Bhutan’s Constitution and refugees

By RAKESH CHHETRI

The King of Bhutan handed over to the Bhutanese Prime Minister, on December 3, the first draft Constitution of Bhutan prepared by the Constitution Drafting Committee, set up by the King in November 2001. This draft will be discussed in 20 districts before it is presented to the National Assembly (NA), when it convenes in June 2003.

After the traditional ‘flattery, crying and wailing’ by the NA members against the purported change in the political system envisaged by the Draft Constitution and in support of the existing regime, the Constitution will be adopted. In any case the NA sessions are stage-managed by the RGOB. All nations have a Constitution as basic law, so it is hardly exciting if Bhutan wants to have one even belatedly, to make it a respectable and sovereign member of international community.

Bhutan was admitted to the UN in 1971 without a Constitution. It is probably the last country in the world, which does not have a basic law and the Royal decrees are still the laws. Mere adoption of a Constitution does not mean the establishment of a true representative democratic system. China, Myanmar and Pakistan, all have Constitution minus a true   representative democratic system.

Committee: The Royal Government of Bhutan ( RGOB) did not include any member from Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa community in  the drafting committee, thus, muting the minority voice in   its formulation. Thus, the Constitution will always be a subject of debate and controversy even after its adoption. A controversial Constitution will definitely not command expected respect from the citizens.

Gimmick: The Constitution is being officially publicised as a ‘Royal Gift" without the desire or the demands of people. This ‘Constitution’ is  yet another gimmick in the arsenal of the RGOB  to hoodwink the international community and deflect international opinion from the real issue of the  repatriation of Bhutanese refugees, resettlement in the lands vacated by refugees and human rights abuses inside Bhutan. There will be no real freedoms and all the rights promised by the drafting committee are impossible to achieve in Bhutan. The demand for the Constitution came from the exiled Bhutanese groups, which the RGOB does not recognise. The RGOB is under no threat or pressure to promulgate the Constitution as the demand for the Constitution did not come from the Bhutanese people inside Bhutan. The Chairman of the drafting committee and the RGOB have frequently told the international media that the people do not want Constitution and are happy with the present system.

Moreover, the RGOB has been already saying that it is a ‘royal gift’ rather than peoples’ aspiration. While the Constitution was at the final stage of  drafting, a country-wide election was held on October 29, 2002 for the post of 201 village headman which  was not conducted by any independent Election Commission, but by the Dzongdas (district administrators) as usual. How can it be called a democratic exercise? The Constitution thus, is intended to serve the interests of the rulers and not of the ruled. In real terms, Bhutan would be no different from the erstwhile Panchayati raj in pre-1990 Nepal after the adoption of Constitution.

Some government hawks and advisors ridiculously argue that Bhutan’s autocratic  system has substance of democracy. Others argue that the "grassroots democracy" is the only   suitable form of democracy for Bhutan, downplaying the role of political parties and the civil society in the new Constitution. However, their arguments look naive, self-confusing and self-defeating. Since the democracy is "of the people, for the people and by the people’ and this is the ultimate and universally accepted principle of democracy. People are primary and grassroots institutions and the political parties and the civil society promote and protect their rights and interests.

Personal freedoms: Bhutanese people do not enjoy even basic personal freedoms like wearing the dresses of their own choice. The government infringes the personal freedoms with the prescription of dress code, similar to what Chinese rulers did during the cultural revolution. The government is still sponsoring its pet project ‘Driglam Namzha’, the social and religious codes which ban the wearing of a other dresses (except national dress) by Bhutanese people. And here the government is talking about the ‘Bill of Rights and democracy’ in a grandiose manner. How can Bhutan balance between the forces of personal freedoms envisaged by the Constitution and the government-sponsored Driglam Namzha?

Lack of institutions: The RGOB has not established any democratic institutions to implement and support the Constitution. In fact, it never encouraged for the creation of these institutions. The RGOB should have first established the basic democratic institution prior to implementing the Constitution. There is
no Election Commission. There are no qualified judges with legal educational background to interpret the Constitution and uphold the independence of the judiciary. People have no right to freedom of expression and press, which are the basic pillars under which the Constitution and a democratic society stand.

Without the right to freedom of expression and press, how are the people expected to deliberate on the Constitution and express their views? The government must allow the political parties and real civil societies to function inside the country. Other countries including Nepal which switched over to democracy from the autocratic or totalitarian system did have these institutions including legally qualified judges.  The basic flaw in the Bhutanese society, system and the government is not the lack or absence of a Constitution, but their  intolerance to any kind of criticism. A rebel is born, if he is prevented from speaking.

