Nepal's Troubled Tarai Region

Unrest in the Tarai plains has exposed the weaknesses of Nepal’s peace process, could derail elections for a constituent assembly in November and, if not properly addressed, could start a new form of conflict. Madhesis – plainspeople who are some one third of the country’s population – have protested, sometimes violently, against the discrimination that has in effect excluded them from public life. Weeks of demonstrations and clashes between political rivals recently left several dozen dead. The government has offered to address issues such as increased electoral representation, affirmative action for marginalised groups and federalism but has dragged its feet over implementing dialogue. Tension had been building for several years but was largely ignored by the political elites and international observers, and the scale of the protest shocked even its own leaders. The problems will only be resolved by strengthening the national political process and making it both inclusive and responsive – starting with free and fair elections to a constituent assembly later this year.

The Tarai plains stretch the length of the southern border and are home to half the total population, including many non-Madhesis (both indigenous ethnic groups and recent migrants from the hills). With comparatively good infrastructure, agriculture, industrial development and access to India across the open border, the Tarai is crucial to the economy. It is also an area of great political importance, both as a traditional base for the mainstream parties and as the only road link between otherwise inaccessible hill and mountain districts.
The leaders of the Madhesi movement face difficult choices: they have mobilised public support but have also angered powerful constituencies. They now need to decide between a strategy of accommodation or continued confrontation. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) has emerged as a powerful umbrella group but lacks an organisational base and clear agenda. It is entering the electoral fray but if it is to challenge the established parties, it must first deal with rival Madhesi politicians competing for the same votes. There has also been a proliferation of Madhesi armed groups; some have expanded significantly in numbers, and their strategy and attitudes will affect the political process.


The mood among Tarai residents is increasingly confrontational, with collapse of trust between most Madhesis and the government. Most believe that further violence is likely. Unresolved grievances and the hangover from the Maoist insurgency, especially the lack of reconciliation and the greater tolerance for violence, make a volatile mix. The unrest has given a glimmer of hope to diehard royalists and Hindu fundamentalists, including some from across the border, who see it as a chance to disrupt the peace process.
The mainstream parties have changed their rhetoric but are as reluctant as ever to take action that would make for a more inclusive system. Strikes in the Tarai squeezed Kathmandu but not enough to force immediate concessions. Mainstream parties, particularly the Nepali Congress, rely on their Tarai electoral base but are unsure how to deal with the new state of flux. Unable to compete with Madhesi groups in radicalism, they have also been ineffective at communicating the positive steps they have taken, such as reforming citizenship laws. Competition within the governing coalition is hindering any bold moves. For the Maoists, the Tarai violence was a wake-up call: much of it was directed against their cadres, whose appearance of dominance was shattered. Nevertheless, they remain well organised, politically coherent and determined to reassert themselves.

Engaging in serious negotiations will be a delicate process, with no party wanting to lose face. But the key issues are clear and still offer room for a reasonable compromise:



fair representation: the critical issue is ensuring the electoral system gives Madhesis a serious stake in the constituent assembly;
federalism and autonomy: the government’s commitment to federalism has yet to translate into action; without pre-empting the constituent assembly, steps are needed to demonstrate more serious intent, such as formation of a technical research commission that could develop a knowledge base for future discussions;
rebuilding trust: confidence in national and local government will only come if there is decent governance, public security based on local community consent and improved delivery of services;
redress for heavy-handed suppression of protests: demands for compensation, honouring of dead protestors and follow-through on a commission of enquiry need to be met; and
steps towards affirmative action: some immediate moves to increase Madhesi representation in parties and state bodies could pave the way for longer-term measures to remove inequalities.

Fixing the Tarai means first fixing some issues in Kathmandu and then dealing not only with Madhesis but all excluded groups. Cross-party unity in listening to grievances and pushing for their resolution through a legitimate, elected constituent assembly is the only way to a lasting solution. This requires a change in outlook and a delicate political balancing act: the Kathmandu government must do some things immediately in order to earn Madhesi trust but deciding any major issues before the elections to the constituent assembly could compromise the constitutional process. Despite the instability, elections are still possible and essential. But reshaping state identity and institutions to make all Nepali citizens feel part of the nation is a long-term task that will present challenges in the constituent assembly and beyond.

RECOMMENDATIONS
To the Government of Nepal:

1. Address the reasonable demands for political participation of all excluded groups (not just those whose protests have forced attention) by:
(a) undertaking to discuss and resolve grievances not only with protest leaders but also with concerned parliamentarians, local community representatives and civil society representatives;
(b) starting back-channel communications to draw armed factions into peaceful dialogue, while emphasising that they must sign up to the political process; and
(c) using all available leverage to control armed groups and other organisations founded in reaction to the Madhesi movement, draw them into negotiations and prevent the communalisation of Tarai issues.

