Talk to Maoists

All political parties have increased pressure on the government to resolve the problem of insurgency through dialogue.   This, no doubt, can be seen as a consensus of sorts among the parties and therefore, the government on its part will do well to respect their suggestions. A statement from Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, General Secretary of the underground Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is also indicative of the Maoist desire to come to the table and end the almost five year old insurgency. Apparently, the Maoists want the government to disclose the whereabouts of Maoist leader Dinesh Sharma and other colleagues and to cease all hostilities. Even though the Nepali Congress (NC) might say there should be no preconditions forholding talks, the Maoists are surely not asking for too much. For one, the insurgents have softened their demands. Secondly, it is only logical that hostilities from both sides should cease for the talks to actually take place. The government must therefore look at the Maoist demands in a positive light. After all, this is only a small price to pay for achieving peaceful resolution to a problem that has already claimed over 1400 lives, rendered thousands homeless and victimised thousands more at the hands of both the police as well as Maoists.

The government, however, allowed the power struggle within the NC to sabotage the efforts of the high-level consensus seeking committee. It did not act sanely when it refused to respond to the Maoist demand for a æminimum environmentÆ. Maoists would not have attacked Dunai, the district headquarters of Dolpa, nor would it have been necessary for the government to mobilise the army if the Koirala faction had allowed Sher Bahadur Deuba, leader of the rival faction in the NC who also heads the consensus seeking committee, to succeed. Instead, the government allowed the problem to deteriorate until the Maoist rout of Dunai.  This terrible incident provided Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala with a rare opportunity to appoint his protege, Mahesh Acharya, also the present Finance Minister, as Defence Minister. Then followed the mobilisation of the army.

All political parties have opposed mobilisation of the army. These parties spoke out late. Still, the government must heed them. We have always held that the insurgency is a product of socio-economic and political injustice and therefore any solution must address these problems first. The military may be able to suppress the Maoists, but if these problems remain, things will be even worse for the people in the affected areas. Perhaps, the mobilisation of the army did play a role in making the Maoists express their intention to talk. The Defence Minister should not push this advantage too far. The two sides must sit at the table and seek a peaceful solution.

Party-government relations

By Sanjaya Serchan

The general elections of 1999 repeated the election results of 1991 and gave the reins of government to the Nepali Congress (NC) and put the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) in the opposition. Although the NC formed the government after both elections, there was a role reversal among its top two leaders. Following the 1991 elections, Girija Prasad Koirala had become the Prime Minister, while Krishna Prasad Bhattarai was the party president (first acting and later elected). The aftermath of the 1999 elections saw Bhattarai become the Prime Minister, while Koirala was the party president. The outcome in both cases, however, appeared to be the same, i.e. internal squabbling within the NC. This led, in the first case, to midterm elections and, in the second, to the removal of the Prime Minister.

A central feature of multi-party democracy is political parties, that attempt to form a government through competitive elections. Nonetheless, party and government are two different things, and the relationship between them is a matter of debate. Generally, the experiences of several democratic countries show the party as secondary to the government. The proposition that the American President should remain subservient to his party would be highly objectionable, although the president can, and does, seek the help of his party before and after he has been elected. The experience of Britain-considered the mother of parliamentary democracies-shows the Prime Minister, be it Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair, wielding an inordinate influence over both government and party. Another country with parliamentary democracy, Germany, also has had Prime Ministers with strong presence in the government, as well as in their respective parties.

Communist countries, in contrast to democracies, have evinced some differences in this regard. The general secretaries of several communist parties wielded enormous influence on the party and government, as well as over the whole state apparatus, without holding any government posts. On the other hand,  faceless party functionaries, who often headed the government with their ceremonial posts, had considerably less influence than the party general secretaries. This was apparently in accordance with the communist ideology of the 'withering away of the state' and, consequently, the government and other such paraphernalia in the long run. However, a change seems to have occurred now in communist countries like China. At present, the Chinese President or the Prime Minister, especially the former is regarded as supreme in both the party and government.

As far as our own experiences are concerned, the 1991 election were followed by conflict between the party and government. It often appeared that the government was on one side and the party on the other over several issues. This ultimately led to midterm elections where the NC lost its majority. The squabbling which followed the 1999 elections did not lead to midterm elections (at least it has not until now), but led to the ouster of the Prime Minister, whom the NC had projected to the people during the elections.

After the midterm elections of 1994, another important party in  Nepali politics-the CPN-UML-formed the government twice. The first was a minority government on its own, immediately following the elections, about which the party cadres and intellectuals and newspapers close to the party were very enthusiastic. The second was a coalition government in which the party, though not having its own Prime Minister as in the minority government, held the Deputy Prime Ministership and other important cabinet posts. Despite this the party-or at least a certain section of it-remained relatively less enthusiastic about the government vis-a-vis the previous one. It could be argued here that the CPN-UML was more "immersed" party-wise in the minority government than in the coalition government. The CPN-UML later broke up. How much of a role, the "distance", that had appeared between party and government during the time of  coalition government played in the break-up, is a matter of analysis.