There are hundreds of political prisoners in Bhutanese prisons incarcerated for their criticism of the government policies and voicing concern for political and human rights. It is impossible for the people who are still being denied and deprived of their basic rights to believe that  the criticism-hating feudal system will change just because, it has adopted a 50 pages of the document and that this document will bring qualitative and real change to their lives. 

Refugees:  The new Constitution will not solve Bhutanese refugee problem, rather it will exacerbate their situation. If the discriminatory Citizenship Act, 1985, which is responsible for the generation of refugees is incorporated in the new Constitution,  it will prevent the return of Bhutanese refugees permanently. The RGOB is likely to keep this Act. If the elections are held before the repatriation of refugees, this will eventually block the return of refugees since, their name will not be included in the electoral roll or voter list, thus making them non-citizens permanently. Thus, the objectives of the constitutional exercise as of now, seems to stall the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees. The King in his national address on national day Dec 17 outlining the policies supported the resettlement in southern Bhutan.

Bhutanese rulers must accept the fact that the primary requirement of Bhutanese nationhood is the consolidation and defence of a nation-state system, where all ethnic groups share the common ‘space’ and live in prosperity. Any change not supported by adequate and appropriate institutions, mechanism and people’s support tend to collapse the entire system, sometimes violently, for which the change is sought for.

Internationalisation: So long, the international community has been watching the bilateral initiatives as a mute spectator and has not taken a pro-active initiative for the real repatriation. The decade-old bilateral initiative has become futile and completely incapable of repatriating Bhutanese refugees to their homeland. There had been nodearth of international diplomatic community’s visits to the refugee camps including that of the head of the UNCHR. Despite these, no genuine and visible efforts and commitments on the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees have been taken by the international community and  the United Nations. International community has not done anything even after a year of the completion of verification - even the verification results have not been published.

Bhutanese refugees are watching the international mediation on diffusing the violent conflict in Sri Lanka.  They are also keenly watching the international interests in solving the Maoist problems in Nepal. These efforts demonstrate that if the international community desires, it can solve vexed problems including the repatriation of Bhutanese refugees. However, no such initiatives or concerns from the international community or the United Nations for the actual repatriation of the Bhutanese refugees have come forward. This is high time that the United Nations and the international community took initiatives to repatriate Bhutanese refugees.

(The author is a Bhutanese political analyst)

The Wagles did it, anyway

By K SHARMA

"Just as the Maoists are killing people, torturing them, and sparking violence so is CIAA torturing us with its so-called authority. "The Maoists and the CIAA are the same. Suryanath Upadhyaya is on a mission to prove that democracy has really failed. "My son has gained profit worth over Rs 30 million for the past three months but the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) does not look into it." These are some of the remarks former minister Chiranjivi Wagle made upon CIAA’s chargesheet against him at the Special Court.

Yes, he is absolutely right. He (not ‘is’) ‘was’ not different from the people tortured by the Maoists because the Gorkhalis, the people from Gorkha, know this. It needs to be noted that he himself, I mean the Deuba government, empowered CIAA. Maybe he knows he can make CIAA powerless whenever he wants. Democracy really fails if the Court proves him guilty because Mr Wagle is democracy and democracy is Mr Wagle. The state has always been biased against the Gurkhas even though they initiated the unification of Nepal. Both Mr Wagle and one of the topmost Maoist leaders are from Gorkha. Why is the state authority after them?

During the Panchayat regime, the authority forced Mr Wagle to play hide-and-seek. Everyone from Gorkha knows his fate then. He suffered so much due to his commitment to democracy and people. Oh, Christmas is just over. His suffering is no less than Jesus Christ’s. Democracy was restored. But the intensity of his suffering did not lessen. It multiplied instead. People are the proof. They are never wrong. They are never powerless. They never make mistakes. At least, the Gorkhalis. The Gorkhalis never trust anybody other than Wagle. Recognizing his commitment and dedication to democracy, they never failed to elect him to parliament. He might want to retire from his crusade for democracy, but the people did not let him to so. Because only Wagle could work wonders for democracy. But the CIAA does not see this.

