Nepal's polls shrouded in doubt

Dhruba Adhikary

KATHMANDU - Nepal's bid to end the current political transition through an election on April 10 is fraught with pitfalls and doubts persist among Nepalis as to the viability as well as usefulness of the exercise in the present climate of insecurity and deep-seated mistrust between important players. The Election Commission has been told by the interim government to make preparations to conduct the poll aimed at electing a 601-strong Constituent Assembly which is to write a new constitution. Leaders of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) are enthusiastic about the election because they think their objective of transforming Nepal from a feudal monarchy to a republic will be achieved within months.

They have even projected their supreme leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (aka Prachanda or "the fierce one") , as the first president of the republic. The assembly, they expect, will endorse Prachanda's name once the constitution is promulgated. Maoists' impatience is visible in public forums organized to encourage the 17 million-plus voters scattered across the country of 25 million people. Another reason behind this newfound Maoist zeal could be their concerted effort to removed doubts that they will not be blamed if the election is postponed for the third time. The previous postponement, in November, was caused by them after they placed two demands as a precondition to the poll: that the interim constitution be amended to declare the country a republic and to change the traditional election system to a proportional representation method. The amendment was accepted, saying that its execution would be done by the assembly once it is elected; a compromise deal was made on the second demand by adopting a mixed method.

April 10 was chosen because the interim government, which has representatives from seven parties including the Maoists, decided to complete the task before the Nepali year 2064 is out - on April 12. And after a six-month extension of the United Nations mission in Nepal was approved, the UN Security Council on January 23 expressed continued interest in a smooth democratic transition for the country. However deep-seated mistrust among the seven parties about possible sabotage is the a major indicator of possible disruptions and violence. Then there are 50 other registered parties, some of whom are obviously pro-monarchist groups, that have been deliberately left out by the alliance of seven parties who claim that they alone worked to make the April uprising of 2006 successful. The uprising came to a climax on April 24, 2006, when King Gyanendra announced he was ending his 15-month autocratic reign, following 19 days of protests in the streets of Kathmandu and around the Himalayan nation. At least 18 demonstrators died in clashes with police during the "People's Movement".

The minister responsible for internal security, Krishna Sitaula, has issued a three-phased security scheme. However, the government is not mobilizing the 95,000-strong Nepal Army (NA) because the peace accord signed between the Maoists and the rest of the coalition partners requires NA soldiers to be confined to their barracks and Maoist combatants to UN-supervised cantonments. The combatants, whom the Maoists prefer to call members of the People's Liberation Army, number about 20,000. Despite preparations, people at large are not confident about the poll, primarily because of past betrayals and secondly due to lack of a general atmosphere of security appropriate for such a major democratic exercise. The law and order situation is precarious. Media reports of killings, abductions, beatings, looting and disruptions of traffic on highways are coming to the capital from all directions and imply that state authority in outlying districts is non-existent. Some of the district-based law enforcement officials even complained that Kathmandu often sends them orders to release criminals detained on homicide charges, because they happen to be workers for one of the coalition parties.

An election conducted in a security and authority vacuum can have neither legitimacy nor ability to institutionalize democratic polity," analyst Devraj Dahal told Asia Times Online. Conspiracies to abort the CA polls are another issue of concern. There is a strong suspicion that the "suspended" king is sure to use his courtiers and resources to thwart the poll - the outcome of which is not likely to please him and his 240-year-old monarchy. While fears of a palace-induced conspiracy grip all in the coalition, six of the partners are apprehensive about the seventh, the Maoists, as well. The Maoist commitment to competitive politics, they think, is little more than window-dressing, especially if Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong are Prachanda's role models. Other relevant questions include: Can small Nepal afford to have an assembly of 601 deputies to write a new constitution? Similarly, how can Nepal with its limited resource base create and sustain provinces and provincial legislatures - and all on ethnic lines?

Isn't the proposition of autonomy with the right to self-determination to the provinces an outright prescription for the disintegration of Nepal? These are some of the points being discussed by the country's intelligentsia; but neither Maoists, who sowed the seeds of division and inter-communal conflicts, nor leaders of other political parties, offer any convincing answers. One of the other hot subjects of debate was raised from the southern flatland, called Terai, which shares a porous border mainly with the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Some of the Terai-based analysts see these separatist tendencies as the negative outcome of the interim Parliament's ill-conceived decision to declare Nepal a secular country, in May 2006. "Why wasn't Nepal allowed to retain its Hindu identity when over 80% of its inhabitants are Hindus?" wondered Chandrakishore, editor of Terai Khabarpatrika, a Nepali language magazine published from the southern border town of Birgunj. In his opinion, the bond of the Hindu religion had played a significant role in keeping hill-plain harmony intact and the elimination of that bond threatens its unity. The trouble in Terai is believed to have been fanned by elements deriving political support from New Delhi. This might seem to be a response made on the basis of an Indian perception the Napali Maoists, if not checked at Nepal's plains, could cross the porous border and enter Indian territory to assist Maoists (also known as Naxals) in India.

As voiced by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, communist extremism has already become the biggest threat to India's internal security. If that is the case, it was sheer foolishness on New Delhi's part to assist Nepali Maoists to be a part of this country's establishment. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala is said to be irritated by such signals, which are essentially based on inconsistent policies. In any case, the bulk of Nepal's external challenges come from India. In its report released on December 18, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group summed up New Delhi's approach in these words: "India ... appears to be using its influence in the Terai to pressure the parties and underscore its capacity to shape events." That Nepal must deliver the CA polls on time to complete the ongoing peace process is not disputed by anyone. Parties outside of the seven-party alliance also subscribe to the understanding that there is no alternative to the democratic exercise. UN representative Ian Martin told the media in New York last week that he was still optimistic, even though the security situation in districts of central and eastern Terai are not conducive for elections.

But Nepali leaders do not appear to possess the ability and vision needed for the task and most of them, including Koirala, have not been able to sacrifice their personal agendas for the sake of greater national interest. By appointing his daughter, Sujata, as the minister to look after the prime minister's office, Koirala has sent a message to the masses that he, like several other South Asian leaders, is keen to build a political dynasty. But if a dynasty was something that the Nepali people were looking for, they already had an established dynasty of the Shah kings. Or do they need a new dynasty, one for the "New Nepal"? New Nepal is a slogan handed down by the Maoists. Socially conscious citizens and Kathmandu-based diplomats also feel that Nepali leaders have one last opportunity to prove their worth. But each of them knows an election in the existing security atmosphere is not possible, but they all want that fact to be stated by someone else. The alternative to an election, informally floated, is to pass a resolution transforming the present unelected Parliament itself into the Constituent Assembly. But will such ingenuity be acceptable to the people at large? Are Nepal's friends and donors likely to approve this method as a medium to gain legitimacy? Doubts persist. Amid these speculations comes the idea of a coup. Maoist leaders have alerted the people about an impeding "democratic coup" , involving a group of civilians (not the king ) with the support from the army. Apparently, Maoists have a better alternative model in the shape of a "nationalist coup". Ultimately, it comes down to a choice between two types of military takeovers, in other words, Hobson's choice.

Source: Asiatimes, February 1, 2008