Electoral system : Slight modifications can get results

Birendra P Mishra

It would have been a miracle if CA polls could have been held on Nov. 22 without implementing the commitments stipulated in the Comprehensive Peace Accord,such as making public the status of people taken in government custody as well as the names and addresses of the people disappeared by both sides (and also killed during the war), returning land and property seized by the Maoists to the victims of the insurgency, constituting the national Peace and Rehabilitation Commission, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a high-level Recommendation commission for Restructuring of the state, verification of People’s Liberation Army (PLA), removal of combatants recruited after signing of ceasefire and proper maintenance of the PLA in their cantonments.Ironically, the election has been postponed to sort out the differences on two issues — declaration of republic and the adoption of full Proportional Representation.

Similarly, the Interim Parliament has been summoned to solve the political problems that need be solved by the seven party alliance outside the House, not inside it.The clear mandate of Jana Andolan II was to establish a federal republican democracy in Nepal. Accordingly, there should not have been any hitch on the elected CA declaring the country a republic or even the Interim Parliament doing so. Similarly, the adoption of Mixed System or the full Proportional Representation system should not have been turned into hot issues as the present controversy can be solved by bringing slight modifications in each of the two systems.

It reminds one of Immanuel Kant, who, while propounding his critical philosophy for reconciling the two conflicting epistemological theories of Rationalism and Empiricism, asserts that both are right in what they affirm and both are wrong in what they deny. The Maoists are right when they insist on proportionality of votes and electoral seats. But, they are wrong when they deny the close relationship between the voters and the elected representatives. Similarly, the Nepali Congress leaders are right when they insist on the close relation between the voters and the elected representatives. They are wrong when they ignore the importance of proportionality of the votes received by any political party and the seats won.

The above controversy has been stretched far, threatening the very peace process. Ironically, the Interim Constitution (IC) has provided for Mixed Electoral system for holding CA polls without specifying about its two variants — Parallel system (PS) and Mixed Member Proportional system (MMP). Since the CA Members Election Act does not mention the adoption of MMP system, PS was adopted compulsorily.In PS, First-Past-the-Post system (FPtP) and List Proportional Representation (LPR) system operate simultaneously and independently.

Therefore, the greatest demerit of this system is the increased disproportionality in the votes translated into seats elected. The gap betweenthe votes polled by a political party and the total number of seats it gets in return is unbridgeable. But, in the case of MMP the gap between the votes received and seats won is bridged through compensation. Since this system too has two electoral systems operating simultaneously but dependently, the votes polled under PR component compensate for the loss the party suffers under FPtP component.

Keeping these facts in clear view, the Maoist demand of replacing the Mixed system with full PR system can be addressed if MMP system is accepted. Since disproporionality can be compensated in MMP, the final result will be proportionate — of course, not fully proportionate.Moreover, there are some inherent demerits in LPR system as well. It should not be adopted with a national list in a country like Nepal, home to more than 100 castes and ethnic groups.

The national list system also makes for weak bond between the electors and the elected. Also, since the size of ballot papers sometimes becomes very big, it has to be shortened to facilitate the voter, especially, the illiterate ones in identifying their favourite symbols without wasting much time. These reasons warrant the adoption of Regional list system in place of national list system.There should be 21 to 25 regions, purely for electoral purposes, each consisting of no more than 12 to 15 seats, which can be further lowered to 10 to 13 seats by clubbing together three to four small districts or two to three big districts. The regional boundary should be drawn based on language, ethnic composition, accessibility and development status of the area. The existing administrative boundaries of the districts will remain intact. Local people will be represented by those in their midst, thus giving political identity to ethnic and cultural groups. This will, indeed, be the first step towards state restructuring.

Source: The Himalayan Times, October 16, 2007

Challenges Ahead for CA Polls

Somnath Ghimire

Nepal is edging through the long process of normalization and reform, following a 10-year Maoist declared "People's War", which cost more than 12,000 lives. Now the Maoists are part of the peace process and a constituent assembly will be elected in November 22 to design Nepal's future democratic constitution. But the CA elections could be derailed by a number of factors, including the lingering influence of a king who still dreams of a return to feudal absolutism and, crucially, the willingness of Army Chief, Rukmand Katuwal to lead his army into a democratic future. The Eight Party alliance must move cautiously and united with a single agenda now to hold the CA elections on time. Let us not make the CA elections an individual party's agenda; this is our agenda, the people's agenda. We are in the process of making a "New Constitution" of Nepal, which will sort out all political issues and empower Nepali citizens.

After a "spontaneous and unprecedented" uprising in Nepal in April 2006, King Gyanendra was reduced to the status of a figurehead, providing the people of Nepal a historic opportunity to "get rid of the monarchy" and establish a true, genuine, and people-centered democratic order i.e. a republic state with federalism. Yet elections for the constituent assembly, which were supposed to occur in June, have already been pushed back to November 22. "Cultural mistrust" abounds—"nobody is confident" that the elections will actually occur. If the elections don't take place in November, it will be "disastrous" for Nepal and its future as a democratic state. Let us be united to hold the Nov 22 CA elections.

Nepal's transformation is dependent on a credible peace process. Although the Maoists declared a cease fire on June 2006, they continue to use intimidation, violence and extortion. The upcoming elections offer the Maoists an opportunity to transform themselves into a responsible political party. The CA elections must be held in November, then the new constituent assembly will have two years to create and adopt a new constitution. The constitution should ensure: a republican state, a democratically accountable military, inclusiveness, human rights, an effective judiciary and a federalist structure.Considering Nepal's history, a king and a democratic assembly cannot coexist. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1990s, such an experiment failed, and the king used his traditional authority to dismantle the constitution. Instead, Nepal's new constitution should call for a democratically elected head of state, which will make nepali citizens sovereign. We cannot accept that some people are born superior to others, with a natural right to rule.

The constitution should also guarantee that the military is accountable to the democratically elected assembly. The military has to be restructured so that it is more professional and politically neutral, and so that it doesn't dismantle the democratic process. We want more "inclusive, broad-based" participation in the democratic process. Exclusion is the biggest issue in Nepal and the process of developing a new constitution should seek to empower indigenous, dalits & marginalized groups. Broadly defined human rights, ranging from prototypical civil and political rights to economic, social and cultural human rights and protection of the environment should all be included in the new constitution. Human rights should be a kind of lighthouse, or central theme of the new constitution.

