Poll preparations: The question of electoral model

Shailendra Kumar Upadhyay

The eight-party alliance (EPA) has finally declared the month for the CA polls. However, this does not ensure the quality of the polls, which ought to be free and fair. The very day the decision was announced, the country faced another ‘bandh’ called by the aboriginals and ethnic people.

The agreement between the government and the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) has raised certain basic questions on the modality of the election as well as the restructuring of the state apparatus. Although the announcement of an election month has given a sense of relief to all those who have been demanding it for quite sometime, the question of modality has been left undecided or it lacks consensus.

The working committee meeting of the Nepali Congress (NC) was right in reiterating that any question on which a unanimous decision has already been taken should not be raised over and over again. But as a democratic party, the NC leadership should have accepted that on issues where there was no unanimity and where a note of dissent had been formally recorded the dissenting party has the right to raise the issue whenever an occasion to do so arises.The EPA had unanimously adopted the Interim Constitution (IC) but reservations had been expressed by the CPN-UML and later by Sadbhawana (Anandidevi) on the modality of election. This time other leftist parties have also joined hands with the CPN-UML. So on this issue serious consideration has to be given to national consensus. It is clearly mentioned in the agreement between the MJF and the government that the MJF favours proportional representation. The Janajatis too have been in favour of proportional representation.

The NC and its president and prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala have a great responsibility to promote national consensus on issues that may divide the nation. It is, therefore, necessary for the NC either to convince others on the merits of the mixed electoral system or give up its adamant stand and accept proportional representation. A national consensus cannot be arrived at only by talking separately with the stakeholders. This process is long and difficult. The EPA must be ready to sit together and listen to various agitating groups. It must no longer ignore the newly emerged organisations and show readiness to work together with them.

While the accord between the MJF and the government has to be welcomed, a grave question cannot be left unattended. The MJF has insisted on the right of self-determination. It seems the government negotiator (a minister and a senior NC leader) has accepted it. But what is the right of self-determination? So far we have been talking of a federal system in which all the component states/provinces/ regions will have full authority and control over their own destiny. However, the right of self-determination means “determination of one’s own fate or course of action without compulsion”. In a federal system there is a compulsion to remain a part of the nation but with full authority and control in administering the area. But the right of self-determination can go as far as breaking away from the nation, declaring an independent nation or merging with other nations. Either the negotiator did not understand the meaning of the right of self-determination or he took it lightly without considering its implications.

After the success of the Jana Andolan II a consensus seems to have emerged on the need for restructuring the state and a federal system. A federal system is a system of government in which the central government enjoys limited authority. Matters relating to local development and administration will be the domain of the local governments. In Nepal’s case, the formation of new provinces should be on the basis of language and ethnicity. Once such provinces are created the people of that area would have full control and authority over that part of the country. However, full control and authority does not amount to the right of cession. We are for a new Nepal where people of all castes, creeds, cultures and ethnicities would have full right to decide their destiny. But this should leave no room for disintegration.

The issue of electoral model is a vital question as it involves representation of the ethnics, Dalits, Madhesis, etc. So there is need for consensus on this issue. If there is a consensus on the model as stipulated in the Interim Constitution then the question of constituency delineation has to be revised. But if the consensus is in favour of proportional representation the nation becomes one constituency and so the question of delineation becomes irrelevant.The questions of the nature of restructuring of the state and the electoral process have to be taken up seriously and all problems should be resolved quickly, otherwise the EC cannot make adequate preparation to hold elections in time. Any delay or further postponement of the election on any grounds would open the way for disastrous consequences.

Source: The Himalayan Times, June 6, 2007

The rise of a party

MALLIKA ARYAL

In 1997, a group of madhesi intellectuals and students banded together to discuss their concerns and issues. There was no formal membership in this Biratnagar-based group and participants included leftists and members of other mainstream parties. The common denominator was their disenchantment with the big parties and the sense that their debates were largely ignored. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum soon emerged as the most-respected, representative platform for madhesi issues. In the same year, the Maoists celebrated their first anniversary underground by intensifying their struggle in the mid-west, Nepal had three unstable coalition governments, and the human rights situation deteriorated as scores were detained by the state.

Ten years later, the Maoists have entered into the peace process, and the MJF has turned relatively violent. Both, however, are now registered as parties with the Election Commission and much of the fight for influence in the madhes is between these two fronts.
Insiders tell us that the Maoist leadership was sympathetic to the Forum at the start, and even instrumental in organising it. Around 1999 Upendra Yadav, then a regular member of UML, started becoming closer to the Maoists.

