Vox populi, vox dei !

Our attention has been drawn to the expressions of the so-called "facilitators" of the government - Maoists talks. A facilitator in its truest sense of the term must listen to the agenda of both the contending parties and should try to soften the rigid stances, if any, that could be acquired by any one of the two parties in the dialogue process in order to ease the tense atmosphere in the broader interest of the nation. Above all, the facilitators must listen to the existing popular voices on a particular subject or for that matter agenda. The main job of the facilitators should be to calm the situation and not just the otherwise. However, the fact is that the so-called facilitators in the government-Maoists talks, one could see the two separate facilitators ventilating their minds in a typically peculiar manner which perhaps has already given the impression to the general public including the non-partisan intellectuals that these "mediators" to a greater extent were taking the sides of a particular party in the talks. Our analyses could be wrong but then the general impression stands like that whether one liked it or not.

The role of the facilitators can't be dismissed outrightly. The facilitators have at least brought the two opposite poles to talks and since then the two arch rivals have had three round of talks in order to ease the tensed atmosphere. This is not a mere achievement indeed. It is altogether a different matter that the talks were every time held in Luxury Resorts. However, one could expect that the roles being played by the facilitators were in conformity with the existing realities and the mood of the general populace of the country. It should not be the facilitators who should guide the mood of the general people whether they prefer a status quo or wish to jump onto an altogether new system. The hard reality is that one facilitator only recently wished to twist the outcome of the last round of the government-Maoists talks for reasons known only to the said facilitator. However, we subscribe to his view when he says that it is the people who should be allowed to chose a system for themselves that takes greater care of their scheme of things. At the same time, we disagree with the said facilitators' fresh comment that if the government rejected the fresh demands of the Maoists at the talks for the election to a new constituent assembly would invite chaotic situation in the country. He implies that the Maoists will go on in for a rampage and thus destabilize the country instantly. Yes! Albeit the Maoists can create such a situation. We have no doubt in their capabilities simply because in the past we have seen their fierce activities. But will not the Maoists think twice again and let the people on whom they will bank for support to their political dreams allow to decide on their own regarding the choice of a system? Will the Maoists force the people to arrive at a choice that was their final destination? Will they do so by terrorizing the lay men on whom they will have to rely even if a system of their choice dawns in the nation?

Certainly not. If one were to believe the recent statements of comrade Prachanda, it becomes clear that the Maoists will not put any sort of pressure on the common sovereign citizens in order to support their choice of the system. We believe more in the words of comrade Prachanda than the implied versions of the self-appointed facilitators. One becomes restless at this juncture to ask who appointed the "facilitators"? Is it a post awarded to them by the government authority or they have simply declared themselves as facilitators? This has got to be made public. It is an altogether different matter that both of the two said facilitators command respect in the Nepali society in their own capacities.

Finally, the Nepalese people are ready to live under any system. We have witnessed the functioning of various systems, in one form or the other, since five decades or so. We are ready to greet yet another set of leaders provided they remain true to their commitments and not be-fool the lay men in a manner the present day leaders did at time of the last popular movement. For the common men, any system is good for it is this lot that doesn't understand the very meaning of the "system" itself. So for this lot any would be change in the system in the nation would merely mean the change of guards and nothing more than that.

Vox populi, vox dei. Its literal meaning is the voice of the people is the voice of God. Will the parties in talks listen to the popular voice and then take other steps? Wait and see.

Headline | National | 5 Question  | 2nd Impression | International | Past