The new constitution should define the judiciary as the guardian or protector of the supremacy of the constitution, so that it cannot be as easily dismantled as Nepalese constitutions have been in recent history. The new constitution must create a federal state. Many would not think of Nepal as requiring a federalist structure because it's relatively small, but federalism is a matter of diversity, not size. Nepal is much diversified, and needs federalism to create local autonomy and ensure better access to resources.We need to be very careful that there is credence to concerns about Monarchists and Maoists during this democratic transformation. There is cause for serious doubt that the king and the military will accept a legitimate democratic transformation. And there is some evidence that the military did not fight wholeheartedly against the Maoist insurgency, bringing into question the Maoists' commitment to participating as a democratically elected political party.With these concerns, international support and pressure, especially in the form of media and civil society presence, are crucial to Nepal's current democratic transformation. Nepal got an opportunity to become a "new model" for legitimate democratic transformation. The behavior of monarchists and Maoists and the involvement of the international community will largely determine the success of Nepal's push for a democratically elected constituent assembly and its drafting of a new constitution.

On behalf of the North America Nepali Community, I urge the leaders of the Eight Parties to strengthen their unity and build an election atmosphere across the country to conduct CA elections fairly and peacefully. This is not the time to blame and quarrel each-other, leave your petty and self interests aside and work for the people's interest.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, August 1, 2007

Sustainability of Federalism in Nepal

Shirish Bhat

Abstract

Ethnic, linguistic, racial and religious conflicts have become the dominant issues facing the world order today. Nepal is not an exception. While many Nepalese politicians look on federalism enthusiastically and involve themselves profoundly on the process, many others are in ferment over the federal idea. Federalism provides no “one size fits all” type of solution. Each Country has to examine and adopt arrangements conducive and suitable for individual needs. Nepal too needs to explore the federal idea intensively and fully before deciding whether to accept or reject it or adopt it with appropriate innovation. We need to explore the federal idea and have an informed debate about its pros and cons and also on deciding whether we adopt or reject it.

Federalism

To date, many countries in the world including Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Comoros, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, The federated states of Micronesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, St. Kitts and Nevis, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, and Venezuela have federal and/or quasi-federal structures of government. Though federal, none of these countries share exactly the same system. Each country has different administrative arrangements and internal structures. They also vary greatly in size. Russia has republics and many types of regions within; India has states and union territories; Switzerland has cantons while Germany and Austria have landers. Belgium has three regions and three cultural communities while Spain has autonomous regions; the USA has states, unincorporated territories and Native American domestic dependent nations. Canada has provinces, territories and aboriginal organizations. Venezuela has states, territories, federal dependencies.

The proponents of federalism argue that adopting it will strengthen unity and territorial integrity. Switzerland, India, Malaysia, Belgium, Germany, Spain etc are cited as examples. But it cannot be denied that federalism has failed to prevent secession too. The disintegration of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are well - known examples. The Malaysia - Singapore and Pakistan - Bangladesh splits in the past as well as modern break-ups of Czech and Slovakia, Serbia and Montenegro are also lessons. In Canada, separatism flourished in Quebec despite federalism. Britain devolved power to Scotland and Wales but secessionism seems to have gained ground there. Nigerian federalism did not prevent the Biafran civil war. There are, however, many nuances to take into account when analyzing the countries in question.

Current Political Shift in Nepal

Ideas cannot be ‘killed’; these can only be defeated by greater or better ideas. Another truism is no force can stop an idea whose time has come. Nepal can be a perfect example of this truism.
A recent policy shift of a major political party, Nepali Congress, from ‘multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy’ to ‘federal democratic republic’ has created ripples in fluid politics of Nepal. Now, it seems supporters of federalism have increased in Nepal. The main supporters of the federalism are the Maoists and other communist parties. But none of them have started open and meaningful discussions for and against the system they want establish. There are both supporting and opposing arguments to federalism; however, the real issue is the desirability and sustainability of a federal set-up in a small and landlocked country which is diverse both religiously and ethnically. Many people think that in Nepal’s deeply polarized society, federalism can be worse. At one end there are the “unitarists” who are adamant that the unitary structure of the country should not be changed. At the other end are the “federalist” who want the country to make several “autonomous states with right to self-determination.” On this ground, one sees the federalism as a conspiracy to break up the nation while the other views it as a quest for “new Nepal.”

Can Federalism Bring Peace in Nepal?

Many questions raised by opposing to federalism are: can it bring lasting peace? Can it save our territorial integrity? Can it save our “unity in diversity”? Can it save our ages-long tradition of tolerance, harmony and brotherhood? As all the political leaders and interest groups haven’t done enough exercise or enough study on these questions and there has not been proper explanation on the suitability of federalism to the ordinary citizens, the answer is still uncertain. Many proponents of federalism may argue that a utopian devolution mechanism will cause things to happen in favor of bringing peace. But the causal connection is too remote to rely on. The bitter reality is that there can never be any practical devolution unit/mechanism/degree that all stakeholders can agree upon. Suppose a federal structure was put in place; then what? If the Maoist armed forces continue to remain thereafter, many fear a jobless army can be more dangerous. More complex issues exist about the police force. Therefore, federalism may not bring peace. For peace to hold, firstly, unlawful armed groups should be disarmed and lawful armed groups should uphold the law. Above all, rule of law and total end of impunity can secure us from socioeconomic disaster and political instability so deeply rooted in the nation.

Is Federalism a Sustainable Solution for Nepal?

The international communities (it is said) pressurize the political parties and the government to agree to a federal set-up, the question arises how sustainable would it be? Assuming a federal solution is put in place after a lot of haggling, pressurizing, etc. If it cannot bring about economic and political betterment in tangible proportions, the opposing forces will amass votes to bust it and that’s exactly what they will do when elected. Therefore, federal systems will not be able to be sustained unless they can add sizable amount of value to the aspirations of the majority. It is regrettable that most ‘political solutions’ disregard the aspirations of the majority in our country. It is apparent in Nepal that most of the political leaders and their ‘political solutions’ are guided by foreigners, specifically Indians. Moreover, it is very unlikely that the international community suppress the opposing forces forever and they continue to sustain the fragile ‘yes’ vote in favor of it.