In February 2004, Upendra Yadav, Maoist leaders Matrika Yadav and Mohan Baidya were arrested in Delhi. Upendra Yadav was let go after a couple of months, while Matrika Yadav and Mohan Baidya were handed over to Nepali authorities and were released in 2006. Those close to Upendra Yadav say that during the time of his arrest he was already trying to distance himself from the Maoists because of discrimination he felt in the ranks within the Maoist hierarchy and because he did not agree with the Maoist plan to divide madhes into ‘Madhes Autonomous Region’ and ‘Tharuwan Autonomous Region’. Vijay Kant Karna, chairperson of Jaghrit Nepal says, “No one was happy in the tarai with the Maoists because they called it Madhes Government but high ranks in their party were given to pahadis.”

After the 1 February 2005 royal takeover Upendra Yadav and Jaya Prakash Gupta, former general secretary of the MJF and present Nepali Congress MP started travelling back and forth between India and Nepal to prepare for a movement in Nepal. After last year’s April Uprising Upendra Yadav returned to Nepal and in the eight months after Jana Andolan II, the MJF had successfully held meetings in almost all the districts of Nepal.

Since then, the forum and Yadav have been accused of both flip-flopping and forming alliances with Hindu fundamentalist groups in India, such as the Rastiya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In December Yadav attended a meeting of rightwing Hindu groups in Gorakhpur and spoke out publicly about making Nepal a Hindu nation again. A month later he was leading the movement for a secular federal republic.

“He can be highly influenced by others,” says Nepali Congress MP Amresh Kumar Singh, adding, “If you try to play with all the powers, you forget the cause you were fighting for.” Like most madhesi leaders who do not actively profess membership in the MJF, Singh too is said to have had a falling out with Yadav.

Jaya Prakash Gupta, who is close to Yadav, says the accusations of alliances with the palace and Indian fundamentalist groups are misguided. “If mainstream political parties meet with big Indian leaders, no one calls that an ‘unholy alliance’,” Gupta told us from Biratnagar. Gupta said that since Gaur, Yadav has not been allowed to move freely or explain “his side of the story”.

That Gupta and other moderate madhesi leaders took a careful line on Gaur while speaking to us is an indication of the pan-madhesi appeal that the forum still has. On the one hand, they argued, Gaur was ‘retaliation’ for months of harassment and disruption of MJF meetings by the Maoists Tarai Mukti Morcha. On the other, most admit it was a tactical mistake.

“If the MFJ had been willing to sit for talks right after the Madhes Uprising, they could have bargained their way into more madhesi representation and investigations of Lahan and Nepalganj, and pressured the prime minister to implement the promises made during his second address,” says Chandra Kishore, editor of Terai News Magazine in Birganj. “Now, after Gaur, everyone fears the forum as a criminal organisation.”

Sarita Giri of the Nepal Sadbhawana Party-Anandi Devi, says the MJF is not in the least militant. “They are not armed, Gaur was retaliation against the Maoists because they had disrupted their activities in Bhairahawa and Nepalganj,” she argues.

Meantime, there is said to be a few faultlines showing in the forum, one between the more left-wing members and Yadav, and the other between Yadav’s supporters who believe this was the right time to register a party and Gupta’s group, which argues that fundamental issues need to be settled before deciding to contest elections. There are signs of a split in the ranks—an insider tells us that of the 25 members in the working committee, only 13 members’ names were on the list given to the Election Commission during registration. Gupta pooh-poohs this and says that though his proposal lost out, he will support the MJF as a party.

Yadav gets the most publicity, but there are other prominent figures in the forum, such as veteran leftist leader Sitananda Raya, and MJF secretary general Ram Kumar Sharma. There are two vice chairmen Bhagyanath Gupta, a professor at Birganj’s Thakur Ram Bahumukhi Campus, and Kishore Biswas Tharu, a former member of Nepal Sadbhawana Party.

“As a political party our agenda is pretty clear—we want democratic system of governance, autonomous federal structure, proportional elections, and we want Nepal to be a republic” says Jitendra Sonal, MJF’s secretariat member.

Analysts say that given the lack of commitment seen on the part of the government to resolving madhesi issues, the MJF as a political party could take off stronger than those who call the forum irresponsible might imagine.

