Breaking the Barriers to Negotiation in Nepal

Dev Raj Dahal

Poly-Centric Games

The internal political crisis in Nepal is deepening, as major political actors seem more interested in opposing each other than finding a common ground for accommodation. As a result of the ongoing conflict, the state, as the only legitimate actor in international affairs, is losing its unique locus of power to a myriad of fluid social and political forces. It is also encircled by social movements, political agitations and insurgency struggling to achieve strategic influence on the state policies and unleashing an anti-democratic spiral. This process is disrupting the constitution and institutions of the state and upsetting the state-society relations. What are the reasons for the deepening political crises?

Obviously, politicians have not mustered enough "political will," to    transform conflict and competition into a cooperative game. There is a lack of national perspective in conflict perception. The perspectives forwarded by various forces of society in resolving the conflict also suffer from rationality deficit as their orientations are partisan in nature-- either inclined to garner benefit to individual leaders or particular party, or a group of parties or even a regime. The partisan approach is inconsistent with the policy of containing conflict. Growing disharmony between political parties' goals expressed through reformist agendas and constitutional provisions has also marred the modes of conflict resolution and the prospects for holding election within this year. The hierarchy of demands orientations without overlapping policies has made peaceful conflict transformation difficult. Each side tries to outwit others rather than persuading others of the rationality of its cause. For example, Nepali Congress (NC) calls for the restoration of parliament, NC (Democratic) insists on the restoration of Deuba government, CPN-UML argues for an all-party government, some small radical left parties call for the election of a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution and still many moderate parties call for the restoration of peace and stability in the country.

The means bulk of the political forces employ to achieve their goals is radical but the unspoken motive seems to be political and constitutional status quo and even status quo ante to October 4, 2002. The reformist agendas put by three forces-the establishment, five-party alliance and the CPN-Maoist render their status quo interest position, however, absurd as all promise the restructuring of state-society relations and are socializing and mobilizing the public accordingly. All the forces are trying to derive proxy-legitimacy from the donors, many of them, prefer an all-party government of all constitutional forces as a precondition for negotiated settlement of violent conflict. The crucial challenge lies in not only unifying the constitutional forces but also bringing non-constitutional forces into the constitutional framework. What are the incentives for this? The incentives can be derived from the synthesis of reform agendas and developing a "coherent road map," for peace.

While the root causes of the conflict in Nepal are heterogeneous, layered and complex, each government tried to solve only the immediate effect and the escalating factors. The competition of politicians for future positions has further contributed to the expansion of conflict and assumed geopolitical dimension. As a result of this politics is caught in a deadlock. Instability in Nepal promises to be a growing concern for its international partners.

Peace Before Power

The stubborn resistance of diverse political actors against each other subsumes the notion that political actors are giving priority to power over peace. Those who believe in this priority lay that they should have the authority to define the rules of the game and conduct political process. This implies that negotiation is seen less as a process of finding middle ground for give and take than monopolizing power. This means they are less interested in generating political consensus for the creation of a level playing field than perpetuating conflict. This tendency has not only undercut the structural stability of democracy but also the state, economy, polity and society and, in the process, created more losers than winners in the game of politics. Still, there are some parameters for the non-violent solution of conflict.

Connected Games

If past negotiations are taken as an indication the peace talks between the government and the Maoists did not inspire much cooperation from the mainstream political parties. Parliamentary political parties might have thought the CPN-Maoists as a rival for power but their resistance is against the establishment. Similarly, occasional utterances of mainstream political parties for a possible saha-karya (cooperative action) with the Maoists negatively affected the reconciliation move between the king and them. Is the pressure from inside the country and outside for reconciliation not enough? Or, does it require an alternative channel like civil and economic society members for conflict transformation? Only converging interests foster connected game. If political parties are locked in their own respective positions, they have less interest in what others can offer to them and also what they can achieve together.

Tight coupling of Policies

The decision of political parties to have collective audience instead of individual meeting with the king did neither improve their mutual confidence for collective action (next day they began to see the king individually) nor increased their hopes for reconciliation and, consequently, cessation of their street demonstrations.  Modes of participation and contents of slogans are still radical. This indicates that the positive decision in one area does not determine positive outcome in the other if there is a loose coupling of interests among the diverse actors and the level of distrust very deep. How to pull all the relevant forces of society for reconciliation remains a major challenge in conflict resolution.

Embedded games

The formation of an all-party government can relatively satisfy the contending forces for power. Because, positive decision in one area sets the context for positive moves in other areas. And the fact is Nepalese history provides ample examples of resolving multi-lateral conflicts. One, however, should probe the role of actors as to whether they are trying to make Nepal a torn-state or contributing to its stabilization. If they are not contributing to stabilization, the consequences for the people of Nepal will be tragic.  Enabling the state is important to achieve security and fulfill constitutional and human rights obligations of citizens.

An imperative is orienting the actors inwards than outwards for legitimacy. The other is breaking the constitutional deadlock which is easier than breaking the political deadlock with the Maoists which requires the structural transformation of public sphere so that the marginalized and left out people can also be accommodated into policy and political domain. In the embedded game, conflict resolution becomes "inclusive" with the external stakeholders facilitating the process. It also marks a shift in the balance of conflict and consensus in favor of the latter and political power reconciles authority and democratic responsiveness. Power sharing by diverse people and the rule of law are logically consistent to ensure the country's peaceful future prospects.

Positive peace

A positive and democratic peace can be established not in monopoly of power by a single class or by the power equation of powerful actors only, but by including all the relevant stakeholders of the nation and creating a political mechanism that can eliminate human suffering. Realizing the human needs and aspirations of diverse people requires an inclusive, politically just and transformatory political culture.

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