Economics of Federalism and Conflicts over Water Resources

Who should benefit from the economic benefits of the natural resources? Should it be the residents in these regions or the nation as a whole? These are the questions that can cripple any federal set-up. Regional leaders and national leaders will have widely opposing views. It is easy to say the whole country will eventually benefit, but practically it is very difficult as evidenced from around the world. Matters will get even worse if foreign parties enter the fray, which is very likely to happen. A classic example on conflict over water resources is the Murray- Darling Basin development program of the Australian federal government. The basin drains roughly three-quarters of New South Wales, half of Victoria, a substantial portion of southern Queensland, and a small part of eastern South Australia The basin development program is not supported by states amidst a severe drought that has hit Australia. Victoria has repeatedly and decisively declined to cooperate as it has enough water resources. Nepal is not too far away in getting into such inter-region conflict once it is federalized. It will be unimaginably chaotic in a federal set-up and the army will have to be called-in to settle the matter given the fact that water is as important as gold in the dry zone. Prolonged and persistent conflicts can take a heavy toll and things will surely escalate when political forces interplay with them.

Diplomacy

Should the regions be allowed to formulate their diplomatic priorities or should they follow the central government? If they do not have such powers, the regions will surely demand it. It is no secret that Nepali Congress wants much closer ties with India, USA, Japan, and UK. Maoists want closer ties with China, North Korea, and Cuba. Other communist parties want to be closer with socialist countries around the world. Hindus want closer link with India, similarly Muslims would want closer link-ups with the Islamic world. These situations would heighten diplomatic importance to the various regions. Apart from obvious conflicting interests, how can Indian interest, for example, be managed by the central government and the regions? These conflicting interests may lead the nation into diplomatic anarchy under federalism. On the other hand, if the regions’ rights to diplomatic interests are curtailed, would federalism achieve its desired targets?

The Risk of Outside Interferers

Another big risk for the country and the regions is the risk of heightened outside interference.

NGOs and even the UN may run their own zones within some regions. In the absence of an acceptable regulator to both the regional and the central governments, these issues are likely to take the centre stage in any federal setting in Nepal. A ‘racial-federalism’ can be considered much more dangerous than federalism itself in Nepal. This doesn’t sound well but that’s exactly what most politicians in favor of federalism demand. A separate Muslim unit within the Hindu territory? Separate ‘Pahaadee’ unit within ‘Madhesi’ area? ‘Rai/Limbu’ area within ‘Newari’ territory? How ridiculously racial? We are likely to fall into a bigger ‘ethnic’ trap if we try to solve the ‘ethnic’ conflict by federalism. We should be moving in a different direction that can integrate the ethnic groups. We don’t differentiate ethnic celebrations, ethnic foodstuff and ethnic attire. We need our fellow citizens who run them to live and thrive in our nation among……

Final Remarks

Ethnic, linguistic, racial and religious conflicts have become the dominant issue facing the world order today. Wars after 1945 have been as much within countries as between them, with disastrous consequences for peace and security. While many Nepalese politicians (not silent majority of Nepalese people) in Nepal look on federalism enthusiastically and involve themselves profoundly on the process, the rest of the world is in ferment over the federal idea. There was a time when federalism was seen as the ideal remedy for many of the world’s political maladies. It was perceived as the universal device to achieve unity in diversity. Experience has shown that this is not necessarily true in all situations.

Federalism provides no “one size fits all” type of solution. Each Country has to examine and adopt arrangements conducive and suitable for individual needs. Nepal too needs to explore the federal idea intensively and fully before deciding whether to accept or reject it or adopt it with appropriate innovation. The federal idea is dynamic and constantly evolving. What we in Nepal need to do is to explore the federal idea and have an informed debate about its pros and cons and also on deciding whether we adopt or reject it.

Federalism will create new and never ending conflicts and confrontations on the issues of:
# Fixation and safeguarding of borders between states.
# Distribution and utilization of natural resources
# Rights to majority and minority in political, racial, religious, cultural issues (we should remember ill-fated Bhutanese Refugees in Nepal); Madhesi and Pahadi; backward and forward etc.
# Unlimited and unbearable economic burden to the nation ( for example, expenditure to one federal govt and ten state govts; one pm and ten chief ministers; one president and ten governors, one federal parliament and ten state parliaments etc …..)
Nepal, small in size and population, can be managed and governed by inclusive, constructive and cooperative system of representation. Let many ideas play. Let different parties contest and compete with a spirit of “rule of the games.” Let the sovereign people decide freely. Decentralization of power to the local governments with zero interference of the center can make a magic change. Living peace, political stability and the rule of law (good governance) are the basic conditions to flourish and strengthen democracy. Socioeconomic development is possible only in an atmosphere of national unity and mutual confidence among all stakeholders.

Source: Spotlight, VOL. 27, NO. 9, October 12, 2007

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY: Real or Farcical ?

Every body has been talking about Constituent Assembly; however, no body knows whether it is going to be farcical or real?

KESHAB POUDEL

"I will hold the elections for Constituent Assembly at any cost. That was the mandate given by the people." prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala (May 21, Kantipur 2007) "I will not compromise with anybody on holding the election for Constituent Assembly. I will not postpone it." Prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala ( October 4, 2004 meeting with Finish Minister).

Seven party unity needs to maintain and the new election date must be announced soon." Prime minister Koirala October 2007. Although he has already hold off the election twice, prime minister Koirala, the leader of the government, is still assuring the people that the elections will be conducted at any cost. Instead of dealing with the problems - which were hindering holding of free and fair election, prime minister Koirala was taken aback by ongoing situation.

People -who believed him - were too shocked by the postponement of the election. There are also some noted "experts and analysts" among people who were enjoying their wishful drive against the real decisive force. However, they were also disappointed by the decision to defer the election. "The postponement of elections shattered our notion that prime minister Koirala is man of action," said lawyer and member of civil society Bhimarjun Acharya. "I don't think election for CA. will be conducted"

Conducting the elections for Constituent Assembly and making a constitution through it is a very difficult task. Delaying of the election several times in recent days has proved that what elder generation of politicians did was right as elder politician showed respecting the drafts of the constitutions is more significant than the ritual of holding the elections for that. However, a group of communist, all the time, has taken a stand against the main trend of democratic forces to formulate the constitution by consensus rather than to make it an issue of contesting farcical election for Constituent Assembly.

One has to take the postponement of CA elections as a bitter truth on the basis of ground reality. An unseen power, which has decisive influence in the government and the decision making process of all the members of the alliance of ruling coalition, does not want it. The conflict between the prevailing public opinion and the unseen power seems to be incompatible. Thus, the present deadlock- the postponement of CA elections- supports that apprehension," said the political analyst.

Past Experiments

At the grass root level, everybody needs political stability and social order as a foremost priority. To achieve stability and order, a strong parliament, elected through electoral process, is required. Nepal's past experiences have proved that a first-past-post system of elections comes out with major parties; thus, they forms strong and stable governments. The brief experiments of the first parliamentary form between 1958 and 1960 and the second parliamentary form between 1991 and 2002 were the successful examples of strong and stable governments. Nonetheless, these governments suffered reversal through unconstitutional methods or by other kinds of extra constitutional machinations.

