Politics stands still

Yubaraj Ghimire

As hopes fade of an early election that is free and fair, Nepal’s crisis shows no signs of abating. What can India do?

External recognition, it seems, is a much more important factor in Nepal’s politics than internal legitimacy. In October 2002, the international community including India, endorsed King Gyanendra when he sacked an elected prime minister for his failure to hold elections to Parliament on schedule. But in April 2006, the international community decisively rejected King Gyanendra’s complete takeover bid.

In fact, this turned into a major morale booster for the demoralised political parties that came together and mobilised people against the king. G.P. Koirala, who became prime minister after April 2006 following the success of that mass movement, is now fast losing crucial international support as he has missed two deadlines to hold elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA). Besides, the country’s law and order situation is in a shambles.

In the absence of an election in the near future, international support has become all the more crucial for Koirala’s survival. So long as key international players — India, US, China, European Union and United Nations — were agreed about assisting in charting out Nepal’s future political course (through the CA elections), things seemed to be moving in the right direction. But there are visible differences in the approach of international players towards Koirala’s failure to hold elections, though they are all clear that a fair and fearless election is urgent.

In the last few days, Koirala has intensified his meetings with diplomats, following Shyam Saran’s visit as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s special envoy, soon after the CA polls were postponed indefinitely. His advice was simple enough -- an early election, as early as December. But given Nepal’s poor law and order situation, it is hard to swallow. It also implies that the prime minister should be prepared to go for polls without the Maoists if they continued to insist on their ‘unreasonable demands’. Their new demand for abolition of the monarchy immediately and a complete switch to the proportional representation system of elections for the CA polls, barely a fortnight before the nomination process, was clearly intended to derail the entire election process.

Yet, going to the polls without the Maoists will minimise, to a large extent, the prospect of a foreseeable end to the 12-year old Maoist-led insurgency that has taken a toll of 13,000 lives. It’s equally challenging to hold them to their earlier pledge in Delhi, under a government initiative (in which Saran played the key role), that they would renounce the politics of violence and partake in competitive parliamentary politics. In the current context, however, it was as much a failure on the part of Indian government to not be able to assess that elections were not going to take place on November 22.

India’s Nepal policy seems to have failed. Similarly, there is a debate going on about whether the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), headed by the Secretary General’s Special Representative Ian Martin, should be allowed to stay (with an enlarged mandate) beyond January 22, when its current tenure ends. While the government of Nepal is likely to write to the security council to have its tenure extended by another year, it is unlikely this will happen. UNMIN has been involving itself in Terai problems, where apart from peacefully agitating groups, more than a dozen armed groups, most of them based across the border, are demanding more political rights and inclusion in the decision making process.

India has backed the demands of the Terai groups, but the lack of consensus among the political parties in Nepal has delayed any action by the government. At the same time, China has been warning Nepal that the threat to the country’s stability because of the failure of the peace process will be a matter of special concern in the northern neighbourhood.

A delicate imbalance in the approach of the key international players, coupled with total domestic failure, has the potential to point Nepal in a new direction. But its destination is more confused than ever before.

Source: The Indian Express, October 30, 2007

Republican State And Democracy

Lakshman Bahadur K.C.

Modern states or govern ments have been classified under various forms such as monarchy, republican, dictatorship, democracy, unitary federal and presidential, parliamentary. It does not mean that the various forms of governments which are practised presently in various countries of the world are of recent origin. In fact, forms of government with different names have been in existence since the days of Aristotle in ancient Greece 2,500 years ago.

Classification of governments

Aristotle's classification of government has been considered as authoritative among the early classifications. In modern times, several eminent western political writers have made attempts to classify governments. Among them, Dr. Stephen Leacock's classification of governments has been accepted as being more comprehensive and the best.At first, Leacock divides states into two classes - despotic and democratic. Despotism is another name for dictatorship. In a despotic state, the ruler enjoys absolute and supreme power totally disregarding the wishes of the people. In a democracy, the sovereign power is vested in the general people who exercise it through their elected representatives in the parliament.He further subdivides democracies into limited monarchies and republics. In a limited monarchy, the monarch doesn't enjoy real political power.

He or she is just a nominal or ceremonial head. It is the elected parliament responsible to the people which exercises the real authority. In a republic state, it is the elected representatives headed by an elected president that govern the state for a fixed term.Each of these types of states is again subdivided into unitary and federal forms of government on the basis of concentration on the distribution of powers. In a unitary state, power is concentrated in the central government whereas in a federal state, the government's powers are divided between the centre and the units. The federal system is based on the concept of a dual set of government.The unitary and federal states are further subdivided into parliamentary and presidential forms of government on the basis of relationship between the legislature and executive. In the parliamentary form of government, the executive headed by the prime minister is responsible to the legislature. The head of state (a monarch or president) has only a nominal authority in such a system. Whereas in the presidential form of government, which is based on the doctrine of the separation of power, the chief executive, i.e., the president is not responsible to the legislature and is independent of it though the president may be removed by the process of impeachment.

