Road map for structuring negotiation and peace process: Long-term strategies

Bishnu Raj Upreti, PhD Conflict Management

The phrase ‘social reform’ has been a sweeping political jargon used by failed Nepalese politicians over the last 5 decades and used as icon of attraction to academia and journalists. For frustrated Nepalese realists, it may be a never ending, vague and fuzzy paradigm, about which every one talks but no one really acts. But an important question arises here. Is there any better alternative other than radical political, social and administrative reforms to establish lasting peace in Nepal? This may be unbearable choice to some (who are privileged from the failure) and wishful thinking to others (observers of the failed system) but what next? How long Nepalese people have to bear bloody battle, social exclusion, humiliation, and discrimination for the benefit of tiny fraction of society. Salutary opportunities to change exclusionary social order often arise at times when there is upheaval like the present situation of Nepal. Social reform requires changes in nature of State itself. In this context Crow (1992:259) writes, "In all three of Asia’s biggest success, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan - the groundwork for both fast growth and the income equality that eased the social strains of development was laid by a radical land reform".

Social reform here refers to radical change in existing administrative, regulatory and political frameworks to ensure representation of pluralistic society in decision-making and governance processes that address the root causes of on-going conflict and to establish lasting peace in Nepal. The following could be done:

Broad constitutional and legislative reform

Nepal has now been entered into a big constitutional debate. Many lawyers, constitutional experts, politicians, political scientists have argued in favor and against the constitutional assembly. Same thing is happening within the political parties. Leaders in all political parties are divided on the issue of constitutional assembly election. But all agree on the need of radical change in the existing constitutional framework. It cannot address the emerging problems faced by the country. Even those who drafted this constitution are divided. There is only controversy in the methodological issue, how to do it. The government is ready to rewrite without changing fundamental elements of the present constitution, i.e., multiparty democracy, constitutional monarchy, and national integrity. The Maoists, in their agenda, accepted the multiparty democracy and sovereignty resting in the people but the agenda is silent in the existence of the constitutional monarchy. The most controversial issue within the constitutional assembly is the position of monarchy. The government fears that constituent assembly election could potentially go for republican option and therefore resisting the constitutional assembly election. However, the Maoists have already accepted that monarchy is one of the important powers in this country. Therefore it is not possible for them to completely ignore the existence of monarchy. In this case the conditional constituent assembly with redefining the role of monarchy would be a pragmatic option. This will also give a face saving ground for all major players in this conflict.

The current constitution, in its substance, structure and values, is not sufficient to address the country's political and socio-economic needs. It should be reformulated in line with the present situation of fundamental change in the power balance of the country and aspirations of the Nepalese people. The new constitution should ensure participation of all Nepalese people to create environment for self-promotion and development. Any constitution unable to address inequalities, discrimination, exploitation and promoting the role of certain power centers cannot sustain. The constitution should promote national unity, territorial integrity, freedom of expression and speech; create opportunity for self-development of citizens, economic development, and harmony. The current constitution is not fully able to address many problems related to ethnic groups, women and dalit and political representation. A new Nepalese constitution needs to address all these issues.

Different lawyers and experts have amply highlighted that our existing laws and regulations are contradictory, insufficient and even retrogressive to promote social inclusion. The entire administrative system is based on control and punishment rather than being a state representative for facilitating positive social change and reconciliation. Change in attitude and practice in administrative system is essential. Change in administrative structures and process and new orientation and training to administrators are equally essential.

Diversification of government’s departments and central offices across the country is essential. The centralized administration, market mechanisms and agricultural institutions exclude large mass of rural people. Experiences of conflict-ridden countries around the world have demonstrated that centralized administrative and security systems have contributed to escalate the conflict. The security sector plays a crucial role in deciding which way the conflict develops. In post war situation, support of security sector in implementing the peace agreement is crucial. In the long-run, professionalization of security personnel and their civilian control and more transparent allocation of resources in security sector are crucial to transform society. Establishment of reliable judicial procedures, rule of law, civil protection and fostering institutional structures for conflict settlement in a violence-affected society are equally important.

Federal agenda: State restructuring in a federal system is becoming an important and one of the most debatable agenda. A lot has been discussed on the need for political reform and redesigning the state structures to address the current problems. The debate is whether to opt for federal structures or to limit in decentralized autonomous regions. Some political scientists have proposed regions of full autonomy with the rights of self determination and others have proposed mini-self governed structures under the decentralized governance system. The basic purpose of these structures or self-governed decentralised regions is to properly represent plural social and diverse ethnic issues in the governance systems. Given the complexity of caste, ethnicity, religions, languages and cultures of Nepal it may not be realistic to opt for the rights of self-determination proposal. A pragmatic approach would be to opt for fully self-governed mini-structures in line with the 25-districts proposal put forward by Harka Gurung (Khanal, 2003).