After the dismissal of Sher Bahadur Deuba's government by King Gyanendra on October 3, 2002, subsequent events were not in accordance with the constitution. As a result, the last experiment of parliamentary democracy was jeopardized. Like democratic minded people, the institution of monarchy has also faced a great crisis. A wishful thinking of monarch could not change the situation in his favor. The situation is similar with the seven party's leadership when they delayed the election repeatedly. "The King failed once in his push but this coalition has failed twice to hold the election. Prime minister Koirala expressed his wish that in an abnormal situation in his country, the elections too would be abnormal. He failed miserably even to hold that kind of elections which he had visualized," said the analyst.

Prime minister Koirala has several alternatives for the people and the parties of alliance. Nevertheless, both the people and parties seem to have no alternative for prime minister. Even after the postponement of Constituent Assembly for uncertain period, Koirala has assured the people about the continuation of his leadership to next poll. "This is time to show that there need a strong unity among seven parties alliance. This unity needs to persist till the elections will be held." prime minister reportedly told CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal. Prime minister Koirala's indication is that he has capability to retain this unity. CPN-UML backs Koirala as an incontrovertible leader.

Functioning of Party

As Nepal's political parties are not guided by grass root level popular opinion, there is slim possibility to produce impartial outcome. The way political party functions in Nepal does not truly reflect the opinion of the grass root. Instead, it reflects the opinion of the center of patronage. In normal democratic process, leadership is influenced by the people but in a handicapped democracy like in Nepal, people are forced to decide in accordance to their party or patrons.

Leo Rose and John T. Scholz have written in their book Nepal Profile of a Himalayan Kingdom, "The structure of these early party organizations reflected the patron-client relationship characteristic of the Rana social order, although there was considerable more variety in party recruitment techniques than Rana patrons had. Some leaders gathered followers through personal charisma or ideological persuasion, other through previous acquaintances in schools, the British or Indian army, or earlier political activities, still others by extension of more traditional relationships or ethnic identity. Successful party leaders attracted followers who themselves were patrons with their own following, thus creating party linkages based on personal support through several intermediate patrons."

"Loyalty varied considerably in intensity and longevity, with numerous intermediate patrons shifting their allegiance when conditions changed. Ethnic identities, status, conflicts, and regional factors, of course, limited the interchangeability of these intermediaries- if a powerful notable joined one party, local factions opposed him would seek the support of a competing party," write authors duo. The recent convention of Nepali Congress is an example of how senior party leader forced his juniors to accept decision as he wished. Despite absolute majority in the central committee who favors that the fate of monarchy be decided by the Constituent Assembly, the party endorsed republican agenda. As Congress president and prime minister Koirala knew that the party leaders were against his move, he ruled out the issues in debate and vote. Moreover, he declared that his fellow members should endorse his proposal for republic form."If a credible and liberal democratic party like Nepali Congress has that kind of working behavior, one cannot imagine the lowest ebb of other parties of the alliance in which almost all are of one party totalitarian ethos of communist dogmas," said the analyst.

With half of the population illiterate and more than 30 percent of the population living below poverty line, the country is handicapped in several senses. In addition to these, the country has not developed infrastructures well as mechanisms to guarantee the rule of law. As there are ways to rig election in a handicapped country like Nepal, it is just a wishful thinking to hold free and fair election. "Above all these, there are other serious constraints of zonal conflict which has its disguise and influence. A prolonged crisis of political instability has made all previous efforts to build up required infrastructures and procedures to govern ineffective and irregular. In such a background, it is unthinkable that people in Nepal will be able to decide their fate fairly and fearlessly," said the analyst. "When all these things have already been destroyed by a ruling syndicate under the blessing of an unseen power, the sovereign people would be force to accept the fate accompli"

In search of a better constitutional order, Maoists faction of communist led an insurrection in which about 15000 persons lost their lives. There was irreparable loss in every aspect. Despite all these, Maoists failed to materialize their dreams after they got stuck in their conflicting choice between personal ambitions and political ideals. Leaders of previous parliamentary parties have lost their will to adhere to the "ideal" constitution of 1990. Like Maoist, they have also failed to formulate better alternative constitution than what the nation has practiced through previous parliaments. "In such a situation, an honest soul searching require from all segments of society instead of roaming in the wilderness for a better constitutional order. Let there be a direct decision of the people through referendum as Maoist and CPN-UML demanded as an alternative proposal to end deadlock. It would be very logical and prudent to let the people decide whether they support the same constitution of 1990 which was an outcome of Janadolan I or they want a new one based upon republican model," said the analyst.

"It is unnecessary to put monarchy into referendum if the previous constitution is out voted in the referendum. The fate of monarchy would consider shield and if people don't want another form of constitution and the whole extremist pressure will be subsided and the country would much ahead to tackle its all round progress and development," said the analyst. However, none of the political parties has clear perceptions about the firms and contents of the coming constitution. They have repeatedly declared to the people that the election will be held on time. Nonetheless, they have already postponed the election twice. Despite their failure to substantiate their promises, they still have reasons to believe that the elections for Constituent Assembly will be held on time. The eight parties have again promised to conduct impartial election on time. However, people still have reasons to question, "Is the election going to be real or farcical?"

Source: Spotlight, VOL. 27, NO. 9, October 12, 2007

Is Nepal's democracy in danger?

Rabindra Mishra

A political crisis in Nepal is set to worsen after the postponement, for the third time, of elections for a Constituent Assembly (CA) that has to draw up a blueprint for the country's future.

Many analysts are doubting if the polls will be held at all.

They also say the latest postponement of the polls will only benefit the monarchy, which is ironic given that all the major parties have agreed on the abolition of the monarchy. The Maoist rebels have been blamed for the postponement of the elections for coming up with two new demands:

• That the monarchy be abolished immediately by the present, interim parliament
• That the CA elections be held on a fully proportional voting system

Both the demands contradicted their earlier agreement with seven political parties who they joined in opposition to King Gyanendra. The postponement of the polls should be viewed against the wider Maoist strategy.

