March 18, 2005

Opinion builders and elites can create consensus on three vital things: peace in society, fully representative democracy and economic reconstruction

By KESHAB POUDEL

“It was the best of the times and it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…. It was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us,” the scene Charles Dickens describes in his famous historical novel "A Tale of Two Cities" two centuries ago has a ring of truth in today's Nepal.

Like Dickens wrote, every crisis has elements of hope as well as despair. Nepal’s ongoing violence and political crisis has both manifestations. The result depends upon how this opportunity can be utilized. If opinion builders and elites can create conducive environment through constructive contributions for consensus on country’s three vital objectives, this unprecedented situation can turn into a boon for Nepal. In case, opinion builders and elites fuel confrontation provoking organized political forces of divergent opinions, it will create more chaos and confrontations threatening the very survival of the country.

As the country’s major political forces - monarchy and organized group of divergent opinions - have shown flexibility for dialogue, opinion builders and elites need to encourage them. The consensus will prove that this crisis is also the best of times and the age of wisdom.

Peace demonstration : Heightend role of civi society

When foreigners can point out importance of close cooperation between country’s political forces to address the ongoing problems, there is no question why Nepal’s elites and opinion builders cannot do so. Let the elites and opinion builders of civil society play a constructive role to end the present deadlock.

From monarchy to organized political forces of divergent opinions, all of them have a common agenda: establishment of peace, restoration of plural democracy and economic reconstruction.

Thanks to the confrontation and chaos, the country has already suffered much. This is a time to avoid any new confrontation between the constitutional forces when the country’s security force has been fighting to restore peace in the country.

With the imposition of state of emergency, there are certain restrictions on movement and the press is too under tight situation, so the civil society members have constructive role to play in building the consensus.

“Political parties would have to make their stance clear about terrorism and terrorists and then only could the King and the parties go together,” said King Gyanendra at a recent meeting with the editors of broadsheet dailies. “Today Nepal has chosen to give peace priority, not politics. But that does not mean parties are not important. You have to think systematically and they should understand which direction we are moving toward.”

Following King Gyanendra’s interview, some organized groups have publicly announced their stand against terrorism. Nepali Congress in its recent press release clearly said that there is no question of alliance with the terrorist unless they give up their violent activities and show their commitments towards peace. RPP, Nepali Congress (Democratic) and newly formed party of former prime minister Surya Bahadur Thapa - Rastriya Jana Shakti Party, too, have backed the effort to bring peace in the country.

Nepali Congress has already clarified that it has no policy of going into exile or underground. “Our agitation will be peaceful and non-violent in accordance with the spirit of B.P. Koirala who returned from seven year long political exile in India in 1977,” said a senior Nepali Congress leader.

If this is so, then the civil society, particularly the opinion builders and elites, can play important role in the present vacuum state to create a conducive environment to start dialogue among the heterogeneous organized political groups.

“Since the characters of overwhelming majorities of Nepalese people are moderate, the upsurge of extreme rightist or leftist phenomenon is just a temporary one and it cannot last for long,” said an analyst.

One extreme group organized rally to hail the Royal Proclamation and other extreme groups are opposing the same proclamation from 'exile'. Majority of Nepalese have ignored such extremism and prefer consolidation and harmonization between the monarchy and organized groups of divergent opinions.

“We have already done enough damage on our politics, peace and economy because of confrontations. What all of us want is peace, pluralistic representative democratic system and economic development. Liberal democracy survives only in moderation, respect of rule of law and respect of opposite view,” said the analyst. “Extremism is threat to democracy.”

At a time when the country is yet to build modern democratic institutions, monarchy is a force that can guarantee smooth functioning of representative liberal democracy. The organized forces of divergent opinions must realize that the institution of monarchy will guarantee stability to make possible for smooth functioning of democracy in traditional society like Nepal.

From Nepal’s foreign friends to the opinion builders and civil society, they must use persuasive approach rather than pressing the monarch for restoration of democracy. Threatening to suspend development aid and military aid to impoverished Kingdom like Nepal will not yield any result. These kinds of pressures will only demoralize Nepal’s security forces who have been fighting the most difficult war against terrorism and will also put monarchy in difficult position.

On the other hand, the persuasive policy by Nepal’s development partners could bring about an early change. Political parties also must not take hasty decision to destabilize the country – which has already been passing through a very difficult phase. If the confrontation continues, Nepal’s internal forces will have to bow down before the foreign powers for their genuine cause.

At a time when countries like India - which has the largest strategic stake in Nepal- and traditional friend Britain – are following the Scandinavian footsteps by suspending assistance, the country’s organized forces of divergent opinions must adopt the policy of harmonization.

“All the political forces in the country should play positive and constructive role. The best possible scenario would be if the government, political parties, and so-called Maoists are part of the process to restore peace and stability in the country. But if that is not possible, at least, the monarchy and the political parties should be cooperating with each other to bring peace in the country. I think it is in the interest of the country and people and that the patriotic forces of the country must work with each other,” said outgoing Pakistani Ambassador Zamir Akram in his recent interview to People’s Review.

The forces of liberal democracy including the monarchy and the political parties have many points of unity but the difference is over the priority. Civil society members can help to resume negotiations to build consensus.

“While expressing our unflinching faith in multi-party democracy, we would like to mention that economic and institutional reforms will continue,” said King Gyanendra in his nationwide address on February 1.

However, the understanding is still lacking among the constitutional forces. Organized political forces of divergent opinions should understand challenges and difficulties faced by the monarchy and the security forces in maintaining peace and stability in the country. Monarchy, too, recognizes problems of organized political forces.

Nepal’s experiments with the pluralistic system have already shown that monarchy is not an antagonist force against democracy and organized political forces of divergent opinions are also not hostile forces against the institution of monarchy. Since there is a workable constitution, what they require is strong commitment for its implementation.

If they continue to hold biased views against each other, Nepal’s political forces will have to go to third party who will come as a mediator or facilitator. What is required now is to support each other's cause to avoid third party’s pressure.

“Of course, foreign countries might have genuine concern for democracy and human rights in Nepal but we must stick to our sovereign right to take decision. It must remain within the country and among internal forces,” said an analyst.

The pressure by the United Kingdom, India and other Scandinavian countries will discourage monarchy and security forces in their action against terrorism. Indians will have to face the first test of violence and political instability in Nepal -which can spillover to other parts of the world, too.

The policy of persuasion is going to be the best way to find a political solution in Nepal. More the donor countries pursue the policy of reconciliation; better would be the possibility of accommodation. However weak a country may be, it cannot be coerced to the extent where it loses its self-dignity.

Extreme stand taken by donor countries on development assistance and the suspension of military aid by Nepal’s two traditional suppliers India and the United Kingdom have already harmed a lot.

Country’s opinion builders and elites must convince the monarchy and the political parties about the importance for consensus on country’s three important issues peace, restoration of pluralistic democracy and economic reconstruction

Otherwise, as it was aptly said by Donald Camp, principal deputy assistant secretary of the United States, “The King and political party leaders must sit down and work together to resolve this crisis. To apply Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom to their situation 'they must hang together, or assuredly, they shall hang separately'. We stand ready to help them find ways to cooperate to overcome the challenges to the future of their country.”