Source: Madhesi United, Blog, June 5, 2007

Positive Talks

THE long-awaited talks between the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) and a government talks team have finally materialised, and there has been genuine appreciation from all quarters as they were held in a cordial atmosphere. The talks that were held the other day in Janakpur are learnt to have been positive, laying the foundation for reaching a compromise in resolving several contentious issues.

During the talks, the MJF has put forth a 26-point demand that include, among other things, the federal system of governance and also the inclusion of Madhesis in all the organs of the state. The government, for its part, was also asked to withdraw the charges against the MJF leaders.

Demands were also made to provide compensation to all those who were injured during the Madhesi movement. Some issues raised came close to an understanding during the talks, and at the same time other demands were also discussed. As the country is headed towards the constituent assembly polls, it is highly essential to create an environment where such polls can be held in a free and fair manner and in an atmosphere without fear.

The country belongs to all the communities that inhabit it, and it is only fitting that all their grievances should be addressed. The talks should be seen in this light and the achievements made by the two sides to categorise the demands into those which could be met immediately and others that need further preparation and discussion should lead to an amicable solution agreeable to all.

The talks had been stalled for a long time, and as a result, the people suffered. There was much apprehension about these developments, particularly as the country is a transition phase, and untoward incidents could take place, playing into the hands of the regressive elements that have ulterior motives in their mind. The talks focussed on such burning issues as providing compensation to the families of those who died in the agitation and providing relief and treatment facilities to the injured. These are humanitarian demands and should be treated as such.

Furthermore, agreement to hold further discussions on seeking technical assistance from the United Nations to facilitate the talks also figured. The talks are a good beginning and bodes well for the peace process that the country envisages for the resolution of all the problems of the various communities so that all are accommodated in the New Nepal that has been envisaged where there would be no discrimination.

Source: The Rising Nepal, June 4, 2007

Equitable Society

THERE has been much activity in the political front in the country but many other sectors, such as the socio-economic sector, have not been able to keep up in pace with it. The social sector is still lagging behind unable to reap in benefits that should have accrued from the political changes that have taken place. Progress in the political sphere should go side by side with socio-economic advancement. This was observed by Foreign Minister Sahana Pradhan at a programme the other day where she aptly noted that the political changes that have taken place have not been supported with socio-economic development programmes. This is indeed disconcerting for the country is mired in poverty with archaic values that have impeded the development endeavours that basically has the objective of ameliorating the lot of the people. Disparities can still be glaringly seen in society, and there is dire need to do away with the anomalies and aberrations that are prevailing in society at large so that it is possible to build an equitable society.

Economic programmes should be accorded the high priority it deserves if the country is to succeed to catch up with the rest of the world, which is developing at a rapid pace. Political changes alone would not suffice to change the lifestyle of the people. The government programmes in the socio-economic front would amount to nothing without the wholehearted support of the people. For this, the social organizations and the intellectuals have a crucial role cut out for them so that an equitable society is possible. So far, the working of the social organizations appear to be inadequate and unable to meet the challenge. They should serve as catalysts to change the mindset of the people that would ultimately succeed in creating an equitable society. Exploitation in any form is detestable, and it is very tragic that such practices are still prevalent. Despite the knowledge that this is not right there are some who are still practicing it. These abuses should be opposed from all quarters and those found guilty of them should receive the harshest punishment. There are various form of socio-economic exploitation that have continued for long that are obstacles to the creation of an equitable society. One way to deal with the problem is educating the people so that are made aware of their rights and their responsibilities as well. The political changes that have taken place in the country should be utilized to the utmost for the socio-economic uplift so that headway is made in creating an equitable society in the building of a New Nepal.

Source: The Rising Nepal, June 4, 2007

Nation-building: Emerging challenges to peace process

Dhurba Rizal

The complexities of the peace process, while it might excite some, will depress others. Global peacemaking and conflict resolution experiences show that getting the two sides to the conflict to sit down and work out a negotiated settlement accounts for roughly 20 per cent of the work towards building lasting peace. The remaining 80 per cent involves keeping the two sides committed to the settlement, implementing its terms and articles and helping bring order and normalcy in society.In this context, there are many loopholes in Nepal’s peace process. The SPA and the Maoists seem to be more concerned about power-sharing and less about consolidating peace. Otherwise, they would not have spent so much time on just two political issues: the dissolution of reinstated parliament and the formation of an interim government and an interim parliament. They seem to harbour dissimilar and contesting visions about the nature of the state, the status of monarchy, modality of elections, economy, nationalism, foreign policy and power-sharing. The conflict-affected groups — ethnic and indigenous people, Dalits, women, Madhesis and youth — are demanding a legitimate space in decision-making. Pro-King forces are questioning the legitimacy of the eight-party establishment. New polarisations between the Left and the democratic forces, between republican and monarchist forces and between nationalistic and subsidiary identities are certain to make the transition difficult.The peace process has so far delivered an oligarchy of party leaders rather than a popular democracy.