Change

In their days as a guerrilla force, their fundamental strategy was to gain influence in the countryside before surrounding and entering the capital, Kathmandu, for a final strike. A decade of insurgency left them dominating much of rural Nepal. But when the Maoists realised intimidation and violence were less effective in Kathmandu, they changed their strategy. In late 2004, they decided to work with mainstream political parties to further their goals. The strategy received a boost when King Gyanendra sacked the democratic government and took over power in February 2005. Enraged by the king's action, the mainstream political parties, who had in the past refused to collaborate with the Maoists, decided to accept the rebels into their fold. Together, the Maoists and the seven mainstream parties took on the king in a series of street protests in April 2006 that resulted in the king handing back power. In subsequent months, the Maoists became part of the interim parliament and the government. They also went about gaining as much influence as possible in commerce, the media and other areas of public life in the capital. So having established themselves in Kathmandu, they have one final objective left - to capture power.

Pressure

Most analysts agree that the Maoists have little chance of doing this through competitive politics. They have lost much of their influence in the countryside, and are unpopular in the cities. That seems to be why they wanted November's elections put off. In the meantime they will try to pressure other parties to agree to their demands for the immediate ending of the monarchy and for the CA polls to be held under a fully proportional voting system. They have also shown an ability to outwit their opponents in a way that erodes the authority of much of the state. It was the failure of the democratic parties, the king, the army and other security agencies which made the Maoists' journey to the capital possible in the first place. Now they have reached a point where they seem able to put a break on a national objective like holding elections, something that virtually the entire country had agreed on. This, many say, has severely weakened the public's confidence in its legitimate institutions.

Bloodshed fears

Many people have begun to talk about Nepal entering an era of either ultra-rightist (military or military-backed) or ultra-leftist (Maoist) dictatorship. They are not ruling out bloodshed between the army and the Maoists, who have concentrated a large number of their members in Kathmandu. The coming days and months are crucial for Nepal's fragile peace process. So is the special session of parliament on Thursday which will look into various options to address the prevailing crisis. It is understood that the army has already opposed the idea of the current interim parliament declaring Nepal a republic. Sources say the army is also unhappy about Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala's Nepali Congress Party's recent decision to vote for the abolition of the monarchy when the Constituent Assembly meets. The Maoists have now hinted that they are ready to compromise on the timing of the abolition of the monarchy. But they look far less likely to compromise on the proportional representation issue. Whatever is decided - and other options are up for discussion - the result could well need amendments to the constitution and relevant electoral laws. From all this mess, it is King Gyanendra who is gaining.

From a position of rock-bottom unpopularity, when he had to give up power in April, 2006, his standing has been gradually picking up - thanks to the chaos and discord among the political parties and Maoists. Some leaders now say that democracy in Nepal is in serious danger. They are arguing that a broader coalition should be formed which would also take into its fold the pro-monarchy forces to stop the country from sliding into dictatorship. But the wider held view is that a final showdown between the army and the Maoists in Kathmandu is more likely than ever. If such a situation arises, nobody knows who will prevail. However, one Indian expert on Nepal, retired Gen Ashok Mehta, believes that Delhi would be prepared to give military help to the government in Kathmandu rather than see the Maoists seizing power by force.

Source: BBC News Service, October 8, 2007

India for legitimate poll process in Nepal

Kathmandu, (PTI): India would support any political system chosen by the Nepalese people as long as it is through a legitimate election process, Indian Prime Minister's envoy, Shyam Saran, said here Friday, stressing full support to the peace process in the Himalayan nation. India would support whatever political system the people of Nepal would decide, Saran said, adding that the best way to get the mandate of the people is through the legitimate means of election.

India regards holding free and fair constituent assembly election of central importance for ensuring lasting peace and multi-party democracy in Nepal," said Saran, who held high-level discussions with a wide range of political leaders including Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, CPN-UML general secretary, Madhav Kumar Nepal, and Maoist chief Prachanda among others.
"In India's view, election is the only way for the people of Nepal to choose their future, including the manner in which they want to be governed," said Saran, a former Indian Foreign Secretary.
The special envoy of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is on a three-day visit to Nepal to assess the political situation and convey the message of the Indian leader after the crucial November constituent assembly elections were postponed.

India remained committed to help the peace process in every way possible to achieve the goal of a democratic, stable and prosperous Nepal," the former Indian Ambassador to Nepal told mediapersons ahead of his departure for New Delhi Friday. Saran's remarks came at a time when the Maoists have walked out of the government, forced the postponement of the polls and registered a motion in the interim Parliament seeking the abolition of the monarchy and adoption of a proportional-based electoral system as precondition for participating in the polls.
Indian envoy Saran said he is "optimistic" that the current political crisis facing Nepal can be resolved on the basis of an understanding among the major political parties.

"There is no reason why the peace process should fail, we should look towards the positive achievements of Nepal made over the past two years," he said. "We would like to see this peace process and electoral process remain on track," Saran said. "The sooner the elections are held, the better it would be for progress of the peace process." He repeatedly stressed that it is the right of the people of Nepal to decide how they want to be governed and what type of political system they want, and the only legitimate way of doing so is holding the Constituent Assembly elections at the earliest. "India will support whatever mandate the people of Nepal will give and the international community believes that election is the only credible way to get the people's mandate," he noted. Saran also stressed that the genuine demands of the Terai region must be addressed while resolving the political issues in the country.

"But we must be able to distinguish between the genuine political demands of the Terai groups and the criminal activities being carried out by some groups taking the advantage of the open border," he said. Nepal's six-party alliance running the interim government has been insisting that a fresh mandate was necessary to decide the fate of the 238-year old monarchy in a legitimate manner. The Maoists and their allies command only 85 seats in the 330 seat parliament and their motion cannot be endorsed without the support of the other parties in the ruling alliance.

Source: The Hindu, Chennai, October 13, 2007

Nepal debates monarchy's future

The interim parliament in Nepal is holding an emergency debate on the future of King Gyanendra.

The meeting is being held at the instigation of former Maoist rebels, who pulled out of the coalition government last month. The Maoists are demanding the immediate abolition of the monarchy. But the governing Nepali Congress party is insisting that a new parliament should first be elected which will decide the future of the royal family. Elections, which were earlier scheduled for 22 November, have now been postponed and no new date has been set for the vote.

Deadlock

"We are confident that our proposal will be adopted by the parliament. We are negotiating with other parties to persuade them to back our proposal," Maoist spokesman Dev Gurung said. Nepal's Home Minister Krishna Prasad Situala said that the government was confident that the crisis will be resolved through the debate in parliament. He said that talks would be held with all parties to reach an agreement. The two sides have been trying to find a solution to the deadlock since the Maoists withdrew from the government. Elections to the constituent assembly were delayed earlier this month after the two sides failed to come to an agreement on the fate of the monarchy. The elections are a key element of a peace deal signed in 2006 that ended 10 years of Maoist insurgency. One of the first tasks facing the new constituent assembly when it is elected is to decide the monarchy's future. But the former rebels now demand a republic be announced before elections are held. Last week, the Nepali Congress announced its support for a republic - but only once elections had been held.