Thus, we can put the formal classification of governments into broad categories as monarchy, dictatorship and democracy and their subsidiary forms like constitutional monarchy, republics, unitary and federal, parliamentary and presidential governments or a mixture of them. Any form of government may be practised on the basis of the political requirement of the country. No form of government, therefore, can be described as pure or exclusive as well as static.The political system of a country represents harmonisation of the different forms of government. For example, the political system of Great Britain is based on the concept of constitutional monarchy, unitary and parliamentary democracy.

On the other hand, India is a republic and a federal state. It has an elected president with functioning parliamentary democracy under the leadership of an elected prime minister, whereas the USA is a federal republic and democratic state with a presidential form of government, which is based on the doctrine of separation of powers.Another form of government is monarchy. It is the oldest form of government and is prevalent in several states of the world. In fact, the monarchial system having hereditary succession symbolises autocracy, feudalism and exploitation. But with the growth of democracy, which is based on the universal concept of liberty, equality, fraternity and welfare state, the system of absolute monarchy declined in modern times and was replaced by the republican state. But some European countries like Britain, Belgium and the Netherlands have retained the monarchial system as ceremonial heads under a democratic set up.Thus, we find that several countries of the world have removed monarchical system and established a republican system through violent political change. The republican state is now the prevalent system around the world. But the establishment of republicanism does not automatically usher in plural democracy. Republicanism is practised with different forms of government with or without plural democracy.

There are several countries which have adopted the republican concept with different principles of state governance. Just take the example of Korea. The divided Korea - North and South - though they are republican states, the principle of governance for their respective countries is fundamentally different from one another. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North) is governed by a single party ideology of communism whereas the political system of the Republic of Korea (South) is based on the concept of plural democracy with presidential form of government. The president in South Korea is elected by the people in free and fair democratic competitive elections.There is also another form of republican state, which is related to religion and the army doctrine.

For example, Iran proclaims itself an Islamic republic, which means its whole system is guided by Islamic law. In the case of Iraq, it was ruled by military dictator Saddam Hussein for a long time though it was a republican state. Thus, several countries practise dictatorship under the banner of a republican state. The establishment of a republic state is, therefore, no guarantee that multiparty democracy would be established unless it is backed by full commitment to the functioning of constitutional democracy based on the rule of law, periodic competitive elections among the political parties, liberty, equality, fraternity and a welfare state.Nepal is now on the verge of great political change. The successful popular uprising of April 2006 in which millions of people had participated against the autocratic royal regime under the leadership of the seven party alliance and the CPN Maoist opened the door for a change of great magnitude in the political, social and economic fields.With the introduction of the interim constitution 2063 B.S., an interim government and an interim legislature, the Nepalese people have now started to experience a new wave of political change.

One of the basic features of this change is that Nepal is positively heading towards the achievement of new multiparty democracy based on the concept of federal republic with the aim of ending the centralised feudal monarchical system. But Nepal's march towards establishing a new Nepal through state restructuring and creating a new political set up based on political pluralism, rule of law, inclusiveness, fundamental rights, freedom of the judiciary and the press and the welfare state cannot be materialised unless and until we sincerely realise the imperative of framing and introducing a new and stable constitution by the elected Constitution Assembly.The constitution of the elected Constitution Assembly will certainly be a major and historical step towards institutionalising the achievements of the April movement and ending the political transition of Nepal, which will guide the new political set up based on democratic values.

But contrary to the arrangement as provided in the interim constitution 2063 for holding the Constitution Assembly elections, the postponement of the CA polls twice has raised doubts about the sincerity of the political stakeholders of the present political set up. The postponement of the CA polls due to the controversy raised by the CPN Maoist leaders on the methods of the CA polls at a time when the CA polls were scheduled to be held on November 22 is itself a breach of the provisions of the interim constitution, which is a common and legal document of the eight political parties.LegitimacyThus, inability to hold the Constitution Assembly elections means maintaining the status quo and prolonging the transition period, which is definitely not in the interest of Nepal and the Nepalese people. So without wasting time, the political parties and their leaders must come forward to create a conducive environment throughout the country for holding the CA polls successfully and peacefully within this year, otherwise the legitimacy of the present interim set up will be questioned.

Source: The Rising Nepal, October 31, 2007

Nepal needs a close look

Ashok K Mehta

In the case of Nepal, historically India's foreign policy has been driven by its security concerns, but the policy planning has been patchy. Cognisance is still taken of a British foreign policy document as old as 1919, which noted: "Nepal is in a position to exercise powerful influence over India's internal stability and if it were to become disaffected, the anarchy would spill over...."
The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship (TPF), together with the accompanying letter which is derived from the 1923 security treaty Nepal signed with Britain, has provisions impacting on mutual security concerns: "Neither country will tolerate threat to the other... devise effective countermeasures..."

In 1959, Jawaharlal Nehru equated aggression on Nepal or Bhutan with aggression on India. This resulted in a furore in Nepal for being bracketed with Bhutan. While BP Koirala welcomed Nehru's security commitment, he asserted Nepal's independence. Nepal takes pride in its independence, being the only country other than Bhutan and Thailand in the region not to be colonised, but it paid a different price for it.