2. Show willingness to make concessions on the basis of equal rights for all citizens by:
(a) revising the electoral system to ensure fair representation of Madhesis and all other marginalised groups, including a fresh delineation of constituency boundaries if the mixed electoral system is retained;
(b) improving communication, ensuring the government’s approach is clearly explained and that there are means to invite and pay attention to citizens’ concerns;
(c) sending senior party leaders to the Tarai – as eight parties together not individually – to explain what the government has done and is doing to improve representation and make the constituent assembly a meaningful, inclusive exercise;
(d) implementing some immediate affirmative action measures to boost Madhesi presence in the civil service;
(e) initiating discussion on options for federalism, their implications and how to implement them; and
(f) honouring Madhesis killed in protests, compensating their families and those injured, supporting the commission of enquiry into the state’s handling of the movement and guaranteeing its recommendations will not be ignored.

3. Demonstrate firm commitment to constituent assembly elections by:
(a) agreeing promptly on an acceptable electoral system, preferably by ensuring the Electoral Constituency Delimitation Commission delivers a revised proposal within its extended deadline that addresses Madhesi fears of gerrymandering;
(b) announcing a realistic election timetable;
(c) developing election security plans with support of all political constituencies and communities; and
(d) insisting that other issues should not be addressed by further interim constitutional amendments but instead be left to the constituent assembly as the sole legitimate forum for resolving them.

4. Restore law and order and rebuild trust in local administration and security forces by:
(a) improving community relations through meetings between chief district officers (CDOs) and Madhesi political actors and intellectuals; holding meetings to listen and respond to the public’s concerns; and ensuring that local government offices are well staffed, performing basic duties and more accessible;
(b) balancing deployment of armed police with a greater emphasis on civil and community policing;
(c) starting discussion on using affirmative action to redress ethnic and regional imbalances in the security forces through recruitment, training and promotion; and
(d) considering the transfer of district administrators and police chiefs responsible for excessive security action and the appointment of more Madhesi officials in sensitive districts.

To Madhesi Political Leaders and Opinion-makers:

5. Continue pressing for fair electoral representation and inclusion within the framework of the constituent assembly by:
(a) rejecting violence, devising forms of protest that do not adversely affect the economic and social life of people in the Tarai and bringing armed groups into the political process;
(b) taking part in the elections to the constituent assembly;
(c) showing flexibility on the new electoral system if the government commits itself to fair representation; and
(d) cooperating in the commission of enquiry and seeking to redress grievances by judicial means.

6. Avoid replicating exclusive models at the regional level and work to reduce communal tensions by:
(a) making space for women’s voices in the movement and on negotiating delegations;
(b) ensuring representation of Muslims, Tarai janajati communities and all Hindu castes including Dalits; and
(c) not insisting on a unitary Madhesi identity if it is unacceptable to some communities.

To the National Political Parties:

7. Consult excluded groups within and beyond parties and start to explore detailed policies of concern to them such as federalism and affirmative action.
8. Wherever possible build eight-party consensus and also involve parties not represented in government, including the legislature’s official opposition.
9. Implement Comprehensive Peace Agreement commitments on representation of marginalised communities within parties, explore ways to make party leaderships more representative and pay greater attention to the concerns of Madhesi and other activists within parties.

To the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN):

10. Extend technical support to inter-party discussions on development of revised electoral models.

To the International Community:

11. Continue to support the peace process, stressing respect for the principles enshrined in peace agreements and urging full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the interim constitution.
12. Maintain momentum for elections with both positive political pressure and practical assistance, welcome the announcement of a realistic election timetable and maintain strong public support for the process.
13. Support resolving the demands of Madhesis and other groups within the framework of the peace agreement and following its principles.
14. Donors offering development and peace process assistance should consider additional help for building Madhesi civil society capacity and supporting serious, independent academic research into issues affecting all marginalised communities.

Source: International Crisis Group, Brussels, July 9, 2007

Protect ya neck

The constituent assembly (CA) elections are just four and a half months away. Ideas for polarisation have been floated. Divided parties have made efforts at reunification, encouraged or pressured by friendly forces within and outside the country. The Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandidevi) and the Nepal Sadbhavana Party recently merged. After the NSP had supported regression and joined governments after the royal coup of October 4, 2002, a faction had broken away to form the NSP (Anandidevi), which joined the anti-regression Seven-Party Alliance. The leaders of the parent Nepali Congress (NC) and the NC (D) have intensified efforts at achieving reunification as they think it is necessary to improve the Congress poll prospects. Other suggested realignments include a pro-republican front, a Left front, a front of rightists and centrists, or a non-left front, including also one or more of the agitating Madhesi groups.