Source: BBC NEWS: October 11, 2007

Prime Minister Who Would Be King

Yubaraj Ghimire

G.P. koirala was arguably the most powerful prime minister the country ever had, going by the powers vested in him. For the past 16 months, he has been acting not only as the country's prime minister, but also discharging all the roles of the head of state. And King Gyanendra has become a political recluse.

Koirala has of late come in for sharp criticism for representing the state in various Hindu religious functions like the kings have been doing for a century in 'Hindu Nepal'. With the country declared secular in May 2007, it was expected that the government or head of state would maintain no direct link with such activities. On September 30, about half an hour after Koirala offered puja to Kumari, known as living Goddess, as head of the state and left the durbar square area, King Gyanendra arrived there without fanfare. He offered puja to Kumari, a tradition the kings have been maintaining for the past 250 years, and returned home. The crowd that booed Prime Minister Koirala when he visited there, greeted the king — something Gyanendra perhaps did not anticipate.

That clearly irked PM Koirala who not only sought an explanation from the chief of army staff a day later, but also ordered that half the army personnel currently deployed in the palace be removed. But many who supported the pro-democracy movement when King Gyanendra assumed absolute power are now fed up with Koirala and refuse to support him on the issue.

In fact, the crowd that hooted him delivered a simple message — Koirala is a prime minister and he should not be acting like a king, at least during religious functions. Nepali society with more than 80 per cent Hindu population, and the rest being Buddhists, Muslims and Christians, still remains a religious society and favours the king or any other individual's right to religion, something that the interim constitution guarantees as a fundamental right. Koirala has been denying that right to King Gyanendra of late.

Gyanendra, despite his unpopularity at the peak with absolute powers, was able to secure lots of sympathy, if not support from the people, when he was literally put under quarantine since February 18 when he issued a customary message in the name of the people on the occasion of Democracy Day. Since then, thrice in the past, the king was denied permission by the prime minister when he expressed his desire to be part of the tradition of the kings. Instead, Koirala took the king's role unto himself.

But what he apparently heard from the chief of army staff on the morning of October 1 must have added to that insecurity. COAS Katawal made it clear that while the Nepal army was a disciplined institution and willing to carry every order of a democratically elected government, it was worried about the complete surrender that the prime minister had made to the Maoists. He also made it clear that the army would honour each and every provision of the interim constitution and the comprehensive peace agreement (CPA), the basis of Maoists joining the interim government, parliament and announcing that they had renounced the politics of violence. The army is unhappy with initiating a deal with the Maoists to become a republic even before the election to the constituent assembly takes place, against the pledge in the interim constitution that the first CA meeting will decide the fate of the monarchy.

With elections unlikely in November given the present political impasse, Koirala not only loses the political but also the mass support that he enjoyed only 16 months ago. His imminent fall now seems triggered by the army's likely non-cooperation as well.

Source: The Indian Experss, October 4, 2007

Stalemate in Nepal

Padmaja Murthy, INFA

Nepal appears to be heading for turmoil once again, with the Maoists quitting the interim coalition Government led by Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and threatening to return to the streets if the country was not declared a republic immediately. The first casualty of the Maoists action seems to be the disruption of the year-long peace agreement between the CPN- M and the political parties. With the election process already on uncertainty now looms large on whether the 22 November elections to the Constituent Assembly will go ahead as scheduled. Given the Maoists threat to derail the poll plans. It appears that the Maoists action was dictated by the feedback that they may not get a sizeable share in the seats Assembly and they had started having second thoughts on the entire political process initiated in the last few months. In fact, the Maoists wanted some dramatic shift like the abolition of the monarchy to swing votes in their favour. With the ruling Nepali Congress unwilling to go along with this type of change it has resulted not only in a stalemate between the Party and the Maoists but also put a question mark on the election process.

The genesis of the problem has it roots in the Jan Andolan II of April 2006 which forced King Gyanendra to restore the House of Representatives, dissolved in May 2002.When the House met in late April, it committed itself to holding the elections for a Constituent Assembly and a Government under Prime Minister Koirala was formed. The HOR declared itself a 'sovereign,' 'secular' and 'supreme' body, brought the army under civilian control, dissolved the royal Privy Council and cut the power and privileges of the King. A 25-point Code of Conduct was also drawn up between the Maoists and the Government during the ceasefire period. In November 2006, the Maoist Chairman Prachanda signed a historic deal with the Seven Party Alliance (SPA). The SPA consists of the Nepali Congress, Nepali Congress (Democratic), Communist Party of Nepal (UML), Jan Morcha Nepal, Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, Nepal Sadbhavana Party (A) and United left Front. Among other things, it called for elections to the Constituent Assembly (CA). Having had their way, the Maoists had successfully changed the political agenda in Nepal. Thus began the transition process in Nepal. With a clear goal to hold the Constituent Assembly elections.

The CA so elected would then draft a new Constitution which would transform the socio-politico-economic structure of Nepal, making it both democratic and inclusive. Given the consensus, the CA would also declare Nepal a republic. Prachanda also signed the historic Comprehensive Peace Agreement which declared the end of war that had been going on since 1996 between the Maoists and the Government. The tri-partite agreement on arms management of both the Nepali Army (NA) and the Maoist People's Liberation Army (PLA) was concluded between the UN, the Government and the CPN-(Maoist). In January this year, an interim Constitution promulgated by the SPA and the Maoists set-up a 330-member interim legislature which included 73 from the CPN (Maoist). The 22-member Cabinet which included 5 Maoist was headed by Prime Minister Koirala. From being branded as terrorists the Maoists were now partners in the Government.

The transition period, so far, has seen instances of great statesmanship and flexibility. Sadly, what stands out is the extreme violence, use of arms, abductions, extortions, killings and rigid stands taken by various groups. Resulting in serious reservations about whether the Constituent Assembly elections would be held at all as scheduled on 22 November 2007. Nepal, a country with a population of over 30 million has more than 100 ethnic/caste groups and over 93 languages. Post Jana Andolan II, many of these ethnic/caste groups - some old and some new are asserting for their rights once again. They believe that unless they have enough representatives elected in the CA, their political space will not be guaranteed which in turn will determine their economic and social space. While the interim legislative Parliament agreed on a mixed electoral system, they are now demanding complete proportional system for the CA elections.