Party leaders have shown no appetite for pluralism — the interim legislature has no opposition, and consensus decisions leave power in the hands of few party leaders. Ad hoc pre-negotiation of important issues threatens to undermine the constitutional process. Mainstream parties have also devoted little attention to the question of constitutional reforms. Few have instituted internal changes to tackle corruption, patronage and exclusion.The principal challenges facing the peace process include diverting attention from solely political issues to economic and socio-cultural factors too; reformation of both the armies and arms management; dealing with the Maoists and the monarchy; state restructuring; strengthening of governance and guaranteeing that the nation does not plunge back into conflict. Other challenges are: unchanging attitude of political leaders, bureaucracy and judiciary; little progress in electoral preparation for the CA polls; political, social, cultural and economic exclusion and the resulting unrest in Tarai and other parts; geopolitics, role of India and international community; bringing democracy and peace to the grassroots level; internally displaced people and lack of people-to-people reconciliation; partisan role of civil society leaders; security sector reforms; discrepancy in the number of Maoist weapons as compared to their combatants and use of child soldiers; government’s failure to deliver in the face of high expectations; and an opaque, elite-driven approach to politics.

Many observers are cautiously optimistic about the peace process in Nepal. Even a slight misreading of the prevalent situation can leave room for renewed conflict. The parties and Maoists are increasingly marginalising monarchy, security and traditional forces. The major actors are in open competition for legitimacy and public support.The prizes of sustained peace are clear: It will allow Nepal to build a genuine democracy where human rights are respected and real development emphasised. Conflict resolution is intrinsically linked to inclusive nation building. The foundation of change is unity in diversity supported by inclusive democratic system with accommodating democratic leadership. This can strengthen unity and Nepal’s distinctiveness in the international scene.Sustainable resolution of conflicts requires wider participation of all the parties and their interest mediation, rather than just those of conflicting parties. Peace cannot be created if the outcome of negotiation creates its own enemies.

Emanuel Kant asserted in his treatise Perpetual Peace, “No treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war.” Unless the root causes of the conflict are addressed and the Maoists democratised, sustainable peace cannot be achieved in Nepal and conflict may reignite.Peace is not just the absence of war, but also epitomises economic prosperity, social harmony, unity and brotherhood. The present peace process might excite some but it also reminds others of the relapse of armed conflict after peace agreements in conflict-torn states such as Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Liberia and Angola. Thus, in order to consolidate peace process, parties to the conflict should keep their nerve and honour their commitments to peace and genuine democracy.

Source: The Himalayan Times, May 23, 2007

Participatory Approach In Motivation

Kedar Prasad Bhandari

In human resource management, the participatory approach has been considered an important tool in motivating employees. The participatory approach, also known as participative management, is a process in which the subordinates involve in the decision-making function with their immediate superior. Complex jobsIn the recent decades, there has been a paradigm shift in the management of human resource. In Nepal, participatory approach can be said to have begun with the financial sector reforms in the mid-1980s. Propelled by liberalisation and globalisation, the participatory approach received more prominence in an institutional manner after 1990.

The Local Self-Governance Act can also be taken as an initiative for promoting participatory management at the government level. Today, jobs have become extremely complex. So it is difficult for managers to know everything what their employees do. In fact, participative management empowers the subordinates who know the actual problem and can contribute to make better decisions. Decision-making is not an easy job for managers. They have to win the confidence of all the employees working in their organisations. It is necessary to consult the employees of different inter-dependent departments to bring uniformity in their performance.

