 |
|
| Kathmandu, Saturday March 01, 2003 Falgun 17, 2059. |
|
Some thoughts on talks
By KRISHNA P UPADHYAYA
Many see discussions and divergent views expressed by
political parties are detrimental to confidence building for Nepal’s long awaited
peaceful settlement of conflict. Though the viewpoint is apparently against the political
parties, their very basis of understanding is same that of the political parties—that
something has been worked out behind the curtain before the ceasefire became public.
Therefore, they seem to suggest, let the plan be implemented.
Political parties, whatsoever is their motive behind it, seem
to suggest the inclusiveness, openness, and commitment for democracy, the bottom line
being the protecting what were achieved during the 1990 democratic movement. One can blame
mainstream political parties being ‘reactive’ rather than ‘proactive’
for the political solution to the Maoist insurgency, nonetheless, their reaction this time
already initiated political debate clearly pointing out to the political destiny of the
country. Reactions to the reactions of political parties were the series of statements
from the palace and the Maoists. They basically hinted that their commitments to the
‘1990 achievements’. The chain of reactions from different political players
point out the ‘way forward’, (agragami kadam). Each may have their own
interpretations and visions of these, but they are worth listening again. People should be
informed of these ‘visions’ and they will benefit out of political debates.
The point here is to note that the political debate and
‘demands’ by different political actors, including the Maoists, were not
destructive. Do not we sense empty battlefields, control of extortions, and unprecedented
discussions between political forces and interest groups and the Maoists? These are all a
dialogue in the making.
Probably, we, as a nation, need more debates and
clarifications from all different actors. The clarifications and debate might be required
what the Nepali Congress means by ‘way forward’, what new elements would be
added to the already achieved democratic system, what the Maoists mean by protecting the
1990 achievements and ‘way forward’ and what the UML and its allies mean by the
same. One might still argue, those have been clarified, but they need to be further
hammered out to arrive at the conclusive list of items.
Further down the line: where are the people in the dialogue,
both in terms of their representations in person, views and interests? Will the dialogue
address the issues of people, whose cause both the Maoists and other mainstream political
parties claim to be taking up? Whether issues of Dalits, women and other disadvantaged
groups will be taken up? How quickly can we make our system of governance inclusive
addressing these issues? What are the social, economic, and educational backup for people
needed for such inclusiveness? The recent activities of the Maoists in Dang on Dalit
issues, and recent statements of both NC and CPN-UML renew their commitments to these
causes. Is not it possible to agree with what has been stated?
Those holding view that discussions may hamper the process
can now very clearly see that these similar views came about only because still people
were allowed to express their views and they could exert pressure to each other. However,
one could also see the weight of their argument in relation to the divergent views of
political parties regarding the mechanism of dialogue. This is again a tricky area of
giving legitimacy to the dialogue itself. There are proposals from political parties in
place. Nonetheless, they relate to the different stages of conflict resolution of this
scale: The Maoists’ demand for a round-table meeting, the Nepali Congress’s
reinstitution of parliament, and the UML’s all-party government.
Everybody, I included, have personal views. However, rather
than expressing personal views, it would be logical to ask if the proposals contradict and
negate each other, or one leads to another, or all needs to be taken care to solve the
problem of insurgency. Do all these should contribute to ‘democracy’ and ‘capitalist
form of democracy’, the term Maoists seem to cherish at this point of time.
The nation must start pondering over whether they are static
institutions proposed for political identities of different political players or they have
some intrinsic political principles. All the proposals claim to be democratic: the Nepali
Congress points out to the absence of legitimate and representative bodies to give
legitimacy to the dialogue process, UML holds the formation of all party government with
similar reasons, and the Maoists probably see the people’s representatives elected to
the ‘Constitution Assembly’ to initiate drafting process. But the discussion of
all these at a go seems to be something like putting the cart before the horse!
All the players can agree in the beginning, what would be the
political and people’s issues that should find expression and place in the Supreme
Law. Probably, that would lead to the discussion how this can be achieved through
amendments, Constitution Assembly or something else. This would certainly lead to a point
for discussion whether we, as a nation again, are opting for an end or means to an end.
Dialogue may lead to a situation where various actors feel meeting the very objectives of
the proposed institutional mechanisms to solve political stalemate and therefore may feel
giving in the means for end (such institutions). But one need to emphasize that the heart
of these proposals seems to be the ‘principle of democracy’ and giving
legitimacy to the system of governance. If the King, the Congress and the communists agree
to this, where is the problem to start with the lowest ladder of the proposal and proceed
to higher ones? These can be made legitimate and representative avenues to initiate
dialogue process accommodating all players and, that, in turn, might shorten the process
itself and makes democracy all inclusive and ‘a way forward’—a process of
democratisation of Nepali society. We cannot afford to be late!
Other Stories
|