The demand on the nature of federalism and autonomy and self determination varies from group to group. They want assurances on all these aspects before the CA elections are held. What has complicated matters is that these groups, like the Maoist insurgents, have adopted extreme violent means to put forward their demands. The agitations in Terai have become a major cause of concern .The Government held four rounds of talks with the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) but could not reach an agreement on key issues. It has called other agitating groups in the region for dialogue. The Janatantrik Mukti Morcha (Jwala Group) has ordered officials, hailing from the hills to leave the Terai plains, thereby vitiating the already tense atmosphere. Moreover, some of these groups have violent conflicts among themselves and also with the Maoist affiliated Madhesi groups. The Chure Bhawar Ekta Samaj has been demanding security and protection of rights of people of hilly region living in Madhesi region and an autonomous status for Chure Bhawar region.

The Government has held several rounds of negotiations with the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NFIN). It has also agreed to at least one representation of the 59 listed ethnic communities. The NFIN too has climbed down from its demand for a fully proportional representation based elections to the CA. The indefinite bandh called by Sanghiya Limbuwan Rajya Morcha and Khumbuvan Rashtriya Morcha (KRM) continue to paralyse life in eastern districts. There are agitations by the Dalit Civil Society Movement calling for 20 per cent reservation for the Dalit community in the Constituent Assembly. On the other hand the Maoist affiliated Young Communist League is engaging in indiscriminate abductions and torture. Going back on its earlier consensus, the Maoists now want a Republic declared before the CA elections. They are also demanding a fully proportional electoral system and not the mixed electoral system agreed to by them earlier.

The second round of verification of the Maoist combatants and arms by the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) is also facing problems due to non-compliance by the Maoists. In sum, all these issues need to addressed before the Constituent Assembly elections. The agitating groups need to realize that the CA elections will benefit them. For that law and order needs to be maintained. Importantly, the Constituent Assembly elections are a means to an end and not an end in itself. Only when the process of drafting a new Constitution concludes can Nepal be said to be out of the transition period. It is the only real chance of stability in Nepal. Between Jana Andoaln I and Jana Andolan II, the politico-socio-economic agenda of Nepal has permanently and positively changed. Whoever comes to power has to address the legitimate grievances of the marginalized sections of society. The CA elections will institutionalize the gains made so far and take the transition process further. If the civil society in Nepal is any indication, they will choose stability to anarchy. Further with the support from international actors, it is a task which needs to be accomplished.

Source: Central Chronicle, September 24, 2007

Q&A: Nepal's future

Former Maoist rebels in Nepal say they are pulling out from the interim government in protest over its failure to abolish the monarchy ahead of constituent assembly elections due to be held in November.

Why do the Maoists say they want to quit now?

The Maoists accuse Nepal's interim coalition government of failing to function in the spirit of the agreements reached earlier this year, when they say it was agreed that the monarchy should be abolished before the constituent assembly elections. Other parties in the interim government deny there was such an agreement.
In a list of demands submitted to the government, the Maoists called for Nepal immediately to become a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy. They also want the country to adopt a proportional representation system of elections, and for the vote itself to be delayed.
They have demanded that a commission should be established to investigate the disappearances of their supporters during Nepal's decade-long civil war, as well as better salaries for their former fighters, who they say are not being properly integrated into the country's army as agreed earlier this year.
Some observers say the Maoists have only threatened to withdraw because they fear they will not perform well in the 22 November elections.
So will they really leave the government?
The prime minister has not yet accepted the resignation of the four Maoists in the cabinet. Some analysts say that in tendering their resignations, the Maoists might just be trying to exert pressure on the prime minister and his allies to bow to their demands.

Are the Maoists likely to return to armed conflict?

The rebels have currently given no indication that they will return to arms, and have insisted that following last year's ceasefire with the government, they are committed to the path of peace.
Correspondents say that one option they may follow is to pursue a coalition agreement with the mainstream Nepal Communist Party (United Marxist-Leninist) - one of Nepal's mainstream political parties - and in so doing gain a significant share of power in the constituent assembly administration.

What is the point of the constituent assembly?

Under the terms of last year's peace deal, the future of the monarchy was supposed to have been decided by a democratically elected constitutional body, or constituent assembly, which will decide the country's future by devising a new constitution.
Critics of the rebels say that the issue of the monarchy was resolved in earlier negotiations with the rebels. At that time they said that their declared aim was for Nepal to become a communist republic, and that they would respect whatever the constituent assembly decided about the future of the monarchy.
All this comes amid a rise in ethnic and religious tension in Nepal, as different regional and political groups strive to assert their authority in advance of the polls.

Why did the Maoists suspend their armed struggle in November 2006?

The Maoists called a ceasefire after King Gyanendra ended his controversial direct rule in April 2006 and restored parliament.
The king backed down after weeks of strikes and protests against his rule which saw huge demonstrations against him.
Political parties who were then in opposition, and are now in government, had promised to work with the Maoists as a prelude to bringing them into government.

Why did the king back down and agree to reconvene parliament?

The short answer is the sheer size of the demonstrations against him - some of the biggest that the country has ever witnessed.
Faced with this vast display of people power, analysts say that the king had no choice but to back down or the country would have descended into anarchy.
Observers say with international pressure mounting on him and the mood among his opponents at home hardening, particularly after the deaths of a number of protesters at the hands of the security forces, the king had few other options.
The current parliament has now effectively reduced the monarchy to a ceremonial role. It has also ended Nepal's status as a Hindu state and turned it into a secular state.

Why did the king seize power in February, 2005?

He accused Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba's government of failing to win the support of the Maoist rebels for a deadline for peace talks and of failing to prepare the ground for elections in the spring of 2005.
However, analysts suggest the king might have been using these issues to strengthen his own role in Nepalese politics, perhaps seeking to create an absolute monarchy.
Whatever his intentions, his plans backfired and he finds himself in a much weaker position now, having in effect catalysed his opponents and the rebels into forging peace.

How strong are the Maoists?

At the height of their insurrection, the Maoists were virtually in control of most of rural Nepal, although the authorities disputed this.
They were frequently capable of launching enforced blockades of major towns and cities, showing they had the power to paralyse the economy.
As part of the ceasefire deal, both the rebels and the army agreed to put their arms beyond use under UN supervision, with former rebels confined to their bases at cantonments across the country.
Some analysts argue that the emergence in recent months of around a dozen armed groups in the south of the country - all extremely hostile to the former rebels - has meant that their hold over this populous part of the country has been weakened. In the cities, their support has never been strong.
But the rebels have remained capable of holding large-scale rallies across the country, and have threatened to use this tactic again on a large scale if their latest demands are not met.