After the restoration of democracy, Wagle thought He alone could not do much. The political fight was over, but the fight for better economy of the country had just started. So he sacrificed his consort and his son. The Wagles worked day and night over the last twelve years to bring up the infant democracy. When his party was divided, He did not leave the faction with the tail ‘Democratic’. He has so much love for democracy. They even left their home village, came to Kathmandu and stayed in a (five-storied) hut on the bank of a small river like a landless pauper. But CIAA does not see this.

The state does not see that the Wagles have the miraculous power to give Nepal’s slackenig economy a U-turn. Everyone knows business and tourism in Nepal is slack after the safety and security in the country deteriorated. Many tourist hotels are on the verge of shutting down. Staffers are going home on furlough. But the son Wagle, who runs a tourism business, continues to make profits. Only those who have magical powers can do so. Imagine how much he could do if the country remained as peaceful as it was before 1996.

Decline of ideology in politics

By DR SHREEDHAR GAUTAM

The UML organised a mass rally in Kathmandu on December 15 with so much fanfare that people expected a radical departure in its future strategy. However, after having heard the leaders, the majority of the people felt either dismayed or resigned to the fact that this is a party with no radical activism. There are several factors responsible for the demise of ideological politics in that party, but the middle class leadership’s quiet drifting into individual career and material pursuits is the most visible one. It is for this reason that many of the former hardcore leftists influenced by Naxalite movement in India are no more interested in the politics of ideology. The party leadership, which largely hails from the middle class, is more concerned in holding senior position in any future government rather than pursuing the goal of drastic change in the polity.

When the Jhapa insurgency gained ground in the 1970s, radical youth emerged from the middle and lower middle class background. They were inspired to leftist ideology by a sense of their own uncertain future in the given economic condition of the Panchayat era. In contrast, the middle class youth of today does not perceive the UML as a party committed to the basic principle of Marxism. The party leadership does not talk of clear and visionary line. It can no more inspire the youth ideologically with its compromising and unrealistic stance on political issues concerning the country. However, it does not mean that the party is a spent up bullet in today’s context. It still represents a large segment of Nepali youths who either have had good education or have had some benefits of technological revolution that has been an important factor in pushing the horizons of individuals to unimagined limits. These youths educated abroad or at home, unlike in the 1970s and 80s, no more see themselves as outside the establishment. The UML represents the activists who are completely comfortable in their entrenched position within the establishment. The cadres are in the party not because it has some spine to make drastic change in Nepalese society, but because they hope to get government or semi government job if the party is voted to power in any future election.

Though the party seems engaged with a wide range of issues, including the October 4 royal declaration and the problem created by the Maoist insurgency, the quality of its engagement is rather shallow and passing. This emerging trend is the distinctive feature of the middle class and upper class politics of today. For instance, at one time the UML cadres showed an upsurge of activism soon after the killing of late Madan Bhandari. However, the party leadership as well as the cadres turned the furry to other issues displaying their transient nature of participation. Later, the CPN (ML) activists’ furry over Kalapani question gave way to other issues exposing the hollow character of people like Bam Dev Gautam and his cohorts who were displaying the politics of comfort and opportunism. Now the UML cannot resort to radical activism, which needs the strengthening of a broad base of public support with a view to pressurising the government for necessary changes in the basic policies of the state. The party leaders are simply appealing for support to like-minded people for showing that they are seriously involved in the present affair of politics. It does not mean that such activists will have no effect. Of course, the mass meeting held by the party on December 15 to conclude its month-long protest programme will have a broadly positive impact. What it lacks entirely is the kind of stamina that can force the palace to reverse the earlier proclamation, or for that matter to change any action of the present government headed by Chand.

The kind of activism shown by the UML does not bear serious consideration. Some of the activists are from the well-to-do family, who could be free-floating activists. As long as the party members take the movement lightly or as a pastime, there will be no any comprehensive impact on the people. Today, the party cadres do not address themselves to the correction of basic structural imbalances of our state, responsible for most activities and other anomalies in society. The activism shown by the UML at present is qualitatively different from the determination and zeal exhibited either in 1970s, 80s, or in early 90s. Earlier, the party cadres stepped out to commit their time with a view to changing the life of poor. Similarly, the party leaders and the activists showed considerable sacrifice of individual ambitions and material comforts. In contrast, the activism of today is completely distanced from the concept of sacrifice or giving oneself for the greater cause. The party leadership is so much engrossed in an affluent life style that it is unwise to expect from Madhav Kumar Nepal or K P Oli to say something ideologically sound. On December 15, many people were eager to hear something with far-reaching consequences going beyond the party’s occasional organised voicing of liberal view from party leadership. However, what they heard was the same repetition of earlier request to the king to correct the royal declaration of October 4.