This helps develop the concept of team, committee and group meetings to resolve complex problems. Employees do not undermine a decision during implementation as they have been involved in making that decision. Participation provides intrinsic rewards for the employees, and it makes their jobs more interesting and meaningful. Broadly, there are two means of motivating employees through their participation: Quality of Work Life and Self-managed Work Team. Quality of work life is defined as an attempt to develop a formal programme to integrate the employees' needs and well-being with the intention of improving productivity, greater worker empowerment and higher level of job satisfaction. It supports a highly democratic treatment of employees at all levels and encourages them in the decision-making process. Its emphasis is on maintaining a quality working environment for the employees. A quality working environment includes financial incentives, opportunity to develop personal skills and ability, safety working conditions, and the opportunity to participate in problem solving and decision-making.

In essence, there are three means through which Quality of Work Life (QWL) can be improved. The Quality Circle (QC) is a concept first started in Japan in the early 1960s to improve the quality of products. Quality circles consist of work teams composed of 8-10 employees from the same work area who meet regularly to define, analyse and solve quality and work-related problems in their specific area of operation. The membership is strictly voluntary, and meetings are usually held once a week, normally for an hour before or after the job is over.

An organisation may have several Quality Circles operating at a time to deal with different people in different areas. The members are given some form of training in problem solving to work effectively. The Quality Circle is designed to improve the working conditions and enable self-development of the employees. The focus of the Quality Circle is to encourage the employees to accept responsibility for improving quality. The Quality Circle is effective in bringing about a short-term improvement in the quality of work life, but it is less effective in creating more permanent changes. Sharing of ownership by the employees is another emerging concept in participatory management. It is a plan in which the employees are offered ownership of the organisation as a benefit package. This may be done by stimulating them to buy equity shares.

It has become an important tool in motivating the employees.It is believed that if the employees own the shares of an organisation, they would be motivated to work effectively to increase the value of their shares. Similarly, as both owner and employees can participate in meetings, they can put forward their views, ideas, and opinions while making decisions. Business organisations in Nepal are also adopting the concept of employee ownership. Most of the joint stock companies offer 5 per cent of their public issued shares to the employees. Moreover, the concept of a flexible work schedule has developed in the recent years. In this plan, employees are allowed to choose their own arrival and departure times within specified limits fixed by the organisation.

Basically, the work time is divided into two groups: 'core time' and 'flexitime'. During the core time, all the employees must be present in the office, but in flexitime, the employees are free to select their own starting and departure time based on their convenience. Flexitime is popular in the USA. In flexitime, employees may involve in personal works like payment of utility bills, visiting children's schools and banks. This system is helpful in reducing absenteeism, overtime payment, employees' turnover and provides convenience to the employees. Another concept that has emerged in the recent years is Self-managed Work Team. It is also known as self-directed autonomous work groups consisting of 5-15 members. It is a formal group of employees that operates without a manager and is responsible for a complete work process.

All the members of the team are skilled in their own area of profession. The team members are jointly responsible for performing the task. They are responsible for planning and scheduling works, assigning tasks to members, collective control over the pace of work, making operating decisions and taking action on problems.Team members perform their work independently through mutual participation so it provides a higher level of job satisfaction. In such team work, the role of the supervisor decreases and may even be eliminated. It allows sufficient time to the manager to involve in creative managerial functions. Today the Self-managed Work Team concept is popular in most of the business organisations.Participatory approach in new context In fact, participatory approach is based on democratic norms. Given the changed context, Nepalese entrepreneurs and managers should try to include all the employees working in an organisation. The participatory approach should be given focus in the changed context in order to democratise the entire organisational system and accelerate productivity for faster economic development through wider participation.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 23, 2007

Rise of a party

MALLIKA ARYAL

In 1997, a group of madhesi intellectuals and students banded together to discuss their concerns and issues. There was no formal membership in this Biratnagar-based group and participants included leftists and members of other mainstream parties. The common denominator was their disenchantment with the big parties and the sense that their debates were largely ignored. The Madhesi Janadhikar Forum soon emerged as the most-respected, representative platform for madhesi issues.

In the same year, the Maoists celebrated their first anniversary underground by intensifying their struggle in the mid-west, Nepal had three unstable coalition governments, and the human rights situation deteriorated as scores were detained by the state. Ten years later, the Maoists have entered into the peace process, and the MJF has turned relatively violent. Both, however, are now registered as parties with the Election Commission and much of the fight for influence in the madhes is between these two fronts.

