Sep 15, 2006

By SURYA DHUNGEL

In the context of a possible negotiation with late King Birendra in February 1977, Late B.P. Koirala in his recently published jail diary had noted: “Soft statements have a meaning only if there is a possibility of receiving a positive response from the other party. In absence of such possibilities, a soft statement is even worse than the gutter. Neither would this be political nor ethical from a revolutionary’s perspective.”( Sundarijal Again, 2006, p. 47)

In the present day Nepalese context, political alliances created prior to and during the jana aandolan –II against the continuation of unconstitutionally assumed Royal Authoritarian Rule have in fact diluted the fundamental differences amongst the agitating political parties and their leadership. No statement from anyone appears to be politically soft and authoritative in nature, and none of the politicians has a tendency to issue responses positively. It is not quite clear as to who is responding to whom and to what? Hence, a humble attempt has been made herein to raise some issues of concern with an expectation to receive a few constructive responses, at least from the second generation leaderships of the leading political parties, if their sense of public accountability impels them to consider the issues raised better than the ‘gutter’.

The Nepalese politics, including the nature of armed conflict, has its own unique characteristics, rarely to be found anywhere in the world. Even the top most political party leaders, including the Prime Minister and rebel party leaders, are easily accessible here. They are able to conveniently communicate to each other without any traces of hesitation and threat. Intellectuals and political elites are ready to volunteer their services to the cause of the peace and democracy irrespective of their ideological leanings. These are certainly great advantages of a country which is heading to a path of lawlessness and collusion.

All political parties have publicly expressed in written (ref: concept papers submitted to the interim constitution drafting committee, 12 point and 8 point understandings, etc) their commitments to pluralistic (multi-party) democracy, rule of law, human rights and constitutionalism, irrespective of their ideological anomalies. All stakeholders have willingly supported the idea to invite UN to help ensure the monitoring of arms management and electoral processes.

Despite all these advantages, why has the peace process been stalled? Why is there no effort from any quarters -neither from the Government, nor from SPA and the CPN (M)-to accelerate the process leading to the creation of a Constituent Assembly? Is there any invisible factor that prevents our political actors from applying their independent minds? Is not the politicians’ disastrous failure to make the best use of so many advantages in the interest of the country a real disadvantage for Nepal ? Is it the political incompetence or greed of politicians a real cause of Nepal ’s failure to deal with the ‘truth’? What does the second generation leadership of political parties have to say about it and what role could they play to change the scenario? Answers have to be sought from them, not any more from the first generation leadership.

2. UN’s dilemma:

UN has demonstrated its special favour to Nepal from the highest level by appointing a seasoned diplomat so familiar to Nepal as special emissary of the Secretary General to assist in the peace process in response to the requests from the Government and CPN (M). But the key political actors of the country, especially the SPA-led Government and CPN (M), have miserably failed to provide a minimum basis for the SG’s emissary to initiate his work. First, CPN (M) has not yet declared a permanent ceasefire. Without a ceasefire agreement signed by both CPN (M) and the Government, preferably, in presence of UN, other international actors, SPA and other relevant stakeholders as witnesses, clearly outlining the bases (principles and procedures) for initiating the peace and arms management processes, it may not be possible for the UN to determine its organizational presence and strength before assuming its full responsibilities. Second, a series of dialogue between UN SG’s emissary and the requesting parties has to take place preceding the actual work. This is essential simply for preparing the real groundwork for shaping the modality of peace and arms management processes.

Surprisingly, however, no one is asking the SPA and CPN (M) leaders to come together and hold discussions with the UN emissary to concretise the peace process and stop beating about the bush. Can the second generation leaders push for this?

3. Seriousness in Business:

Lack of seriousness in mission, objectives and business amongst all agitating political parties, such as (SPA) and CPN (M), is quite apparent from their failure to produce a suitable ‘interim constitution’ on time. Many people had apprehensions about the outcome on the very day when the interim constitution drafting committee was unceremoniously constituted without adequate consultations.

With necessary amendments, it was much easier and logical to modify the existing 1990 constitution, which had obtained the status of an ‘interim legal instrument’ suo motu , once the House of Representative assumed the constituent authority and declared to hold Constituent Assembly elections to frame a new Constitution on the political ground of the sovereign authority granted by the successful jana aandolan-II. But the political forces of the day conceded to the proposition of drafting an interim Constitution by a controversial drafting committee which left the job incomplete. Neither the political parties extended their cooperation to the drafting committee to accomplish its tasks, nor the committee seriously ever put pressure on the SPA and CPN (M) to solicit their necessary support.

The Government has yet to succeed in creating an environment to bring the ‘rebel groups’ to the mainstream politics by inducting them in the government for sharing responsibilities due to continued impasse on the issues of arms management and interim legal instrument. The CPN (M), on the other hand, has been adopting a wrong tactics of continued ‘threat’ and ‘consolidation of its new political base’ during transition rather than helping the new political order amicably resolve the nation’s problems through peaceful and legitimate democratic means.

The CPN (M) leaders’ recent public discourses have not convinced the people and international community in general about their commitment to the process, as they have not yet offered any meaningful indications in action towards the establishment of peace and new constitutional order through ‘permanent ceasefire’, arms management, mainstream politics and the Constituent Assembly. They have not been able to control their cadres’ persistent rebel behaviour that has been vitiating the political environment.

Despite all these challenges, there is a ray of hope if the new political leaderships in all parties are prepared to pressurize their leaders for actions. Rather than wasting time on issues that are meant for the Constituent Assembly to resolve, the national leaders and all stakeholders have to work together to clear the obstacles preventing them to reach to the Constituent Assembly.

4. Prospects:

As stated at the outset, Nepal has several unique advantages. In addition, the Maoist leaders have come out from the jungle to join the open competitive politics. They have publicly expressed their full commitment to respect and comply with democratic and human rights values, despite their ideological inconsistencies. They have agreed in black and white to accept the UN’s lead role in facilitating arms management and fair electoral process, at least in principle. These commitments combined with the agreed commitments of the SPA and the Government should in fact be the starting point for future course of action. The hitherto stalled peace process should move again before the nation gets plunged into lawlessness and chaos.

Following few steps may help restart the process:

(Dr. Dhungel is a constitutional lawyer)