The UML very much wants to maintain a pleasing relationship with the present power structure that underlies the malaise of unemployment, poverty, corruption and injustice. The party, like the Nepali Congress, is the beneficiary of the present structure and is equally dependent upon the state’s kind favour to it. The Royal Declaration of October 4 brought forth many agonized responses from the party’s leaders and intellectuals, but the agony could be short-lived and ineffective as they too are dependent upon the existing structure for their material comfort. Unfortunately, the scenario is getting worse because the youth from the lower and the middle classes are emulating upper class consumerism under the spell of much talked about globalisation and liberalisation.

The UML knows this fact and so it is giving space for upper class activism too. There is nothing wrong for the upper class activists to take part in any liberal democracy but the question that agonizes is the lack of thinking in the intellectuals and the party leaders that could bring qualitative change in the common people’s life. If the upper class politics is allowed to define the boundaries of social activism, the most neglected segment of society might not get chance to raise its head. We are facing the problem of fewer sources of thinking in society because of the politics of opportunism of material comfort. The UML has simply shown that if the party leadership is used to the life of upper class, the cadres too will show their hollow allegiance to the party and their participation or activism in any meaningful struggle will be severely handicapped. Now, instead of blaming it for its politics of chauvinism, it is better to take the party as it is. An alternative party with practical and alternative ideas can emerge to replace the existing non- serious parties like the UML and the Nepali Congress. It will take time given the level of people’s consciousness at home and dominance of imperialistic politics elsewhere in the world. However, the gap between now and the desired time cannot remain long.

Goodbye, International Year of Mountains 2002

SURENDRA PHUYAL

In the high mountains of Sankhuwasava in northeast Nepal, women belonging to the Rai and the Sherpa communities leave their houses early in the morning, bamboo-made baskets called doko hanging on their back. As the first rays of the sun kiss the Himalaya, they move deep into the woods, where they collect nettle plants popularly known as sisno.

Sisno is one of the countless locally available resources that can change their lives. They boil the plants and extract allo fiber out of that. The fiber is used in spinning warm traditional garments, which is later sold in local markets as well as in big cities like Kathmandu.

Already, they have dozens of cattle and terrace farms on the mountain slopes that do not just help them make their ends meet but also make some savings – for themselves as well as their children. The women are happy that their hard work is paying off. Their key to success: prudent use of indigenous resources and for that matter traditional knowledge.

Less than 100 kilometers away in similar terrain in the district of Solukhumbu, dozens of men and women leave their houses and descend towards lower elevations, where the vegetation is thicker and pine and other species of trees are aplenty.

If accounts given by those returning from trekking and mountaineering in the Khumbu region are anything, dozens of people from the villages of Lobuche, Syangboche, Tengboche and Namche dozens of people descend to lowlands every morning and evening to collect firewood.

The fodder and firewood are becoming increasingly scarce at the foot of the high Himalaya, precisely the Mahalangur range. And the resort villages of Khumbu desperately need firewood to, among other things, heat water and make barbecues and pizzas for the thousands of tourists that flock the region every year.

Not that Khumbu does not have alternative sources of energy such as biogas, micro or small hydro, or solar power and wind that could power all the lodges and inns there. But the problem is that the resources have not been tapped, despite the tremendous potential. And that is why, the small-time entrepreneurs and the well-off inhabitants of Khumbu have been forced to rely on Liquefied Petroleum (LP) gas and kerosene as the sources of the much-needed energy.

The demand for firewood is shooting up along with the growing population in places like Khumbu and the Annapurna range, and that is having adverse negative impact on the pristine and fragile environment of the Himalayan region, in general, and the Sagarmatha National Park or Khumbu region, in particular.

However, efforts are underway in recent years mainly from non-governmental groups to minimize negative impact on the fragile mountain environment in question. That is also beginning to yield some positive and substantive results. The success story of Makalu Barun is one example of this.

The point that is being drive home here is that Makalu Barun’s is the story of empowerment and capacity building of the local communities, particularly the women. It is precisely due to this reason that The Mountain Institute (TMI) honored the ‘Mountain Heroes’ of Makalu Barun at a glittering ceremony in the capital recently.