Insiders tell us that the Maoist leadership was sympathetic to the Forum at the start, and even instrumental in organising it. Around 1999 Upendra Yadav, then a regular member of UML, started becoming closer to the Maoists. In February 2004, Upendra Yadav, Maoist leaders Matrika Yadav and Mohan Baidya were arrested in Delhi. Upendra Yadav was let go after a couple of months, while Matrika Yadav and Mohan Baidya were handed over to Nepali authorities and were released in 2006. Those close to Upendra Yadav say that during the time of his arrest he was already trying to distance himself from the Maoists because of discrimination he felt in the ranks within the Maoist hierarchy and because he did not agree with the Maoist plan to divide madhes into ‘Madhes Autonomous Region’ and ‘Tharuwan Autonomous Region’. Vijay Kant Karna, chairperson of Jaghrit Nepal says, “No one was happy in the tarai with the Maoists because they called it Madhes Government but high ranks in their party were given to pahadis.”

After the 1 February 2005 royal takeover Upendra Yadav and Jaya Prakash Gupta, former general secretary of the MJF and present Nepali Congress MP started travelling back and forth between India and Nepal to prepare for a movement in Nepal. After last year’s April Uprising Upendra Yadav returned to Nepal and in the eight months after Jana Andolan II, the MJF had successfully held meetings in almost all the districts of Nepal. Since then, the forum and Yadav have been accused of both flip-flopping and forming alliances with Hindu fundamentalist groups in India, such as the Rastiya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In December Yadav attended a meeting of rightwing Hindu groups in Gorakhpur and spoke out publicly about making Nepal a Hindu nation again. A month later he was leading the movement for a secular federal republic.

He can be highly influenced by others,” says Nepali Congress MP Amresh Kumar Singh, adding, “If you try to play with all the powers, you forget the cause you were fighting for.” Like most madhesi leaders who do not actively profess membership in the MJF, Singh too is said to have had a falling out with Yadav. Jaya Prakash Gupta, who is close to Yadav, says the accusations of alliances with the palace and Indian fundamentalist groups are misguided. “If mainstream political parties meet with big Indian leaders, no one calls that an ‘unholy alliance’,” Gupta told us from Biratnagar. Gupta said that since Gaur, Yadav has not been allowed to move freely or explain “his side of the story”.

That Gupta and other moderate madhesi leaders took a careful line on Gaur while speaking to us is an indication of the pan-madhesi appeal that the forum still has. On the one hand, they argued, Gaur was ‘retaliation’ for months of harassment and disruption of MJF meetings by the Maoists Tarai Mukti Morcha. On the other, most admit it was a tactical mistake. “If the MFJ had been willing to sit for talks right after the Madhes Uprising, they could have bargained their way into more madhesi representation and investigations of Lahan and Nepalganj, and pressured the prime minister to implement the promises made during his second address,” says Chandra Kishore, editor of Terai News Magazine in Birganj. “Now, after Gaur, everyone fears the forum as a criminal organisation.” Sarita Giri of the Nepal Sadbhawana Party-Anandi Devi, says the MJF is not in the least militant. “They are not armed, Gaur was retaliation against the Maoists because they had disrupted their activities in Bhairahawa and Nepalganj,” she argues.

Meantime, there is said to be a few faultlines showing in the forum, one between the more left-wing members and Yadav, and the other between Yadav’s supporters who believe this was the right time to register a party and Gupta’s group, which argues that fundamental issues need to be settled before deciding to contest elections. There are signs of a split in the ranks—an insider tells us that of the 25 members in the working committee, only 13 members’ names were on the list given to the Election Commission during registration. Gupta pooh-poohs this and says that though his proposal lost out, he will support the MJF as a party. Yadav gets the most publicity, but there are other prominent figures in the forum, such as veteran leftist leader Sitananda Raya, and MJF secretary general Ram Kumar Sharma. There are two vice chairmen Bhagyanath Gupta, a professor at Birganj’s Thakur Ram Bahumukhi Campus, and Kishore Biswas Tharu, a former member of Nepal Sadbhawana Party. “As a political party our agenda is pretty clear—we want democratic system of governance, autonomous federal structure, proportional elections, and we want Nepal to be a republic” says Jitendra Sonal, MJF’s secretariat member. Analysts say that given the lack of commitment seen on the part of the government to resolving madhesi issues, the MJF as a political party could take off stronger than those who call the forum irresponsible might imagine.

