Wednesday, August 3, 2005

Solving conflict by transforming it from a triangular to a bipolar one?

by Martin Holle, Germany, Currently in Kathmandu

In Germany, there is a saying: “If two are struggling, the third will be the happy one”.

What has this to do with Nepal? Well, to some extent it gives an overview of a theory which proclaims that the conflict in Nepal could be solved easier if two of the conflict parties would join hands and work together, transforming the conflict from a triangular to a bipolar one.

Concerning this theory, there seems to be a new approach between Nepal’s political parties and the Maoists which is considered to be a looming new chance for further negotiations. Hence, leaders of the Nepal Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) agree to regard this development in a positive way.

But how has such an approach to be judged when it comes to take all topics concerning the current situation into consideration? What are the main points to negotiate between the seven-party coalition and the Maoists? And of course, will it be useful to push the situation to a satisfying development or are there possible risks involved?

Main points to negotiate

When it comes to comparing the points of view of the Maoists and the party alliance, there are two major interests, where both share to some extent a similar opinion, but disagree with the contents.

First of all, let’s have a look to the points of consensus and the ones of disagreements between the Maoists and the parties.

Both, of course, want the monarchy to give back the power to a legitimate institution. There is no other choice to get back to a democratic system. But there are the first points of disagreement. The Maoists vote for an interim government whereas the parties would like to restore the old elected parliament. This point seems to be not that hard to negotiate on the first look. But think about the intentions of the Maoists and the party alliance and who will join an interim government. Of course, the Maoists have a strong interest to get its foot in the door of power and that will be possible by attending to such an interim government. The possible outcome could be another illegitimate government, because no one who possesses power will give it back freely. This isn’t acceptable to the party alliance. The other possibility, restoring the old parliament, won’t work, because neither Maoists nor the monarch will give back the power that easily to the old establishment. The Maoists won’t because they want to participate in a new government and the monarch won’t because he would loose his power at once if he would agree to a restoration of the old parliament and he would have no more a position to influence the further development.

The next thing is that both say, that they could agree on a new constitutional process. As a matter of fact, there has to be a rethinking of the 1990 constitution regarding it as one source out of many for the conflict. But here the Maoists’ claim for a republic goes too far for the party alliance that wants to remain in a constitutional monarchy with a weak monarch. Even if some party members claim that they could also imagine a “total democracy”, this doesn’t mean that they are in favor of the Maoists’ view of constitution – it can’t be more than a bluff to go for new negotiations with the Maoists, because if the parties would accept that view, they also would accept the further goal of the Maoists to erect a people’s republic and this could never be the interest of the parties – it would be their end.

Possible benefits and risks

It seems like that both, the Maoists and the party alliance, would persist on their viewpoint. So, is there a way that negotiations lead to a benefit despite this deadlock of opinions? Or do people have to be aware of possible risks arising from that kind of negotiations?

It sounds like a platitude, but talking to each other is better than nothing. This can also be said about negotiating, because a possible understanding could be a better payoff for the problems and views of each other and with that a slow approach over the time. Of course, this is a very optimistic view, but pessimistic views won’t create any positive outcomes or benefits.

Nevertheless, negotiating with that optimistic view of things, one has to be aware of possible risks.

The most dangerous risk of negotiations between the Maoists and the party alliance would be that positive results could be misinterpreted as a loss of power by the third conflicting party, the monarchy. Suspecting the parties of working together with the Maoists could be counterproductive for a stable security situation and could lead to new violence against the parties and the Maoists.

Solving conflict by transforming it?

The great benefit of transforming the triangular conflict into a bipolar one would be that there would only be two points of view to take into consideration instead of three, so that it would be therefore easier to negotiate about possible ways of conflict resolution. The problem is to reach this bipolar situation. Given the articulated case of a possible approach of the Maoists and the party alliance it seems to be unlikely that they will join hands because of their antagonistic points of view on important issues like constitutional process and restoring parliamentary power. This is no reason not to negotiate because otherwise there won’t be any understanding in the future. A possible way to a bipolar transformation could lead through the natural radicalization of the middle. The old people of the party establishment tend to support the monarchy whereas the younger ones are more in favor of Maoists, so that the third conflicting party could dissolve itself within some time. The possible risk that the gap between the two emerging poles is widening could also be a chance to negotiate clear positions if everyone sticks to nonviolent negotiation instead of pursuing their goals with a weapon in their fist.

On the one hand, transforming the conflict into a bipolar one can be helpful to solve it; on the other hand, there are some risks involved that everyone has to be aware of as to how to cope with them.

What about the “ordinary people”?

Yet, only two or three conflict parties were mentioned namely the Maoists, the party alliance and the monarch. But what is with the “ordinary people”, people from the streets, from the villages, people that have to live within the political system and for whom the political system should act? Every party of the conflict claims to represent the majority of the people and to act with their mandate. The monarch because he is legitimate as the reincarnation of Vishnu, the parties because they are legitimate through elections and the Maoists because they see themselves legitimated by the suffering people in rural areas and those who aren’t able to take advantage in the political system. Another option completing the possibilities of triangular or bipolar conflict transformation or solution would be that people should articulate by themselves what they politically want during these hard times in Nepal and don’t delegate their power to more or less legitimated institutions. To get people to an effective participation in conflict transformation or solution, they have to loose their political apathy. Some time ago, during the time of democratization in 1990, they showed that they are willing and able to participate as politically mature citizens and that they can articulate and reach what they want by themselves. Unfortunately it seems that they got something that they didn’t want to get and that they will have to claim for the right thing, a working democracy, for another time. This time it won’t be sufficient that people will go to the streets for rallies for democracy – they have to take part within the system by themselves. This means that after having a situation of democracy has been reached they will have to take care that it will be a stable system for the future by learning how the system works and how they can take part in it, not only through elections.

But until this situation will be reached it is a long and stony way to go. And people from the grassroots level should walk on this way side by side with the other conflicting parties.

Conclusion

It is important to recapitulate what is said in the beginning: If two are struggling, the third will definitely be the happy one, because he can consolidate his power. Such a situation would be a reason for new conflicts and new struggle for power. Therefore, there has to be a solution that every party will mutually benefit from. From my point of view, there are always several possible solutions, one perhaps easier than the other, but both effective to solve the conflict. One step towards a possible solution could be the transformation into a bipolar conflict to have clear viewpoints to negotiate. But this possibility can be dangerous in terms of radicalization and possible widening of the gap between the two poles.

Hence, in my opinion, it would be best to solve the conflict by mediation of a neutral fourth party between all three conflicting parties and representatives from the grassroots level, like elders, elected speakers and members of the civil society. That would give the possibility to take all views into consideration and to reach a stable situation for all and to get back to democracy. Of course, it is hard to find such an “honest broker” that pleases to all three conflicting parties, but if this would be possible, there should be a fast progress in getting rid of this conflict.