Policymakers, local governments and grassroots workers not just in Nepal but the world over – from the Peruvian Andes to the French Alps, and African Kilimanjaro to the Himalaya – can draw a lesson or two from Makalu Barun. The model can very well be replicated for the betterment and welfare of mountains and the mountain people around the world.

On the contrary, the ‘eco-tourism’ development model of Khumbu is a something that should not be replicated. It is something that needs to be revised thoroughly to ensure the sustainability of eco-tourism that can have far-reaching implications on the social, cultural and natural environment of Mt Everest and its periphery (which has also been inscribed in the coveted UNESCO’s World Heritage Lit as a natural property).

And now, as we prepare to bid farewell to International Year of Mountains 2002, we gradually begin to realize that there is still a long way to go before we can make sure that the pristine natural and social environments of our mountains are intact and unspoiled. And no time would be more appropriate than IYM ’02. But that again is coming to and end. So it’s time to look back at the year and realize what we have done for our mountains, their ecosystems, the communities thriving on them and more.

Mountains are met just abode of gods and goddesses, they are watertowers of the world. They store much of the planet’s remaining fresh water resources. Ten percent of the world’s population is directly dependent on the mountains, and mountains indirectly harbor the livelihood of up to 50 percent of the people and countless species of flora and fauna. The Himalayan region - chiefly the water originating in the snowy mountains - support nearly one billion people in Asia.

The fact is well-documented in many volumes of books. In Possessions, Problems and Potential of Mountains, Ek Raj Ojha, the author of the book who teaches environmental economics and entrepreneurship at Kathmandu University (KU), discusses the tremendous potentials that the mountains have and the problems that continue to bedevil the mountain people.

Divided in five chapters, the books has enough photographs that makes the reading even more lively. Before concluding with the subtle message that mountains and the people living on them need not remain poor shackled by bad governance and bad economics, the author takes the readers to far-western region which, unfortunately is one of the country’s conflict-torn areas. The book could have been made bigger and better.

The socio-economic realities of the country’s mid- and far-west reminds us of, among other things, regional disparities, the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots and so on. And that takes us closer to the modern-day reality that most of the mountains in the world are wracked with conflict – their root-causes being increasing disparities and socio-economic realities.

Let’s hope that the IYM ’02 will help everyone realize that mountains indeed are watertowers of the world, if not the humanity, and the communities living in them the real guardians. So, the states and the non-state parties including corporate houses and multi-nationals need to extend due attention, care and support for their sustainable development.

Learn to read between the lines

RATNAKAR ADHIKARI

In the era of global politics, where distinctions between rhetoric and well- intentioned statements are increasingly blurred, it is necessary for the negotiators of the developing countries in general and least developed countries (LDCs) in particular to learn to read between the lines of the text agreed between parties to an agreement on every sphere of international relations. This is probably more so in the case of international economic relations.

No politician in the world could afford to displease his/her constituency for the sake of scoring a point at an international forum. When it comes to protecting the interest of the domestic constituency, which helps them get re-elected, politicians would go to any level. Therefore, most of the international agreements reflect this reality. No wonder developed countries send their diplomats, legal experts and negotiators to the international fora.who have mastered the art of rhetoric.

However, developing countries’ negotiators in general and that of LDCs in particular, in most international fora are, more often than not, found to be docile and least-informed, lacking technical and legal acumen. Little wonder developing countries, barring a few vocal countries like India, Pakistan, Malaysia, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil and Malaysia, have always fared badly in negotiations at the international level. This is precisely what has been happening in the various negotiations held in the recent past and the ones that are taking place at present in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) forum.

Readers would recall that even a minister of a mighty country like India was taken for a ride by the negotiators of the developed countries during the fourth ministerial conference of the WTO concluded in Doha last year. There was a great deal of controversy regarding the inclusion of Singapore issues (notably investment and competition) in the text of the Ministerial Declaration. The then Industry and Commerce Minister of India Murasoli Maran stood firm on his demand that decision about the negotiations on these issues at the WTO should be made by "explicit consensus." The developed countries got together and prepared, rather ingeniously, the following text, which later became a part of the Declaration: "…we agree that negotiations will take place after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference on the basis of a decision to be taken, by explicit consensus, at that Session on modalities of negotiations." Even after all other ministers agreed to this text, Indian Minister, who was very much aware of the tactics of the developed countries, was not fully convinced. He then asked the Chairman of the Session, the Trade Minister of the host country Qatar, whether that meant explicit consensus would be required to enter into negotiations on these issues, the latter responded in affirmative.