India has been associated directly with all the major changes in Nepal starting with the overthrow of the Ranas in 1950, advent of multi-party democracy in 1959, restoration of democracy in 1990 and the virtual end of monarchy in 2006. Two companies of Indian Infantry were poised to land in Kathmandu in 1950 in case there was "anarchy", but the force was not needed. In 1959, during Nepal's first multi-party election, Indian Army Gorkha signallers were deployed for communications.

The military-to-military connection between the two Armies is also historic. In 1952, King Tribhuvan requested for an Indian military mission to train the Royal Nepal Army (RNA). In 1960, 21 border checkposts were established in the north with Indian security personnel. In 1965, King Mahendra requested India for reorganising and re-equipping the Army. In 1970, on Nepal's request both the checkposts and training teams were withdrawn but the military cooperation continued unabated without any physical presence of Indian Army trainers. The special military relationship was symbolised by the Army Chiefs of the two countries being made honorary Generals of each other's Armies.

The bulk of Army training is handled by India under the special aided programme of the MoD and maximum training vacancies on training courses go to Nepal and Sri Lanka. In 1990, after the restoration of democracy, yet another request was made to modernise the Nepal Army and that programme is still going on. At the height of Maoist insurgency, when the Army was under pressure and ill-prepared to meet the Maoist challenge, Indian Army's counter-insurgency experts trained and guided the Nepal Army to defeat the Maoists. Massive contingents of equipment were rushed to ensure military posts were defensible.

In 2003, for the first time after 1970, a Bilateral Security Consultative Group was established for channelling equipment and expertise to Nepal Army. The military assistance was provided on specific request from the Government of Nepal in the spirit of past agreements and understandings. In 2004, when the Maoists besieged the Kathmandu Valley for a week, the Directors General Military Operations consulted each other on possible help that India could provide. National Security Adviser JN Dixit held a special meeting with the Indian Army and Air Force Chiefs to evolve contingency plans in case of any adverse situation.

Contingency planning is at the core of national security; it includes humanitarian and military assistance requested by friendly countries. India is guided by treaty obligations and security commitments in the neighbourhood. It dispatched the IPKF to Sri Lanka following a request made by President JR Jayewardene after the India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987. Similarly, the Government of Maldives asked for -- and received -- military assistance to defeat a serious mercenary threat.

India has either planned or dispatched military succour to Seychelles, Mauritius and Fiji. It has repeatedly stated that it is committed to the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka", which is diplomatese for deterring the LTTE from a military takeover of the north-east or declaring the Eelam. The ISLA of 1987, like the 1950 TPF, is still in place, though both are dated.

Like the Southern Command in Pune is responsible for contingency planning and tasks in the island countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Lucknow's Central Command has for long been involved in planning possible missions in the north, including Nepal. Military training institutions and think tanks are forever wargaming scenarios in the region so that, unlike their political masters, they are not caught napping. Exercise Tribhuvan was a study carried out in the late 1970s to assess the possibilities of a Communist takeover of Nepal. Shades of what is being currently played out by the Maoists and their associates in Kathmandu and the countryside were reflected in the exercise.

Over the years, India's security concerns were focussed on the activities of the ISI in Nepal, culminating in the hijack of IC-814 in Kandahar. The raid on the ISI stronghold by Nepal Police in Kathmandu's Hotel Karnali in 1994 revealed the scale of Pakistan's anti-India activities, but Kathmandu chose to deny most of it till the Kandahar episode. Nepal's sensitivity about its sovereignty and territorial integrity is manifest in the ladder-point security check of Indian Airlines flights at Tribhuvan Airport. Indian security staff frisk passengers on an elevated platform, avoiding use of Nepalese soil.

In the early 1990s, the first GP Koirala Government requested New Delhi for help to search for survivors of two major air crashes in the Valley. Nepali media ran banner headlines: "IAF helicopters invade Nepali airspace..." The Madhuri Dixit and Hrithik Roshan non-incidents created an avoidable anti-Indian stir in Nepal. Many Nepali friends say India is hypersensitive to anti-India sentiments which are dutifully shed by Nepalis before crossing the open border with India. They ask: "How can India become a regional -- leave alone an Asian -- power, if it loses sleep over such incidents?"

Leaders of the Seven-Party Alliance are privately, and some even publicly, saying that Maoists are afraid of facing an election; and, their hardliners could be preparing for a power grab. The Maoists have consistently accused royalists of conspiring against the "people's revolution" and the Army of planning a coup. These may not happen but are all part of future scenarios which warrant contingency plans.

The Maoists have the capability and the hardliners the intent to skirt the electoral process and seize power. India does not have to be apologetic about voicing its security concerns and priorities in Nepal and taking necessary action in shaping the environment. Moreover, being prepared for the unexpected, the political class would then no longer be equated with "headless chickens". National interest might prevail over political survival.

Source: The Pioneer, October 31, 2007