Various experiences show that maintaining intra-party harmony, and the harmony between party and government are considerable tasks. Along with the vertical split in the CPN-UML in the last ten years, the NC also came several times near to a break-up without actually breaking up. Some smaller parties like the Rastriya Prajatantra Party and Nepal Sadbhavana Party, as well as communist parties other than the CPN-UML, too, suffered from vertical splits during the period. It might be significant that most of these splits originated in the parliamentary wings of the party, that is in bodies most eligible to form the government.

All these experiences have given birth to some 'theoretical' issues. An often mooted concept in our context concerning party-government relation is of one person one post. This means the Prime Minister and the Party President should be different persons.

 The proposal envisions the sharing of workload, with the aim supposedly of enhancing work performance. Experiences, however, show that even when the two posts are separated, one remains, in practice, subordinate to the other. One of these two post-holders must be willing to play second fiddle to the other to avoid conflicts. This precept can be broadened to include the argument that, to avoid conflicts, all the party heavyweights must be adequately represented in the government. One person one post, though good in principle, does not look very tenable practically.

Another issue concerns factionalized political parties. In an age supposedly signifying the end of ideology, political parties, in the absence of a homogenizing ideology, may appear no more than a collection of factions, like the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party. This can, not surprisingly, lead to factional conflicts over strategies, methodologies and even, as some cynics might say, the loaves and fishes of power. In this context, maintaining balance among factions can be one of the primary responsibilities of a leader. And with the legal provision that says forty percent of MPs of a party can split to form another party, the opposing faction within a party, though, without the required number to form an alternative government, may, nonetheless, break up the party.

As far as 'practicalities' are concerned, the support for Prime Minister Koirala within his own party seems to have dwindled over the years, and some of his once diehard supporters have turned away from him. Critics would say this is due to Koirala's tendency to remain confined to a small coterie, i.e. his kith and kin. Some would say that Koirala is not willing to let go of either the prime ministership or the party presidency outside his own clan, or even that the latter is not allowing Koirala to give up since they do not have an alternative of sufficient stature, from their own circle for these two posts. The upcoming NC general convention, where the party will elect its President and half of its Central Committee members, looms large amidst all this. Yet, whatever the outcome of the convention, learning to manage intra-party affairs and affairs between party and government will no doubt take some time for Nepali politicos.

Life on the highway

By Arun Gupto

When we think of our highways, it is mainly Prithivi Highway that  comes to our mind, the highway that connects Kathmandu to the Terai, the lowlands.  It takes so much time to travel on this grand road that I feel   like asking why  we invented this idea of travelling.

Sometimes, natural impediments like landslides and construction work make you feel that you detest this highway and sometimes strikes, blockades give you to hunger and anger. What else can you do but sit inside a vehicle for hours?

You never know when  tempo drivers have differences with the government and choose the highway to manifest their anger.   The next day it is  the matador  truckwallas, and  the next time the Night Bus association and then  some accidents.  Don't be amazed, if you see   agitated parliamentarians on the middle of the road somewhere near Mugling and demanding free Olympic tickets from the prime minister.  And who knows, one day you might even see the prime minister sitting with his cabinet team to ask  some Nepali poets to write poems on his UN visit.  I mean anything can happen on that serpentine road from Kathmandu to the lowlands.

Everything happens on the highway though robberies rarely happen these days because of  crowds and various  sit-ins.    The highway is so full of life that robbers and dacoits have no chance to butt in: One form of security is assured.

There are accidents as usual on the highway.  The driver after injuring or killing a villager disappears with his vehicle, and the passenger in the hundreds of vehicles have to wait  for crowds.   On the one hand, the villagers have their own pains, and on the other, the passengers sweat or shiver inside the vehicles with their own problems. Who should be blamed?  We do not know for sure.  The family's anger is justified. The drivers say that the passers-by slapdash on the roads.  The passengers blame traffic rules and highway codes.

The highway is that space where life is seen through constipated moods.  The big vacation time has come and now you can see anything happen on the Prithivi Highway.  We have only this major highway that connects the north and the south. 

One afternoon, on the Narayanghat-Butwal section, I saw a long queue of vehicles.  We witnessed a taxi, blocking the road.   Some of them asked the cause of his problem.  He said that a truck had hit the rear of his taxi and run away. People asked him to go to the police or chase the truck or note down the number of the vehicle.  But he was obstinate. A South Asian foreigner came to the driver and asked him how much money did he need to repair the part.  He said two thousand rupees.  The foreigner gave him the money but said, "You cannot block a national highway to express your problems in such a manner.  Think about the loss and problems you create because of what you think is the right manner of showing your disagreement."  The taxi driver then rattled the vehicle away on the crazy highway.

