maoism has disappeared even from a country where chairman Mao once ruled, when communism has been basically discarded as an obsolete and outdated political ideology, we seem to be subscribing to that idea. We are part of the global village where there is marketization, globalization, economic liberalization, WTO etc. When even countries like China , Vietnam are following modern paths to development, we seem to be thinking backwardly and believing in communist ideology in today’s world.
But the Maoists have gained strength despite what you call outdated ideology. How do you explain?
You can attract crowd very easily on the basis of cheap political slogans. Further, this country has remained a Least Developed Country (LDC) for a long time even though many other LDCs have graduated to developing or middle-income level. If the current situation countries, we will remain an LDC for long time to come. Once you have no equal opportunities in the country, no equal access to resources and no equal access to power, the disenchanted and disillusioned people will be attracted to cheap political propaganda. But I think there are better ways of addressing the problems, which the Maoists want to address. The problems they have highlighted – some of them are genuine ones that should concern every Nepalese. But there are different ways of addressing those problems rather than through violence. I am opposed to achieving political ends through violent means.
Once again, how do you see the role of international community about the insurgency here?
Initially, I think, the international community did not have a good understanding of Maoist movement – what they stand for and what their ultimate game was. Second thing, there is not much that the international community itself can do. It is our problem. The international community can assist us only when we have a sensible policy to move forward. They can be the positive force. When we ourselves do not have the sensible policy, the international community will have a limited leverage. Apart from India - which surrounds the country from three sides and which have, perhaps, more leverage – the international community, for example the United States – a faraway country no matter how powerful that country is, they have a limited leverage. So do the United Kingdom – they are a good friend of Nepal , a traditional ally and supporter of democracy. When democracy is in trouble, they try to help the government. But when the government itself cannot help itself, then the international community will be concerned about what is going on and how they can help. I think the international community has played a very encouraging role here. They have not, in my opinion, subscribed to the idea of constituent assembly. I don’t think they would ever support the Maoist revolution or whatever you call it. They are firmly of the view that the country like ours needs both – the monarchy and the democracy. These two forces should go hand in hand. Experiences of so many countries have shown that monarchy and democracy can go together – known as constitutional monarchy. That is what they want to see in Nepal . I do not think they want to see any other force ruling the country.
How do you define the international community? We can see that even among the international community there are divergent views and interests.
When we say international community in the context of Nepal , we are talking about firstly our neighbors, secondly our traditional friends like UK , US, thirdly, the international organizations including the UN and fourthly, larger group of nations working as or under the auspices of UN or the EU. In our context, with the exception of few countries, most have committed themselves to respecting democracy, human rights, rule of law and good governance. These are the values that emanate from the basic documents of the UN. All 191 countries that are the members of UN have defined what the values of the international community are and they expect Nepal to subscribe to these values. Whether China or India or other nations are concerned about Nepal ’s political developments or not, their ultimate aim should be to make sure that Nepal remains firmly within that international value systems.
That is your suggestion what their ultimate aim should be. But, are you sure that there aim is the same?
Having said that all friends of Nepal want to make sure that international value system is respected, they have their own national interest. India has its own interest vis-à-vis Nepal . China has its own interest vis-à-vis Nepal . So does the US , - as a global power they have global view of things. They would like to see Nepal firmly in the democratic camp so that this country can also participate in the international policy agenda. But their national interests can be reconciled with our own national interest provided that we have people in power with competence, knowledge and expertise.
But there is a general perception here that the national interests of our neighbors India and China do not converge so far as Nepal is concerned. What do you say?
I do not think that is necessarily so. Both China and India are developing their relations in a way that will be economically meaningful to both of them. It is not the situation like the one in 1960s or 70s. Both are emerging global giants and economic power. They do not want to quarrel over Nepal . They do not want to have small differences spoil their emerging developing good relations. I think both of them would have some common understanding that Nepal should find its place and its people within the country should find resolution of political problems. And once we come up with sensible solutions, both of them will support. Yes, we have two neighbors but I do not think the overarching objectives of these two neighbors would differ that much in today’s world no matter what the internal political system in these two countries are. Actually, I would think, they would find it very strange if Nepal becomes an issue, which disturbs the evolving relationship between the two countries. These two countries have to compete with other western countries and economic giants. If they fight with each other, making Nepal an issue, I do not think they would be far-sighted leaders. So I think their interest lies in making sure that they do not have disagreements over Nepal .
As of now, don’t you think they have been competing in Nepal for sphere of influence?
Not to the scale that I have read in some newspapers. They do not have to compete. Yes, of course, you want to have some sphere of influence in your neighborhood. But I do not think they will go to that extent and compete for sphere of influence in Nepal . Because when you have very good relations with each other, why would you need to compete for Nepal . For instance, when Chinese premier visited India last year, they decided to sort out so many of their border problems. They are now working together for each other’s economic advantage. If they want to emerge as global giants, they cannot compete with each other simply because they do not agree on how to handle problems within Nepal .
Recently, during the visit of Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran to Beijing , newspapers quoted him as saying that the Chinese told him they do not want interference in internal affairs of Nepal . Earlier he had said India had high stakes in Nepal situation. What do you make of that?
