NATIONAL 2 (Spotlight Weekly)]

For Consensus Or Instability?

Former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala's fresh call for national consensus raises ominous questions

By KESHAB POUDEL

Nepali Congress president and former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala has called for a national consensus to resolve the country's problems at a time when his own party's government led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has secured the support of all opposition parties, including ten left

Koirala with leaders : Seeking censensus?

groups, on the imposition of the state of emergency. As the emergency, declared by King Gyanendra last month at the recommendation of the council of minister, has secured widespread internal and international support, Koirala's appeal makes little political sense, except, of course, as a ploy to destabilize the Deuba government.

Many see Koirala's move as a last-ditch attempt to return to power. Although it would hardly matter whether Koirala is in power or outside, his call for consensus would only destabilize the political process and the bureaucracy at this critical national juncture. Koirala may succeed in forcing Deuba to resign, but he would not be able to avoid the turbulence that marked his last tenure as head of the government. Koirala, who has held the post of prime minister for more than six out of the last 12 years of democracy, realises first hand the difficulty of governing amid chronic instability.

Ever since the restoration of democracy in 1990, no government has had the opportunity to run its affairs without periodic intervention and disturbances. Each government has begun by announcing policy measures aimed at the welfare of the people, only to find itself caught in a shaky position within a few months.

Koirala : Getting restless

When Prime Minister Deuba's government announced a package to stabilize the economy and inject a sense of security among the people, it failed to get the support it needed to succeed. As the government began to perform, politicians in the ruling and opposition parties began plotting against the prime minister. "This is one of the bitter realities of the last 12 years," says a political analyst. "Every government has had to pass through political instability, with disastrous consequences for the nation."

Koirala has been the primary victim of this reality, but, strangely, he is also the leading player in the destabilization game. In his last tenure, Koirala made all kinds of compromises to remain in power. He proposed a 14-point agenda for national consensus, seeking broad support from opposition parties and factions within the ruling party. His 14-point proposal was accepted along with his resignation. As soon as Deuba was elected prime minister, he implemented some components of the national consensus package.

Koirala is yet to define his fresh agenda of national consensus and its political significance, but it has already injected a feeling of instability in the bureaucracy, which is supposed to administer the government's programs and policies. Regardless of whether Koirala's national-consensus call has any political meaning or implications in the current context, the former prime minister has found it to be a new mantra to rock Prime Minister Deuba's position.

A Congress central committee meeting chaired by Koirala last month, after the Maoists pulled out of peace talks and resumed their violent campaign, called for the imposition of the state of emergency to quell terrorism. The party welcomed the emergency and hailed the government's decision to bring out the anti-terrorism ordinance.

At a time when all major political parties have been supporting state of emergency, what has prompted Koirala to call for national consensus? Political analysts believe the new slogan is nothing more than a plot to replace Deuba.

Koirala was forced to resign few months ago under the pressure of major opposition parties who boycotted the winter session of parliament for 45 days and organized an unprecedented three-day general strike. Koirala call for national consensus came in the presence of key opposition leaders, including CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, Rastriya Prajatantra Party leader Surya Bahadur Thapa, CPN-ML general secretary Bam Dev Gautam, Nepal Sadbhavana Party president Gajendra Narayan Singh, and radical communist leaders Chitra Bahadur KC, Narayan Man Bijukche Rohit and Amik Sherchan.

Gautam and Singh, too, had demanded Koirala's resignation as prime minister but had opposed the UML's course of stalling parliament. In an interesting turn of events, political leaders who not too long ago declined to attend meetings called by Koirala in protest against his alleged involvement in the Lauda Air scandal were among those who immediately endorsed the former prime minister's consensus call. Strangely enough, the program was organized by the sister organization of the UML, which spearheaded the nation-wide campaign to unseat Koirala.

"Why has Koirala's proposal for national consensus received such wide acceptance?" a political analyst asks. "It seems the proposal is being imposed by other elements." In an ominous warning, he adds, "Experience has shown that every time Nepal's political parties have been able to reach national consensus, the national interest has been sacrificed."

Koirala call for national consensus and the endorsement by major political parties is baffling also because Deuba continues to brief opposition leaders on national issues. "The government has been taking all decisions in consultation with leaders of the ruling and opposition parties," says Minister of Information and Communication Jaya Prakash Gupta, who is also the spokesman of the government. "We don't have anything to hide. The emergency has been imposed to guarantee security to the people."

Koirala's proposal and the opposition's instant endorsement could determine the political course of the nation. The strangest part of the unfolding scenario remains that Koirala is leading a band of politicians who until very recently were his bitterest opponents.

Whether one like it or not, Koirala will remain a central figure of Nepalese politics as long as he is active. However, the time has come for Koirala to prove himself a statesman, rather than a politician. "I don't understand what kind of consensus Koirala is seeking. Is it a consensus for his party, consensus for his coterie or consensus for his family? If Koirala is really serious about solving the country's problems, he has to show greater political maturity," says another analyst.

Many question Koirala's ability to forge a consensus among 10 different political groups at a time when he is unable to control factions within his own party. But Koirala wants to a consensus agenda within a month. "We must have to agree on certain things before the 11th SAARC summit," the former prime minister said.

Koirala found an early enthusiast in RPP leader Thapa. "No single party can solve the nation's problems now. We need to have a broad consensus among all the major political parties to sort out these problems," said Thapa.

Although Thapa stopped short of setting a deadline like Koirala did, the RPP leader, too, wants some decision taken soon to meet the challenges posed by the Maoist terrorists. "We have to unite to protect the rights of the people," said Nepal, UML general secretary and leader of the opposition.

After finding support outside the party, Koirala left for Biratnagar. The Congress strongman visits his hometown whenever he feels he has to take a serious political decision.

The latest statement of Koirala, a diehard anti-communist who is known for his extensive knowledge of the ins and outs of Nepali politics, shows how he can be used to destabilize his own party's government, which is on its way to successfully mobilizing the security apparatus to quell the Maoist insurgency.

Unlike many of his colleagues in the Congress, Koirala can identify problems, but he is unpredictable and can easily be misled. Any hasty political moves on the part of Koirala, who is obviously in the last leg of his political career, may benefit his coterie. But it would not benefit him personally — or the nation.