'The Birds' and myth of good governance

By M R Josse

Aeons ago, as a college student in the City of Joy (Calcutta), yours truly saw Alfred Hitchcock's scary spine-chiller, 'The Birds' - and was then unable for a long, long time to look at our winged friends, specially crows, in quite the same innocent or nonchalant manner as earlier.

The birds: That uncomfortable, even frightening, sensation came flooding back to mind when confronted with the phenomenon of five bird-hits on aircraft between August 20 and October 12 in the vicinity of Tribhuvan International Airport (TIA).

As detailed in this daily the other day, that startling chronology of events affected (as of this writing) Buddha Air's Beech 1900-D aircraft (29 passengers); RNAC's leased jet (119 passengers); RNAC's B-757 jet (179 passengers); China Southwest Airline's B-757 jet (191 passengers); and Lauda Air's B-767 jet (239 passengers).

Miraculously, the bird-hits did not result in any loss of lives or destruction of property in the vicinity of TIA. They have, however, damaged engines of some aircraft resulting in huge capital loss to the perennially ailing, controversy-ridden national carrier.

Besides, it caused both national and international flights to be diverted to other destinations causing great inconvenience and considerable financial damage for airlines other than RNAC.

Even more importantly, it has resulted - perfectly naturally - in international airline operators threatening to halt all flights if the bird menace is not immediately tackled.

Needless to state, if that were to come to pass, the fragile economy of this cash-strapped, soft state would come crashing down even as the golden goose of Nepalese tourism is strangulated - with dire consequences for the hundreds of thousands of individuals who, in one way or another, are dependent on that smokeless industry for their livelihood.

What stands out like the proverbial sore thumb in this awful mess is that the sequence of bird-hits on aircraft mentioned above has taken place - incredible as it may sound - against claims of good governance by Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala!

So far, while all and sundry have expressed grave apprehensions over the sombre implications of 'the birds' business, not a squeak has emanated from the four-time skipper of the Nepal XI, who recently has been busy organising or dashing off to tea parties and other such urgent engagements.

Neither, for that matter, has the tourism minister Tarani Dutta Chataut been seen or heard of late, leave alone taking full responsibility for the perception that has now been created in travel circles that TIA is a dangerous airport to fly into.

Dereliction of duty: Clearly, there has been a gross, even criminal, dereliction of duty on the part of a government run by a party which prefers frothy rhetoric to swift action - when, that is, its high priests are not at each other's throats or sticking in their long knives into each other's backs.

In the case under review, pray, what other conclusion can one draw from the fact that Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Local Development, Ram Chandra Poudel, allowed a garbage dumping site to be developed on the northern periphery of TIA, on the very banks of the Bagmati, considered holy by all Hindus?

Incidentally, it may be salutary to point out, first, that the dumping site is, by common consent, considered to be one of the principal contributors to the birds menace in and around the TIA and, second, that, as per ICAO regulations, dumping sites should not be closer than 13 kms from any international airport.    

Notably, as a correspondent pertinently pointed out in a letter published in this newspaper the other day, not only had locals and environmentalists opposed that particular site but also that no environmental impact assessment was made prior to that operation going full steam ahead.

Those who follow the Byzantine politics of the ruling party will recall that Poudel had for some time now been busy securing a berth on the Koirala squad - switching over from the losing K P Bhattarai team - then lobbying for a weighty portfolio apart from the Local Development one before finally landing the Home portfolio in the aftermath of the Dunai and Bhorletar episodes.

Presently, it would appear that the focus of attention at the dizzy heights of the Nepali Congress edifice is riveted on when the next cabinet reshuffle will be, who will be dropped and who inducted - not any other of the scores of burning national issues that more directly concern you and me. 

That aside, there is apparently far more interest in that charmed circle of politicos in the new composition of its central working committee and in the wheeling and dealing for plum party positions prior to, or at, its national convention in January.

Against such a gloomy backdrop, how is one to react to the revelation in this daily that Nepali Congress governments - under Bhattarai as well as under Koirala - sat for over a year on a timely study prepared by a team of German experts on "Bird strike risks at Kathmandu International Airport."

It will be relevant to note that therein among the recommended measures to combat the scourge of birds in the vicinity of TIA were auditory and visual deterrent techniques to scare birds away; the effective management of solid waste; the use of birds of prey to control the small bird population; the use of chemical repellents; plus a long-term plan to ensure flight safety. 

Where does the buck stop? Who takes responsibility for the fact that most of those recommendations were not implemented, or that the valuable study just lay around gathering dust? The Minister for Local Development, the Minister for Tourism, or the captain of the team, the Prime Minister himself who champions the cause of good governance?

Where does the buck stop in a democracy, particularly one where a single party rules the roost? Good governance? Tell that to the marines! As far as the public is concerned, it's a cruel myth.