Opinion (Spotlight Weekly)

All Sections Conference to Reach National Consensus

By Kuber Sharma
Chairman, Green Nepal party

In less than six years of Maoist activity or in 12 years of experiment with Multiparty Democracy Nepal has been at the brink of collapse. The political parties, the conveyer of multiparty democracy, proved to be lacking in sincerity, honesty and capacity to manage the change brought about by peoples' movement of 1990. The hopes and aspirations raised by the change were totally ignored by the players of party politics. The poverty, unemployment, social disparity and regional imbalance continued as before. The change to multiparty democracy benefited the leaders at the top who became the role model of "Rags to Riches." By misuse of authority they became millionaires overnight owning big bungalows and cars. The movement could not bring any change whatsoever in the faces or power brokers in village leadership. While sinking in growing poverty the villagers could see only the rising living standards of their leaders. They see no chance of any savior coming to their rescue. Out of sheer desperation the youths have turned to violent politics. As Marx has said — "The poor peasants have nothing to loose but the change."

Change is inevitable and nobody can stop it. The so called big parties have been uprooted in the villages. They are so much hated that the elected representatives dare not even go to their own constituencies. They have lost the competition of ideology and organization. People gave them opportunity to serve the society. Instead they preferred to consolidate their hold on voters by using money, muscle and government machinery. Such kind of collusion of interest cannot be replaced by prevailing method of election system. If any system does not have mechanism to rectify the shortcomings within itself, the external force is bound to dismantle the iron gate of vested interests. Frustrated mass-specially the youths — have lost trust in big parties and their leaders. There has been de facto change of authority to Jan Sarcar (People's Government) in villages whereas the de jure authority still lies with Singh Durbar or say Gallery Baithak (Parliament).

The leaders of the political parties in Parliament are condemning the violent politics of the Maoists. They hold meetings in the capital — safe sanctuary — and appeal to everybody in strong language to stop killings of innocent Nepalese and vandalizing of nation's meager physical infrastructures. They plan youth rallies and public meetings, meticulously avoiding the dates of ëNepal Bandhs' called by the Maoists. But the Maoists are not going to heed the outcry of such escapist politicians. At times, these politicians rush to Siliguri in India to shake hands (even merge, if necessary) with the Maoists. They even run to New Delhi and other places in the Indian states of Bihar, U.P. or West Bengal to meet the Maoist leaders incognito. There is visible restlessness amongst the leaders of political parties represented in the parliament to gain some kind of soft corner of the Maoists. There is keen rivalry amongst them to play the negotiator. They call all party meetings jointly to counter the Maoists but, in reality they secretly negotiate with them to become their partner in any ensuing change that is sure to come. If the Maoists agree to take any or all of them on their side, they will give up their proposal of constitutional reforms by the present parliament. They will even unhesitatingly agree to a new constitution framed by a newly elected constituent assembly. They would neither bother to try to amend the unalterable clauses of the present constitution. Similarly the so called Human Rights activists who function with the blessings of the political parties also want to use the negotiations with the Maoists as political bargaining for themselves. The political parties, on their part, have been practising the politics of opportunism and self-advancement. They have only used the multiparty democracy platform for their politics of convenience and self-aggrandizement. If, despite their keen desire to forge alliance with the Maoists, who seem to be the rising force at the moment, they fail to do so, they would rather prefer to alienate or isolate them from the main stream of electoral politics. To safeguard and perpetuate their advantageous position they are now enjoying, they would like to use the King and the security forces to suppress the Maoists. They are fully aware of their own hollowness and growing unpopularity. And as political parties they are no match for the Maosits.

The national parties want all parties conference to chalk out solutions to accommodate the Maoists. First of all they want a national government of only parties in parliament. That government should prepare a proposal of constitutional amendment by present Parliament. Both of these proposals are not acceptable to the Maoists, and therefore they will not participate in the election. Similar tactical game was played by Panchayat leaders in 1980 to keep Nepali Congress and Communists out of electoral politics. Their modest demand of one election symbol and issue of election manifesto was not conceded by the then Panchayat's power elites. Today the big parties want the amendment of the constitution only to the point not acceptable to the Maoists.

Green Nepal Party sincerely wants the Maoists to join the main stream of national politics. Unless the Maoists agree to stop 'Peoples war' there cannot be peace in Nepal. Without cease-fire, loss of human lives and destruction of physical infrastructures will not halt. All development activities have come to stand still exacerbating the poverty and miseries of the poor people. To come to terms with the Maoists we accept them as a plausible political force. Negotiation is an exercise where one bargains. It is a give and take solution. In Nepal's context Monarchy is an established power. It cannot be over thrown easily even by violent politics. That will not happen unless the Nepali army is defeated by the Maoists. Baburam and Prachanda have taken this factor into consideration and have mentioned in their writings. That is why they once announced renunciation of their demand for republic and one party system.

In an audience with King Gyanendra this writer suggested to His Majesty to call a "All sides (not all party) conference" where political parties including the Maoists, Civil Society, Religious and Ethnic leaders, and prominent elites should be invited. His Majesty can do it through Raj Sabha under clause 34.18 (ka) of Constitution of 1990 of which King is the Chairman. Raj Sabha is empowered to advise the King on demand on the subjects mentioned by His Majesty. The conference should be able to spell out solutions to present crisis. To accommodate the Maoists present Parliament can be dissolved. National Government of honest and patriotic persons from all sections can be formed. Election can be held at a given date for the constituent assembly after two years. The government can be handed over to the newly elected representatives according to the new constitution. If this suggestion is not acceptable to big parties that would mean they are not prepared to accept responsibility for present misrule and unrest. In that case people will settle accounts with them in due course of time. If the Maoists back out from their earlier offer to give up their stand for Republic and one party rule that will only aggravate bloody confrontation. That will be most unfortunate and antinational event in the history of Nepal.