Source: Nepali Times, May 18, 2007

Nepal again heads for constitutional crisis

Chitra Tiwari

Nepal is heading toward a constitutional crisis June 15 after Chief Election Commissioner Bhoj Raj Pokhrel notified the interim government on April 12 that the commission would be unable to hold elections to a Constituent Assembly for lack of election laws and other technicalities. He asked that the elections be held 110 days after June 14, the date specified by the interim constitution for holding the elections. No new date for the elections has been announced, nor has there been any attempt to amend the interim constitution to allow for a new date. Proceedings of the Legislative-Parliament have been disrupted for more than a month by Madheshi legislators representing southern Nepal near the Indian border, and also by Maoists.

Madheshis live in the flatlands of southern Nepal, a region called Madhesh. They are fighting for equality in Nepal's government and society. While the Maoists have returned to the legislature seeking immediate declaration of a Nepal republic, the Madheshi legislators disrupt proceedings with demands to cancel the Election Constituency Delineation Commission (ECDC), announce the date for the Constituent Assembly elections, and a new census in the Madhesh region, among other issues. Consequently, the interim Eight-Party Alliance (EPA) government that includes the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), formed April 1, has become an April Fool's joke, and seems ready to collapse June 15 when its term ends. The Maoists don't want to be fooled, and their leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, says eight-party unity has crumbled, because its basis was the commitment of the other parties -- especially the Nepali Congress party that heads the coalition government -- to hold elections to a Constituent Assembly within the constitutionally scheduled time frame.

Last Sunday, thousands of Maoists and their supporters formed a 3-mile-long human chain around Singha Durbar, a palace that houses the offices of Cabinet ministers as well as the Legislative-Parliament, seeking the immediate declaration of a republic by parliamentary decree. Participants turned over a petition with 1.5 million signatures to House Speaker Subash Chandra Nemang, demanding the immediate declaration of a republic. Prachanda, the Maoist leader, says the new basis of eight-party unity must be an agreement to have the Legislative-Parliament declare Nepal a democratic republic and then set the new date for elections. However, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala insists that declaring the republic must be left to the first session of the Constituent Assembly, as stipulated in the interim constitution.

The politicians are blaming each other for the government's failure to hold elections by the agreed date. All the leftist parties, which make up a majority in the interim legislature, accuse Mr. Koirala, 85, of dillydallying for fear his party will emerge from the elections in the minority because of the growing leftist influence in Nepal. His supporters say the Maoists are no less responsible for the government's failure to hold the elections because of their failure to abide by agreements to return the seized property of those who supported the royal regime. Under the 12-point agreement between the seven parties and the Maoist rebels, signed in New Delhi in November 2005, the Maoists agreed to return properties seized "in an unjust manner." What is a "just" or "unjust" manner remains a subject of debate. Local Maoist cadres have refused to return the seized properties of several hundred rich landowners, but allowed small landholders to return to their villages.

The Maoist rank-and-file say distributing land of rich landowners was a way to empower the landless poor, and so returning the land to its previous owners will disappoint their constituency, make the people feel cheated, and might lead them to switch sides, reducing the support base of the party. They have begun asking their own leaders how could they kill the spirit of the revolution by returning the land?

Nepal watchers say that with the exception of Mr. Koirala, who continues to insist the elections will be held sometime in November, all other parties and civic leaders now suspect the election of a Constituent Assembly will never take place -- recalling that a similar promise in 1951 never materialized, because of monarchical machinations.

Barsha Man Pun, also known as Ananta, deputy commander of the Maoist People's Liberation Army, threatened on May 5 that if there cannot be Constituent Assembly elections, and the Legislative-Parliament fails to declare the country a republic, "We, too, are not bound to stay in cantonments or continue to stick to our previous agreements."

Analysts say declaring Nepal a republic through parliamentary decree requires a political will on the part of the Nepali Congress party, but its leader, Mr. Koirala, is speaking tongue-in-cheek because of his love for ceremonial monarchy, since the latter could be an effective shield for Mr. Koirala's party against the communists. In fact, the late B.P. Koirala, founder of the Nepali Congress party, the first elected prime minister in 1959, and elder brother of the current prime minister, realized this long ago when he said that his and the king's neck were "welded together." Constitutional analysts say the interim constitution needs to be amended right away to allow the government to fix a new date for Constituent Assembly elections and to allow the Legislative-Parliament to abolish the monarchy. Maoists think they see a conspiracy in delaying the elections hatched by "international forces in league with domestic monarchical reactionaries placed within the seven parties." They think the intent is to keep intact the network of monarchical old boys and characterize Mr. Koirala as the long hand of the United States.

