No foreign troops

In what could be the first fulsome pronouncement from the highest official level on the ongoing counter-insurgency operation, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has categorically ruled out the involvement of foreign troops. In an interview to this daily, Prime Minister Deuba said we do not need them as the Royal Nepal Army is quite capable of dealing with the situation on its own. However, he left open the possibility of importing weaponry from abroad in view of the current situation, the only criteria being that such weaponry should be speedily available and cheap. The Prime Minister’s remarks are clearly in response to reports carried by foreign media, particularly in India, to the effect that Indian troops could be brought in to help the Royal Nepal Army in its war against the Maoists. Such reports also pointed out that the army does not have experience of dealing with the kind of situation that now obtains in Nepal. Though no timeframe has been set for the operation, it could end soon if there is continued success for the army, whose orders are to disarm and defeat the terrorists and not just cordon them off and search them. But the army is now facing a fresh challenge with the Maoists melting into the crowds after discarding their combat fatigues.

Speculations in media about the possible involvement of foreign troops in the anti-Maoist war have obviously touched a raw nerve in this country. Any such suggestion is anathema to a nation that has looked after itself quite capably down the centuries as far as defending the realm is concerned. Suggestions about foreign troop involvement may have been encouraged by the government’s appeal to ex-servicemen from the three different armies that Nepalese enlist in to contribute their mite towards taking the fight home to the Maoists. Prime Minister Deuba is on more slippery ground in talking about the import of arms. Any talk of third country imports in that particular commodity tends to raise hackles south of the border. The last time this became an issue is still fresh in many minds because of the virtual economic blockade that followed. The Prime Minister has therefore done well to strongly hint at the possibility of arms imports from that very source. Another point that needs to be made here is that in being so forthcoming with the press, Prime Minister Deuba has struck a blow for transparency, state of emergency or no. Any conflict situation is as much a clash of arms as a war of words, with the truth often the first casualty. Taking the press into confidence as Prime Minister Deuba has just done can only help, rather than hinder the cause. While putting his cards on the table, the Prime Minister also conceded that the Maoist insurgency had been spawned by socio-economic malaise like poverty, unemployment and illiteracy. This is welcome indication that the government is not missing the woods for the trees. It should do something about this and without losing precious time.

What next for Deuba ?

By Dr Alok Bohara

An attack on the Royal Nepal Army is an attack on our national security and unity, and it must be dealt with utmost urgency. A resolute army seems destined to provide much needed tranquillity for the nation and its subjects, and they deserve our resounding gratitude and support. Under the current circumstances, the nation must be prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of preserving a much hard-earned democratic system of government, not to mention our alienable right to personal freedom and safety. To that end, those who espouse violent means to express their differences must not be given any credence, especially when such actions threaten our national security, personal freedom, and unity.

But, these recent events in the country must also serve as a awakening call for all of us, and perhaps a re-examination of the country’s state of affair is in order. No, I am not writing to call to end corruption to solve the current ills, for it is just the by-product of our flawed institutional mechanism. I am, instead, arguing for a constitutional reform to incorporate some form of federalism in our political system, which may just provide a way of peacefully reconciling unity and diversity. Loosely speaking, the idea entails decentralizing the economic and political powers.

The transition from a command to market economy in the face of the current globalization movement will not succeed unless one recognizes the importance of the decentralized decision making apparatus, both political as well as fiscal. Federalism provides a constitutional mechanism under which a division of task is clearly defined for the central government that acts to focus on common purposes, whereas sub-national level political units become responsible to its own electorate. Almost 40 percent of the world’s population live under some form of federal system (eg, Brazil, United States, Mexico, India, Germany, Canada, Spain, Belgium, South Africa, Italy, UK, Malaysia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Argentina, Australia).

As I have argued elsewhere, in the context of Nepal, a case may be made to peacefully transfer the centralized power base from Kathmandu to regional entities through a simple (or not so simple) constitutional change. The proposed change recommends creating five elected regional governors and regional assemblies. The capital of Kathmandu valley should remain autonomous. The benefits of such a political structure are numerous, but most importantly, the elected regional officials will define their role and align functions with the needs of locals and communities. Currently, an array of centrally controlled bureaucrats, who are not accountable to local communities, provides a vast link to the power base residing in the capital.

As opposed to a much detached centrally focused current political system, a self-governing regional political unit will be more responsive to its citizens, and will provide a distinctive basis for a community’s sense of identity and desire for self-determination. This is particularly essential for a diverse and geographically challenged country like Nepal. Likewise, fiscal decentralization ensures that the elected governor and the assembly at the regional level have to be more accountable in making decisions with a fear of possibly being voted out of office. Centrally appointed regional officers have no such fear, and thus are less accountable. Also, various empirical research has shown that weak democratic institutions, internal bureaucratic controls, centralized decision makings, and non-free market economy are the major causes of corruption. Thus, the proposed form of federalism (regional political units) will also help reduce corruption by diffusing the central concentration of political and economic power.

Furthermore, a new thinking in handling the national security must emerge out of the current events. That is, the armed forces should be modernized and a special rapid deployment force must be created to combat any future security threats around the country. Also, the central government should be solely responsible for the national security and law and order, not to mention other major issues
of interests such as, monetary and fiscal policies, international trade, border issues, immigration, water resources, transportation, communication, and technology.

In addition, the central government should also invest in five regional universities and vocational centres to be operated autonomously at the regional levels. Investing in human capital is the best form of investment a nation can make, and empowerment is the only key to help those Rolpalis. A mutually agreeable taxing and revenue sharing mechanism must be devised to accommodate a need for a strong central government and regional self-reliance. An increased competition among the regional political units for mobile factors (labour and capital) is only healthy.

Contrary to an opinion expressed by a Maoist leader (Prachand) in a recent Times of India report, the federal system is highly flexible, adaptable and pragmatic to even work under a constitutional monarchy, and there are many such examples (eg, Belgium, Spain, UK). Further, the current Nepali monarchy system is more constitutional and titular than feudalistic, and thus poses no obstacle in implementing an innovative form of federalism. Our monarchy institution enjoys people’s reverence and army’s loyalty, and so we should make every effort to use its deep-rooted strength to further this country’s national security and political stability. An increased political stability will promote tourism, attract foreign direct investments, nurture mutual understanding between India and Nepal and open a vast energy market for our hydro power, foster free market system and entrepreneurial spirit, and create jobs.

Increased bloodshed will only hurt the country, its people, and its international image. So, give up your violent paths and join in the dialogue to bring about real changes. The multiparty system is here to stay and the monarchy can and will be its ardent protector. Ask for federalism, not socialism!