Social inclusion and addressing root causes of conflict

One of the major reform agenda must be to eliminate the root causes of the conflict. This requires drastic shift from current perspective, regulatory and development frameworks, bureaucratic responsiveness and actual practices. Such reforms could mean breaking vested interests of political and bureaucratic elites, which is not possible unless major constitutional and civil reforms are introduced. Resistance from these elites based on false imagination and ambiguous logic, which has already been observed, is obvious in this transformation process. For example, radical land reform to provide means of livelihood for landless people can be one of many agenda for social change.

Much has been said and written on decentralization, representation, participatory democracy, people’s rights, etc. but very little has actually been done so far. These concepts have to be translated into behavior and action, which is not done yet in Nepal. This needs new mechanisms, new thinking (for example, public hearing to select senior people in constitutional position), new procedures and concerted actions. Positive discrimination could be one of the approaches to break deadlock but it should not be patronized. The tremendous potentials existing among poor, minorities and worst-off population should not be undermined by spoon feeding solutions and pacifying their intellect and abilities. The current debate on the need of social re-engineering for social inclusion and affirmative action is a beginning of paradigm shift.

At present, there are many power centres (within and outside political parties), who really do not want radical reform to happen in Nepal. They are creating confusion in general public and misleading reform agenda with baseless, imaginary and hypocritical arguments of political risk for multiparty democracy if there is fundamental reform in constitution and political practices. This argument is not more than a faded power hungry ploy. Their arguments to solve every thing from within the current constitutional framework and political practices have been proved wrong during these 13 years. Therefore, there needs to be fundamental reform in both constitutional and political level to address country’s current problems and to let democracy function. Instead of creating unnecessary confusion, Nepalese people want to see their constructive role in negotiating conflict, conflict transformation and reform process.

Our common sense tells that state is not doing enough in social inclusion. The creations of different commissions (e.g., Dalit Commission, Women’s Commission, etc.) alone are not sufficient steps for social inclusion. These institutions need to be placed in wider framework of social reform with full autonomy. Their symbolic existence within current framework will not be able to ensure rights of their constituencies. The Dalit, ethnic group and women should get especial reservation in all areas (politics, bureaucracy, education, etc.) at least for some years to bring them in the mainstream. Proportional representation of women, dalit and ethnic groups in election (parliament to local bodies), cabinet, and other relevant administration is essential.

Conflict transformation

Conflict transformation is a process of guiding conflict towards constructive rather than destructive outcomes to ensure lasting peace (Galtung, 2000). The most important goal of conflict transformation is to facilitate the process of building confidence on different levels: insurgents, political parties, civil society, government, media, etc. In a country where the economy is shattered, political system has lost legitimacy, warlordism is widespread, people are murdered and internally displaced and society is fragmented, conflict transformation is a big challenge. In a conflict ridden society like ours, where different groups want to develop new order to capture power and privileges, an important question is how to promote internal forces working towards social reconstruction and peaceful transformation of society. Since betrayed attitudes need to be modified and softened, conflict transformation through building trust requires sustained efforts over a long period of time. Progress in building mutual confidence among the various parties must involve a national effort and priority. In post-conflict situations a shift from confrontation to constructive engagement is the most difficult task.

If and when the peace talks between the government and the Maoists positively ends by negotiation, there will still be daunting tasks and challenges ahead to rebuild trust among the members of war torn society for lasting peace. Those people, whose family members have been abused, raped, humiliated, tortured and killed by the rebels and the security forces could have strong feeling of injustice, resentment, hate and feeling of revenge and retaliation. That could remain for their life. It is not easy to overcome such psychological feeling and promote reconciliation. The arrogance of war has developed military thinking in Nepalese society. Harassment of civilians, forced recruitment and state repression has left an utterly bitter legacy. If negative effects of this conflict remain in latent stage it could emerge and escalate when time, context and space becomes suitable. In such a situation there is always great chance of re-escalation of conflict at local level as terminal effects. To overcome terminal effects three complementary strategies have to be adopted simultaneously. They are:

Transactional strategy: Efforts must be concentrated on local negotiation, and mediation (process of intervention in conflict situation, of an acceptable, impartial and neutral third party who has no final decision making authority but assists to negotiate an acceptable settlement of conflict) for the political accommodation and providing opportunity for peace enforcement (Galtung, 2000).

Structural strategy: Concentrate efforts on civil society building, especially in war torn villages/communities. Roles of media, NGOs, local leaders are very crucial. In this strategy local people and opinion leaders need mediation skills to develop accommodative behavior to respect human rights and rule of law. This is particularly essential for ex-combatants.

Transformational strategy: In all war torn communities it is absolutely essential to promote dialogue between different factions (of the past). Confidence building is a major challenge and efforts have to be concentrated to build confidence and trust to live together in harmony. Peace education, reconciliation and rapprochement must be integral part of the social reform strategy.

