NATIONAL 4 - (Spotlight Weekly)

‘We Can't Back Any Move That Could Threaten Multiparty System’

— RABINDRA NATH SHARMA

RPP leader RABINDRA NATH SHARMA was one of the key architects of opposition alliance in the recently prorogued winter session of parliament. A member of the upper house, Sharma -- who has had a long innings in politics -- was also the architect of the RPP-UML-NSP and RPP-NC-NSP alliances that formed the government in 1997. Sharma spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on Monday morning on various aspects of the ongoing political stalemate. Excerpts:

As your party was one of the key allies of the communist opposition in the winter session of parliament, why have you decided not to join their street agitation?

First of all, we don't want to take part in any agitation that will worsen the law-and-order situation and create a sense of panic among the common people. We do not want to be a direct or indirect part of any kind of violence. This is against the basic spirit of the RPP. Secondly, we don't want to disturb the existing multiparty polity. We are aware that anti-multiparty elements are active and they should not get any opportunity to overthrow the current system. Our party cannot agree with any move -- whether it is from street or any other place -- that would damage the multiparty system.

How do you evaluate the ongoing street agitation launched by the CPN-UML and other communist parties?

It is a very unfortunate event. As a responsible main opposition party, the CPN-UML must realizes its limitations and acknowledge its responsibility towards the people. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala also should try to avoid any kind of confrontation with the opposition.

Is it not opportunistic on the part of the RPP to have left the alliance with the UML?

There is no question of political opportunism. As an alternative democratic party, we cannot go for undemocratic methods. It is important to understand that we are ready to support any constitutional method to oppose the government.

What about the opposition demand that Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala should resign?

We want the resignation of Prime Minister Koirala and we have not made any kind of compromise on that demand. As long as constitutional provisions for doing so exist, we don't want to follow unconstitutional methods. It is the privilege of the opposition to seek the resignation of the prime minister.

But what specifically led you to pull out of the street protests?

Look. We had frankly told the main opposition CPN-UML in the early days of the anti-government alliance pressing for the resignation of Prime Minister Koirala over the Lauda Air deal that we would not take part in any kind of street agitation and unconstitutional activities. We understand well that one cannot fully control the street agitation one launches. The violent events of Monday [that accompanied the UML's bid to block Koirala from entering Singh Durbar] proved our suspicions.

What do you mean? That the organizers of the street agitation will lose control of the situation?

We cannot control and guide street agitations because different forces will play against us when the agitators turn violent. We have clearly said this to the UML leaders.

If violent agitation would only benefit regressive and anarchist forces, why do you think the CPN-UML is leading it?

Look at what happened Monday morning. The unfortunate events during Monday's demonstration will have a great impact in the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. Such violence and anarchy could even lead to a reversal of the democratic process in the country. If we continue to follow undemocratic acts, it would only benefit undemocratic forces.

Do you see any possibility of ending the violent agitation soon?

Everything is possible in politics. The RPP believes that a solution to the current political stalemate can be found only through honest dialogue and compromise between the ruling and main opposition parties.

What role can the RPP play at this juncture?

Our efforts will be focused on starting the process of dialogue between the ruling and main opposition parties. As you know, the country is now passing through violence and uncertainty. The government is unable to instil a sense of security in the people. Political clashes between the ruling and opposition parties would benefit neither the country nor democracy. To bring normalcy in the country, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala has to be prepared to make sacrifices.

Did you see any political points in the prime minister's address to the nation on radio and TV?

I could not see any political points in the statement. It was a ritualistic statement any prime minister would deliver in normal circumstances. Prime Minister Koirala could have given clear hints to the Maoist rebels on starting negotiations.

After it emerged that Royal nominee Ramesh Nath Pandey met with two top Maoist leaders, there has been much speculation in the press. How do you look at the implications of the meeting in the context of the role of the King?

First of all, a constitutional monarch can do no wrong, and he is above criticism. If someone claims he met with Maoist leaders as the representative of the monarch, it is nothing but a hoax. Such publicity may be beneficial for the individual concerned, but it is not in the interest of the monarchy. Such incident will create more suspicion over the institution.

At a time when everybody is expressing concern over the democratic process, how do you see the future of democracy in Nepal?

Democracy is still under threat in Nepal. Different forces are trying to subvert the democratic process. I don't think it would be easy today to dismantle the system because the people are more aware about their right and duties. No citizen is ready to give up the freedom he or she has been enjoying ever since the restoration of democracy in 1990.

If you say people are aware about their rights and the value of democratic institutions, why do you perceive a threat to democracy?

Even in such circumstances, you cannot discount the strong section in the country which always favors a closed system. If we give such opportunity to them, they will destroy democracy.

Many political leaders have been talking about the need to evolve all-party consensus. What is the rationale for this?

We are not talking about an all-party government. You must understand that all-party consensus does not mean the establishment of an all-party government. Our point of view is that Nepali Congress cannot alone meet the challenge posed by the Maoists.

What do you want the government to do?

As you know, the people have given their mandate to the Nepali Congress. The ruling party has to take an initiative to settle the issue. Congress needs to approach all major political parties to develop national consensus. No single government can settle the existing problems irrespective of the size of the majority it holds in parliament. Congress has to be prepared to take any decisions in this regard. If this requires a change of leadership in the party, it must be prepared for that. The first and foremost task in ending the present situation is to start negotiations with the Maoists.

Will the Maoists agree to negotiations?

The Maoists have already made clear that they are in favor of talks.