Later it came to the notice of the Indian Minister that explicit consensus would be required only to decide the modalities of negotiations and that negotiations on these issues will take place positively after the Fifth Ministerial Conference of the WTO. Then the developing countries’ negotiators who were providing implicit support to the position of the Indian Minister raised the issue of Chairman’s remarks. However, developed countries argued that such remarks do not have any legal validity since it was not included as a part of the legally agreed (and by implication binding) text.

If one starts reading between the lines, there are a number of such provisions in the WTO Agreements, which do not mean anything expect for providing ornamental value. The provisions on special and differential treatment (S&DT) for the developing countries and LDCs provide classic examples. After fighting tooth and nail and providing tremendous amount of concessions to the developed countries on a number of agreements, what developing countries have finally got as an S&DT package turned out to be a paper tiger at a later stage. Developing countries learned the hard way that most of the clauses contained therein were nothing but "best endeavour" clauses. In the entire WTO Agreement, except for higher transition period and low level of obligations in negotiations, all other S&DT clauses are not mandatory for the developed countries to fulfill.

Accordingly, when developing countries raise the issue of technical assistance, technology transfer, increased trade opportunities for the developing countries and requirement to safeguard the interest of the developing countries, developed countries do not even bother to listen to them. This is because no agreement of the WTO binds them to assume such obligations. This is one of the reasons for the developing countries to have insisted on resolution of "implementation issues" both during the prelude to and aftermath of Doha.

In one of the recent decisions made by the General Council of the WTO on the issue of providing speedy accession to the LDCs developed countries have used this trick once again. Yet, they have been able to leave the impression to the international community as if they cared about the imperatives of integrating LDCs into the multilateral trading system.

Even the WTO Secretariat used this decision as propaganda. The press release of the WTO states that the objective of this is to provide speedy accession to the LDCs into the WTO system. It further states that the agreed text identifies guidelines for LDCs’ accession in four areas: market access, WTO rules, process and trade-related technical assistance. A closer look at the official text (which is still a restricted document), reveal that it is filled with rhetorical undercurrents.

If officials of the LDCs read the text, they are bound to be jubilant. However, if they read between the lines they will find that there is not even a single obligation that legally binds developed countries to facilitate speedy accession of the LDCs in the WTO. And it is the developed countries that are seeking maximum concession from the acceding LDCs and therefore the major roadblocks in their accession.

The only text that seemingly binds the WTO (not the developed countries) is that trade related technical assistance. However, how an organisation like the WTO, which is poorly funded and the entire yearly budget of which is less than the yearly travel budget of the World Bank, is going to handle this is still a moot question.

Given this scenario, the only way forward for the developing countries and LDCs is to build the capacity of their negotiators by providing them legal and technical training and make them capable of reading between the lines. This will not only help them make use of ingenious means to protect their national interests but also prevent the developed countries from using the WTO as a forum to ratchet market access for their multinational corporations.

Dialogue versus negotiation

UJWAL THAPA

In Nepal, these days, in any newspaper, one comes across the word ‘dia logue.’ Amongst the Nepali elite, ‘Dialogue’ seems to be the word of the day. But what does it really mean? Well, mostly the political circle, media and intellectual society have grossly misinterpreted the term ‘dialogue’. They seem to have jumbled up ‘dialogue’ with that of ‘negotiation.’ I speak from the knowledge shared by noted international conflict analysts in the workshops on Conflict Transformation and Peace Building in Nepal.

So, what is the difference then? In a true dialogue one focuses on their personal needs and hopes, whereas in a negotiation they focus on their party’s needs and hopes. It serves to bridge personal barriers of fear, hatred and prejudice. It is a starting point in the process for bringing parties together to build trust and understanding among those relationships which has long been defined by intolerance, hostility and therefore sharp division. A dialogue may not result in some agreement signing ceremony nor does it end in both parties settling the conflict once and for all. It can indeed serve as a pre-negotiation stage.