Meanwhile, civil unrest and violence in the countryside are on the rise, prompting the U.S. State Department to issue a travel advisory on May 7, saying: "Violent clashes between Maoists and indigenous groups have taken place in recent months in the Terai region, along the southern border with India, in one case resulting in 27 deaths. Ethnic tensions in the Terai region have spawned violent clashes with police, strikes, demonstrations and closures of the border with India. The U.S. Embassy strongly recommends against non-essential travel to this region. Clashes between Maoists and groups who oppose them also recently have extended into Katmandu." The ethnic civil unrest has spread throughout Nepal, a country inhabited by nearly 90 ethnic groups. A coalition of hill tribes has demanded federal restructuring of the state on ethnic lines, with the right to self-determination and proportional representation in the interim constitution before elections to the Constituent Assembly. It has called for nationwide protests starting May 17 and a general strike on June 1, 10 and 11.

The Madhesis have been agitating since mid-January, demanding autonomy. They have clashed with police as well as former Maoist militias now called the Young Communist League (YCL). The clashes have claimed nearly 60 lives, including those of 27 Maoists, and damaged Nepal's economy. Analysts say the peace process in Nepal has become a hostage of the government's failure to hold elections. The Maoists have refused until Nepal is declared a republic to cooperate the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) for the second stage of verification of their cadres, a new date for election is scheduled, living conditions in the U.N. supervised cantonments are improved and salaries and job guarantees to the combatants are assured. The U.N. representative Ian Martin says the Maoists' obligation to allow verification is unconditional and that the UNMIN cannot accept its linkage to any precondition. Analysts say the rising civil unrest, political bickering, parliamentary disruptions, and a decreasing level of political communication within the Eight-Party caucus indicate a diminishing chance for elections to a Constituent Assembly anytime this year. The situation appears to be ripe for yet another uprising that could settle the leftover issues of last year's unfinished revolution, namely, abolition of the monarchy and the passing of power to the Maoists, now rechristened "republican democrats."

Source: The Washington Times, May 19, 2007

Muslims want quota system in Nepal

Muslim minority in Nepal want guarantees and quotas for their minority. Other minorities agree, but want a secular Nepalese state.

Muslims claim that despite the end of the theocratic monarchy Nepal remains a Hindu state. They want guarantees and quotas for their minority. Members of other minorities agree. For them it is essential that Nepal become a secular state. Nepal’s Muslims want the government to set aside quotas for Muslims in parliament and the civil service. The demands were made by the National Forum of Nepalese Muslims at a conference that was held last Sunday and Monday in Kathmandu.

The meeting brought together about a thousand delegates in representation of the country’s 954,000 Muslims (4.2 per cent of the total). At the end, participants released a statement in which they demanded reserved seats in the Constituent Assembly that is called to draft a new constitution beginning on June 20. They also want Muslim quotas in the civil service, a permanent Hajj committee and Muslim religious holidays recognised as statutory holidays.

Hajji Munir Alam, a member of the Muslim Forum, said that whilst parliament has declared Nepal a secular state (after 238 years as a Hindu theocratic state), the “government has done nothing to give Muslims an adequate place in the country’s political system and public life.” He complained for instance that “the only national holidays are Hindu.” Another delegate, Jameer Ansari, said that almost all Muslims live in the Madhesi-inhabited area. Since the Madhesi, who are of Indian origin, “have been guaranteed seats,” so should Muslims in order “to have a voice and represent their interests.” Other minorities have expressed similar concerns. Bhante Jaydeo, a Buddhist monk, said that “religious minorities should be adequately represented in each department.”

But more than that, in a country where Hindus represent 83 per cent, religious minorities (Muslims, Buddhist and Christians) should join forces to demand their quotas. “Buddhists are more than 7 per cent of the population, Christians about 5 per cent, and all three groups [Muslims included] come to 17 per cent,” he said. “Their vote can be of great political importance.” Nirmal Thulung, a Christian from the Good Hope Church, agrees. “The voice of religious minorities would be stronger if we could stand together,” he said. If Muslims make demands on their own they can only split minority interests. “In any event,” he added, “the first goal is to favour the establishment of a secular state in the country. Only this can guarantee us the right to freely profess our faith.”

Source: Asia News, April 15, 2007