The principal aim of all these three complementary strategies should be to promote trust, start economic reconstruction, establish social and political justice, promote demilitarization and help in the realization of full security and healing of traumatized societies.

In specific, long-term post-conflict transformation strategy should focus on D2R4 activities, i.e., Disarmament, Demobilization, Rehabilitation, Reintegration, Reconstruction, and Reconciliation. The following are some examples of D2R4 activities:

Improving livelihood of people, developing infrastructures (e.g., labor intensive infrastructure development, income generation, etc.) in conflict-ridden areas, improve and expand support systems (e.g., psycho-social and medical care, legal assistance, etc.) for victim of conflict and victim of torture, strengthen local and national capacity to manage lasting peace (e.g., encouragement of civil society in peace initiative, enhance capacity of leaders and community to cope with conflict and peace challenges, which means local capacity to handle conflict) autonomously, non-violently and creatively rehabilitate ex-combatants, train them to integrate in society, integrate ex-combatants in appropriate security structure of the state (to those who are capable and willing) and train on alternative income generation to those who do not want to continue in security sector, and other relevant activities.

Paper presented in the Seminar on Management of Conflicts in Nepal: A Preparation for Negotiation organised by Centre for the Study on Democracy and Good Governance and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) on 2 December 2003 at Kathmandu

Maoist Insurgency: Politico-Historical, Socio-Cultural, and Economic Implications - IV

Samuel P. Huntington's hypothesis on emerging democracies starkly reflected the overall situation in post-1990 Nepal: "Social and economic change - urbanization, increases in literacy and education, industrialization, mass media expansion - extend political consciousness, multiply political demands, broaden political participation. These changes undermine traditional sources of political authority and traditional political institution; they enormously complicate the problems of creating new bases of political association and new political institutions combining legitimacy and effectiveness. The rates of social mobilization and the expansion of political participation are high; the rates of political organization and institutionalization are low. The result is political instability and disorder" (Thapa 2003b: 79). Nevertheless, the Nepali people are well aware that even considering the current political stalemate, economic decay, a nearly fully-grown civil war, and abject poverty, the nation is not prepared to accept the reversal of the course of democratic evolution, and switch back to authoritarian absolute monarchy as the ultimate way out. No way. It was not the failure of the democratic system (which, in fact, did work) but of the self-seeking and bungling leadership. Democracy doesn't work if it is not stormy in the initial phase - without conflicts, without pointing out each other's wrongs, without destroying old orders, without learning from past blunders, without realization, without revolution (which doesn't always imply violence) - and then unfolds stability. The Nepali people do not opt for anything better than democracy.

One perennially sad military factor is that the military has always been used against its own people only when the institution of monarchy has been threatened. It was so in 1960 and later in 1990 to crush the popular movements for democracy, and now against the Maoists, also Nepalis. The rationale of its mobilization must entail the spirit of imparting security to the people first than anything else. As one critic puts it, one of the biggest weaknesses of the Nepal army, like any organization, has been a hyper-sensitivity toward criticism and an ingrained unwillingness to consider itself as a people's institution. Everything from rasan-pani (supply procurement) and remuneration to logistics of the military come from the people's taxes or in the name of these very peoples. Although the Nepal army is a mixture of multi-ethnic and multi-clannish soldiers and officers, it is unfortunate that none can dream of reaching the highest rank, no matter how qualified and capable one is, other than a small select group of powerful Khas-Thakuri clan closely related to the royal family. This is a downright royal hegemony and discrimination continuing for centuries against its own officers. The Nepal Army has been perceived as a secluded and secretive institution, which is negligent of the sentiments of the civilians. One only wonders, why can't it detach itself from the age-old feudal yoke that has done good only to a select few and begin a military-civilian relation anew? After all, it will have to merge into civilian governance eventually, like a river emptying out into the ocean.

As some may like to take comfort in the conviction that there wouldn't have been Nepal had Prithivi Narayan Shah not unified scores of petty nations, which he did with military might drawing the blood of the Magar and Gurung and the Newar. But the point is if he had not done it someone else (a King Prithivi Bahadur Magar or a King Prithivi Bir Gurung, or a King Prithivi Singh Malla) would have done it at a time of history when kings were in a rat race to expand their territories. Seizing the credit of a historic conquistador Nepal cannot be perpetually shackled and made a private fiefdom and the Nepali people be held vassals till hell freezes over. A one-time colonizer has no right to impose a legitimate claim to rule forever over the once-colonized and now-free nation, for instance Britain has nothing to do with India now, the same with Spain over the South American nations. Nepal belongs to the Nepali people. This should be well understood by any institution or individual who tends to claim sovereignty over the Nepali nation. Nepal and the Nepalis are free ever since the collapse of the dictatorial Panchayat regime, and they have every right to chose any "elective institution or individual" they trust to govern themselves.

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | 5 Question  | Editorial | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Past