Amid all this medley, it seems, the popular view favours strengthening the unity of the eight-party alliance (EPA), at least until the CA elections. The case for this is strongest as it was these parties that clinched the historic 12-point agreement, spearheaded Jana Andolan-2, signed the eight-point agreement, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, etc. and made the Interim Constitution and formed the interim legislature and government. The onus of translating these agreements and commitments into action in letter and spirit therefore falls squarely on the EPA. Unless the CA polls are successfully held and the understanding between the EPA constituents is retained, it will be difficult to carry out the pledges made to the people. Those who are outside the EPA might choose to strike out on their own as the CA polls get closer. However, the EPA owes it to the people who put it in power through the historic people’s movement that none of its constituents becomes a party to any new political combination at the cost of the alliance’s unity.

Some political leaders held the view during recent public debate or discussions between leaders of Left parties concerning Left unity that any such unity should not threaten the EPA unity. They may be right. However, the EPA leaders should also be careful to guard against any bid from any quarter to break the alliance apart, something that had been attempted soon after the historic 12-point agreement. To send a unified and encouraging message to the people ahead of the CA polls, the eight parties would do well to consider organising joint mass meetings and campaigns across the country, particularly in the face of designs to derail the CA polls and to cause disturbances or violence. The political leaders and workers should make no further delay in fanning out into the villages with their message for the people. For this, however, the leadership of each party has to be clear about what message it wants to convey. At the same time, the EPA constituents need to expand their area of agreement, particularly on vital issues such as the fate of the monarchy and the structure of federalism.

Source: The Himalayan Times, July 10, 2007

Ambassadorial confirmation : Challenges before parliamentary panel

Madhav Shrestha

Apparently under pressure of circumstantial politics, the government is now sending an agreed list of candidates to the Special Hearing Committee of the Interim Legislature- Parliament for their appointment as ambassadors. More than a dozen embassies have remained vacant for over a year now. The Hearings Committee has now been asked to confirm appointments as required by the amended Interim Constitution of Nepal. Indeed, the Committee is entrusted with a big responsibility of putting competent persons in the embassies, especially in the ones with high diplomatic importance.

People expect the Committee to test the abilities and suitability of government appointees keeping in mind the fact that the appointees will represent Nepal in foreign capitals. Indeed, the selected ones should be able to work to enhance national prestige and achieve national goals. However, a serious question arises whether appointees with divergent political leanings and ideologies and varied social and educational backgrounds can work in unison. Critics are quick to point out the inherent defects in the selection process. They allege that the norms adopted by the government are bound to create partisan feelings as the appointed diplomats will be more loyal to their parties than to the nation. Unfortunately, most appointees have neither diplomatic nor educational background required for the job; nor have they received good training and gained enough experience to carry on their duties and responsibilities satisfactorily.

Most politically stable countries (both developing and developed) appoint envoys from the well-established diplomatic service. At the moment, Nepal does not have a developed diplomatic service as political decision makers have never given a serious thought to institutionalising the diplomatic service in the last five decades. Such a trend persists to date with the current crop of political leaders sticking to the policies pursued by Rana despots and Panchayati oligarchs.

Among highly developed countries, the US government does continue the practice of assigning ambassadors and other envoys from among the people close to the president and his party. Such political appointments account for about one-third of total diplomatic appointees. This practice has worked in the US as even those left out have great opportunities to study and practice diplomacy outside the government circle in America. There is a pool of talent and appropriately educated people for various diplomatic jobs in the country, but Nepal has neither a well-placed structure, nor do the political parties have a proper mechanism to produce good diplomats to serve the country.

The leaders of the eight political parties should have weighed the pros and cons of appointing people of their own parties as ambassadors without considering the credentials and potentials of the proposed candidates. At present it is doubtful if the politicians are serving the nation or merely promoting their own men and women at a great loss to the country. As national leaders they should have formed a committee to find persons of integrity and relevant knowledge for ambassadorial appointments. By doing so, they would have contributed not only to the promotion of our national interest, but also enhanced their own popularity among common Nepalis. Unfortunately, they did not dare to venture on a new path, choosing to serve their own narrow interests.At this critical juncture in Nepal’s history, the Special Hearings Committee as an organ of the supreme Parliament must minutely examine the appropriateness of the governmental action in appointing the persons in question as ambassadors. The important question the Committee should ask itself is whether the ambassadors serve the country as national representatives or merely as party representatives promoting their narrow interests? The committee has to keep in mind that the image and standing of the eight parties has taken a nosedive among the people in the last year as no pro-people measures have been adopted despite the high sounding slogans of the eight political parties.

People are now eagerly waiting to see how the committee will go about the confirmation process. This will demand great acumen as the ambassadors’ job demands different abilities according to the countries they are appointed to.The confirmation process in case of high Election Commission officials and Supreme Court judges appeared only perfunctory. The process was neither transparent nor adequate. Such a perfunctory act can hardly serve the intended purpose. Such token gestures will be meaningless and futile. Seen in such a context, can the committee exercise enough caution and sensitivity and equip itself with necessary tools and mechanism to make its hearing process praiseworthy?


Source: The Himalayan Times, July 10, 2007