On the contrary, negotiation is a joint decision-making process through which negotiating parties accommodate their conflicting interests into a mutually acceptable settlement. In a negotiation however, the goal is to come to a settlement of the conflict. In the divided island of Cyprus ruled by the Turks in the North and the Greek in the South, for a decade now, international facilitators have been engaging the elite and intellectual civil society from both sides, on a constant series of dialogues to build up a threshold of mutually trustful people on both sides of the conflict. This has paved a scenario for the two communities to eventually head towards a phase of negotiation. And just recently the United Nations as cited by the BBC news source announced that the conditions were ripe for ‘negotiations’ between these parties. It is clear, that for so many years constant dialogue between the communities were crucial to come to this phase of negotiation.

A constructive dialogue creates an open mindedness in both parties who can then pave the way for negotiation on each party’s needs properly and ultimately come to a settlement. The last time the Nepal Government and the Maoist negotiators met to talk, the press and almost ‘everybody’ called it a dialogue, instead of ‘negotiation’ which is what it was in essence. This negotiation ended in a complete failure because proper dialogues between them did not precede this stage. Also because both of them were so unprepared to participate in the talk let alone to carry out a settlement.

A dialogue offers individuals in conflicting parties an opportunity to develop or deepen mutual understanding and learn about the perspectives of others while also reflecting on one’s own views. This helps build mutual trust between members from two or more conflicting parties. In our context, this would be the Maoist and governmental intellectuals, slowly build mutual trust through ‘dialogue’. Those engaged in a dialogue will start to reveal their wishes and aspirations for their future, from their heart and soul, not from their party positions. These participants will be more likely to accept a common solution for a sustainable peace. Dialogue will bring people from opposing parties closer and empower the participants with enough confidence and skills to go back and educate others in their respective parties to positively pursue peace. With their efforts, their group would be in a much better position to come to the negotiating table with a positive mind and attitude with a focus of finding a common ground between each other. That is why, the parties must overcome the lack of trust that developed during the conflict and learn to view dialogues and then negotiations as a way out of the conflict; recognizing that all demands cannot be met and a compromise must be reached. It may take years before necessary levels of trust exist and successful negotiations can occur.

In a dialogue, the relationship between people changes from one of opposition to one of readjusting individual or party interests. We learn to explore our own views deeply and then collectively go beyond individual understanding. A new way of collaborative thinking about these complex and sensitive issues arises.In a violent conflict, dialogue is the only way forward to avoid a deadlock situation.

How can the negotiators for the government and the Maoist come to a negotiated agreement if they themselves do not trust each other on the individual level, are afraid to engage in a personal, inclusive manner, and will just safely, ‘stay glued to their own party’s position.’ This happened the last time they met on the negotiating table. They just stuck to their party’s position. Had they engaged in some form of dialogue beforehand, they would be more willing to compromise, collaborate.

A possible scenario for a series of dialogues in Nepal calls for bringing series of mid-level, Maoists and governmental politicians/negotiators/combatants/women’s organization/youths/civil society to a safe third country with trained facilitators whom both parties could place trust. The author stresses on all segments of the society because all aspects of the conflict must be addressed-social, political and economic.

And they are more inclined to come out openly, and they are in a position to directly affect their constituents on various levels from where they begin to subtly influence others with what they learnt through dialogue. Norwegians as facilitators have been in the forefront in fostering and engaging conflicting parties in this kind of ‘engaged dialogue’. After facilitating several years of ‘dialogue’ between the Singhalese Government and LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam), the Norwegians have succeeded in bringing them to a ceasefire and to a presently on-going negotiation now. Non-governmental organizations like the Institute for International Mediation and Conflict Resolution (IIMCR), in Washington DC, have been working with Dialogue programs for civil society for some time now. Other organizations like the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy have also committed themselves to helping Nepal.

Even in the reconciliation phase after agreements have been negotiated, dialogue plays a crucial role in bringing grassroots people from conflicting parties together to build trust, relationship and empower them. For a positive peace, this is a must, otherwise it will only be ‘an agreement in paper’ and not in the minds of people in the opposing parties. Reconciliation being a very long process, needs these grassroots dialogue, otherwise, this peace shall only remain a ‘negative peace, albeit an unsustainable one.’

This is the time for ‘dialogue’. It gets people talking. Thus it starts managing conflict by moving it from a cycle of violence to healthy politics, and peaceful competition. At a time, when, ‘Patience’ is a rarity, ‘rational thought’ a scarcity, and the ‘ability’ to distinguish between a truth and a lie an ‘uncertainty’, what better ways to bring peace and stability to the country than through ‘dialogue’?