Although I have not read the press communiqué itself, they seem to have differences of opinion regarding Nepal . But, what I am saying here is that they cannot afford to quarrel on matter relating to Nepal . They have a bigger challenge – to compete and establish themselves in the international arena. When they are trying to compete and establish themselves as global power, these two nations cannot afford to go back to the situation of the 1960s and fight with each other. Nepal is not a serious enough issue for them to contest. So, their interest lies in making their nations prosperous. Of course, India has always pursued the policy of non-interference. And I do not think India will be foolish to intervene in our internal affairs. It is our own internal affairs and we are capable of resolving with it. But we should have a dialogue within our own nation to come up with solution. Then Indians would also keep quiet.
What is stopping us from having this national dialogue, then?
That national dialogue, I think, can come about when both sides or all sides show some flexibility. At the moment, I see the ball being in the court of the King. The King has to demonstrate some flexibility and preparedness for dialogue. And then we can see whether the Maoists or the seven party alliance are willing to negotiate. Those who are in power should demonstrate their willingness to negotiate with other political forces. I have not seen that willingness so far.
Why, do you think, there is no willingness?
I do not know what the mindset of the present King is. But, the only way forward for this country is through dialogue, negotiation and consensus. I am not sure what is stopping him from extending his friendly hands to the political parties, especially the constitutional forces of the country. The Maoists themselves have resorted to violent means to reach their political ends – which is not an acceptable means but if they are prepared to lay down their arms and if they are prepared to participate in parliamentary elections, have faith in multiparty system of government and have faith in constitutional monarchy, then I do not see why the King should hesitate to say lets have a broad national convention. Goodness, we can have a broad national convention tomorrow. Besides, if they refuse to participate in such broad national convention, they will be in minority, they will gradually lose their support and be isolated, outnumbered and they will disappear in no time. Therefore, somebody has to take the initiative for national reconciliation now. The initiative has to be taken by the King because he is in power now.
Why, do you think, is the King not taking the initiative? Despite so much pressure, internally and externally, what could be the reason behind his rigid stance? Is it due to some foreign backing or internal strength?
It is difficult to speculate. It is difficult to read the mind of an individual. We are not sure whether the King is willing or not. He took power on February 1 st. Maybe he is working towards that situation. He wanted to see whether he can deliver better. You and I and many people had said that the political parties were not able to deliver. Perhaps, he wanted to see if he can deliver. We now know that one person cannot deliver. He needs other forces working with him. Perhaps that realization is coming within him as well. Lets see what the future holds. I am quite hopeful. If the King wants to make the institution of monarchy a permanent one, he must come to his senses and realize he needs cooperation of others.
Why are you so hopeful?
I am very hopeful because he is not an individual. He presides over an institution – the institution of monarchy. The monarchy as an institution has a national interest. That national interest can be achieved by building an environment of political consensus. I think he will come around to accepting that reality. That is why I am hopeful.
Can he continue to not realize where his interests lie?
Indeed, that is what I am most surprised about. I am pretty hopeful that the time, perhaps, has come for the King to realize his past mistake that one person cannot develop this nation. It needs the support of the people. If he is prepared to lead the nation towards prosperity through national consensus, accepting peaceful political coexistence is must. The King has to accept the existence of seven political parties and if the Maoists are also prepared to accept monarchy as an institution, he should also accept the Maoists as political force and try to bring them on board for peaceful democratic governance of the country.
Do you think the King has become prisoner of his own advisors?
That is difficult to say because I have been trying to figure out what his actual advisors are like, what they might be advising him about and whose advice he listens to. You may give advice but at the end of the day, the decision lies in his hands. The decision he has taken, perhaps, was taken on the belief that democratic experience of the past 12-13 years was not able to deliver and perhaps he should have a go at it. We now know that one year has gone and there is no delivery.
The King has asked for three years. Only one year has passed. Don’t you think we should probably give him time?
The strategy that is in place, what we have seen, makes us doubtful whether he can achieve. The strategy that is in place now doesn’t convince me that he can delivery even in two more years. The people he has brought to power have no popular base. The people who are in power are not following sensible policy. For instance, there is vice chairman of council of ministers saying that democracy and monarchy cannot go together. I cannot accept that idea. The constitutional monarchy has worked in many countries quite well. It had worked in our country for ten years quite well. I don’t see why it cannot work again. I am a firm believer that democracy and monarchy can go together. There is no either/or.
Often times, experts from outside try to prescribe their solutions without understanding the nature of conflict here. As a Nepali scholar based in UK , what do you have to say to such activities?
I chair an institution called Britain-Nepal Academic Council. There are so many scholars interested in Nepal and who visit here frequently. Through that council, we have tried to convey a positive message. Our struggle is not like a struggle in Sri Lanka , which is basically an ethnic struggle. We have not reached that stage. It is still a problem that can be solved through political means. There are problems in countries like Sudan that are deep-rooted ethnic and racial conflict in nature. Unlike theirs, ours is basically a problem of political governance. Political problems have political answers. We should find those answers and I am optimistic we will find them soon. Actually, whenever I come across any articles or newspaper reports presenting rather distorted picture about Nepal , I am the first one to write letter to the editor in order to give them more information.
|
