 |
|
| Kathmandu, Tuesday March 18, 2003 Chaitra 04, 2059. |
|
Road to peace is democracy
By Bishnu Hari Nepal
Country’s post-October 4, 2002 power game
remained triangular until January 29, 2003, when the second truce for dialogue between the
Maoist insurgents and the state was announced. During the post-October- 4- period, the
Nepalese political picture characterized that it was leading to bipolarity. The impression
appeared as if the King and the Maoist insurgents were the only forces to maintain peace
and tranquility in the country. The King’s Army and the Maoist guerrilla forces,
declaring ceasefire without consultation with the major political parties, created severe
fear and fury among the pro-1990-constitutional-power- players.
Until the King restarted seeing the leaders of
the major pro-constitutional forces after March 10, 2003, the power sharing of the country
was clearly leading to bipolarity. The cabinet was formed almost on individual basis,
although the fringe parties have some participation. The composition of the cabinet
neglected the largest forces in the dissolved parliament. This created another
consternation in the Nepalese political development leading to absolute monarchy. It is
because the major political parties did not accept the King’s step according to
Article 127 of the 1990 Constitution. To satisfy the international community and major
political parties, His Majesty has, time and again, proclaimed his firm commitment to the
constitutional monarchy and multiparty system.
Contrary to repeated assurances, the gap of
mistrust between the major political parties and the palace has remained wide. The call
from the Chand government for a round table conference was also categorically and
repeatedly rejected by them. It appears that the parties would have protested as loudly as
they are doing now had there been a government led by someone in Parliament. A section of
the analysts also speculates that under such circumstances, the major political parties
might have even participated in the cabinet.
But today, president of the Nepali Congress G P
Koirala finds that the "unity of two gun-points" is always dangerous. He is
demanding the restoration of the dissolved house. He firmly put forth this view in
audience with the King on March 10. Similarly, CPN-UML supremo M K Nepal, since a long
time, has been stressing the need to get rid of "directed democracy". According
to him, the executive power at any cost must be handed over to the people. His views after
the audience with the King was different from Koirala’s. Nepal proclaimed that the
King had not opposed the idea of forming an all-party-government with full executive
power. The NC and the CPN-UML have belatedly agreed to either the reinstatement of the
dissolved parliament or the formation of all-party government. This unanimous voice came
in their four-major-parties’ meeting only after the royal audience and perhaps with
the knowledge that RPP may attend the round table conference.
Meanwhile, the RPP role during this period, on
the other hand, seems to be along opportunistic lines. To elaborate, the party is looking
forward to lead a government if opportunity comes its way. Conversely, it may cry foul if
that does not happen. Similarly, the role of the other smaller parties also seems
contented within themselves, being invited to "sit together" with the giant
political parties at the rostrum or an invitation from the King for political
consultations or petty executive power. But the very serious question applied to the
political evolution during last five months is whether the road to sustainable peace
really could be secured by the day-by-day growing authoritative bipolarity? Isn’t it
true that any effort to stall elections could prove costly?
Every child knows that the seven-year-old
self-declared People’s War claimed more than ten thousand lives. All of them had the
right to life. How many of them were aware of the cause and effect syndrome? The question
is how many of them understood their promised destination motivated to sacrifice their
precious lives? The so-called leaders changed their destination leaving their following in
awkward situation. It is because, unlike LTTE which is waging a war for independence since
almost two decades, the Nepalese People’s War took a different course after barely
seven years.
If we analyze the destination of the People’s
War, we find that it started with the slogan for "People’s Republic of
Nepal" before they mourned King Birendra’s death, saying "undeclared
functional unity with King Birendra on the question of nationalism", constituent
assembly, round table conference and finally interim government under the constitutional
monarchy. The history will certainly ask the leaders about the achievement.
Before the truce, the unexhausted holders of the
"barrel of the gun" went on celebrating "victory". The victory was not
over any enemy of the soil but over another child of the same soil. The innocent national
heroes shed their blood to irrigate the soil of their country inspired by nothing but by
"orders of their commandant". As mentioned earlier, not every fighter perhaps
understood even his or her destination. To be honest, one thing is very clear that both
sides stood putting their feet on two boats. It is universal that war has never brought
out any permanent solution. It is also mundane that theories are true and applicable only
in a given timeframe and situation. Neither Gandhi nor Mao would have been successful
today what they applied in their time on their soils. It is equally applied to the costly
experience we had in the name of People’s War.
Theoretically, there is no communist democracy
in the world. But time and situation is so strong that on our soil, the Nepalese
communists are looking forward to accommodate under the crown. Not only Dr Rayamajhi’s
line but also even Man Mohan Adhikari’s very short government can be taken as the
best example of the communist democracy under a functional monarchy. Nobody can deny that
the palace has ever remained crucial in Nepal’s decision- making processes.
Interestingly, "divide and rule", the ancient theory of the Roman Empire, has
not been too old to be applied.
Strangely, if we take the case of last seven
years, it is found that the stratified multiparty democratic forces remained only
"onlooker" of the warfronts at the crossroad. If it had been able to take any
side of the warring forces, the ball perhaps could have been in the people’s court
already. Here, much could be learned by the Maoists that "lone-journey" in
politics is not a possible game always. Dina Nath Sharma, while sitting together with the
other ten leftist parties in a historic meeting at the UML office recently, might have
realized it personally. Lately, K B Mahara told the press that declaring the Code of
Conduct for dialogue with the state was not possible "under the unfolding
scenario."
It has been observed that it is not possible to
create a classless society by a sole power or trying dictatorship of the proletariat. It
applies only to a particular situation at a particular time. Similarly, we have seen that
Super Power America failed in Afghanistan in case of Osama bin Laden. The US also had a
shameful defeat in Vietnam, when the world was bipolar. It was also a solo journey. It is
also evident that the same will happen to standoff-Iraq-crisis too. America will be the
ultimate loser even if it fully destroys Iraq’s resources and civilization.
Solo-journey is costly, time consuming and
troublesome. If we take the post-World War II scenario, radical left movements in India,
Afghanistan, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, the Philippines, Vietnam and in many African and
South and Central American countries failed. This can be learned even from Mao’s land
China, where the cultural –revolution had failed. The economic reforms there have
however attained the best height of the use of any theory exercised so far. To conclude,
if the Maoists are really willing to come under the constitutional monarchy, the truce for
dialogue should lead to respect for democracy and human rights. The ultimate road to an
enduring peace to hold dialogue with the Maoists could be an interim government led by the
major political parties without the Maoists and the post-dialogue interim government with
the Maoists should hold the elections immediately.
(The author is former ambassador of Japan)
Other Stories
|