Where do the Maoists derive their ideology?

The Maoists claim to be inspired by Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong and want to establish a communist state.
Their shadowy leader's name, Prachanda, is translated as "the fierce one". The group is modelled on Peru's Maoist Shining Path guerrillas.

What was the human cost of the conflict?

More than 13,000 people were killed in violence in Nepal when the insurgency began 10 years ago, many of them civilians caught in cross-fire with security forces.
Both sides in the conflict were frequently accused of carrying out human rights abuses.

Source: BBC NEWS: September 18, 2007

Maoists 'short of options' in Nepal

Dhruba Adhikary

Nepal's interim government faces its first major setback after former Maoist rebels announced their decision to recall their ministers from the cabinet.

The withdrawal of a major partner from the coalition comes just two months before the country goes to crucial polls to elect an assembly tasked with drawing up a new, democratic constitution.
The Maoist announcement, however, was neither sudden nor unexpected.
While Prime Minister GP Koirala was familiar with Maoist discontent, he and leaders of other political parties in the government did not actually believe that the former rebels would leave the team before the task was completed.

The rebels had, after all, ended a decade-long armed insurgency in order to be a part of mainstream politics.
When Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai announced that all four Maoist ministers had resigned from posts they had occupied since April, he accused leaders of other coalition groups of not taking their well-publicised 22-point list of demands seriously.
Maoist leaders have also been saying that two of their demands are important if the polls set for 22 November are to be a meaningful exercise.

Monarchy row

Their first main demand is that the feudal institution of the monarchy be abolished ahead of the polls, to be replaced by a republic.
The second is that the traditional first-past-the-post electoral system be changed to one of proportional representation.

The Maoists consider this essential to give space to traditionally marginalised groups in society.
Maoist leader Bhattarai sought to offer reassurances that, although the former rebels opposed the November vote, his party would not withdraw their commitment to the peace process.
He also said that Maoist combatants now sheltered in UN-monitored cantonments would remain where they have been living for the past few months.

The written understanding reached previously to work with the coalition of seven parties, Mr Bhattarai said, would not be cancelled.
But it is not clear how reliable such assurances are, given that the Maoist leadership has already issued directives to their comrades across the country to launch a "peaceful" agitation with a view to preventing the forthccoming elections - which from their standpoint would be a farce.

Maoist vote fears

Elections cannot be free and fair as long as the monarchy is allowed to survive with possible support from a loyal army, goes the Maoist theory. Independent political analysts suspect that the Maoists' decision to stay away from the polls is because they now realise that it is simply not feasible to expect to gain a majority of votes from people who were terrorised by them in the past.
But the Maoists do not agree with this viewpoint and say they have been forced to change their position in the context of growing conspiracies.
They accuse external powers (mainly India and the US) of not wanting a stable and prosperous Nepal with China as its northern neighbour.

Prime Minister Koirala and other coalition leaders appear disappointed by the Maoist attitude over the monarchy.
They say they have all publicly expressed their commitment to opt for a republican set-up after the November polls, and there was no need for the Maoists to cast doubt on the sincerity of other partners who worked together to bring about the political changes which ended palace rule in April 2006.

Left coalition?

Mr Koirala and other party leaders want the Maoist leadership to honour the agreements they signed - and say they face losing credibility as a political party if they do not.
Some of the leaders are angry with the Maoists for trying to deprive other parties of their due credit for having played a role in the continuing changes.
Analysts say that the Maoist have limited options.
The chances of their going back underground are slim in view of the sea change in overground politics in the past year.

Crossing the border into India is not easy either, especially in view of Delhi's changed policy towards the Maoists.
Indian authorities are also concerned over the growing Maoist menace that some of its states have been facing in recent years.
One possible way out for the Maoists would be to settle for some kind of coalition politics with other left-wing parties.
In fact, some of the smaller left-leaning parties have already started to receive feelers from the Maoists about forging an alliance.

Source: BBC, News, September 18, 2007

Red Army in the Dragon Kingdom

Deepak Adhikari

Another Maoist insurgency is going to rock yet another country in South Asia, if the statements made by the leaders of the Communist Party of Bhutan Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (CPM MLM) are anything to go by. “Preliminary preparations for an insurgency are over. We are going to launch it soon,” says Vikalpa, nom-de-plume of CPB MLM General Secretary.

Bhutan is holding its parliamentary elections in March and April 2008. But, prior to the election date, CPB MLM plans to launch its ‘People’s War’ in the Himalayan kingdom.
The goal: Abolition of monarchy and establishment of a republic.
Following the footsteps of Nepali Maoists who had submitted a 40-point demand to the then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba before launching a ‘People’s War’, CPB MLM faxed a 13-point demand to the Royal Government of Bhutan on March 22, 2007.

The letter stressed the need to “introduce people’s democracy in the place of absolute monarchy.” The party has asked for multi-party democracy, repatriation of the refugees to their original homes with honor and dignity, release of all political prisoners and to introduce the land reform act etc.

Vikalpa (literally, alternative) says that fulfillment of the demands would have paved the way for a peaceful resolution. “But, the government, rather than taking it seriously, has unleashed terror by arresting commoners, and this has prompted us to wage an armed struggle,” says CPB supremo Vikalpa.The Druk regime is yet to respond to these demands.

The unfolding events suggest that South Asia’s only active monarchy that is ruling the so-called ‘Last Shangri-La’ is likely to take the country into Maoist violence. The eruption of militancy in northeastern South Asia will not only push Bhutan into turmoil but the two biggest Asian power i.e. India and China will have to deal with yet another insurgency in their backyards.

Source: Toriganthe TV, September 25, 2007

The Political Stand Off In Nepal

Harsh Dobhal

This week, Maoists have resigned from the government after most governing parties opposed their demand that the monarchy be abolished before the elections scheduled in November. They have clearly accused PM Koirala and his Nepali Congress of trying to protect King Gyanendra and have warned to start a new "people's revolt" for the abolition of monarchy. Maoists were quick to gather that conservative elements in political parties are gathering together. Other coalition partners contend that the decision about Nepal's future political system should be decided by a special assembly after the November elections.

Having suffered for decades at the hands of a brutal, Royal Nepalese Army, armed police and king's other security forces, the people of Nepal rose in millions during the April revolution last year with a clear objective in mind: abolition of the centuries-old monarchy.
Despite American, Chinese and Indian chess games of diplomacy, the people of Nepal succeeded in putting their stamp on history and the king was forced to retreat and give up his absolute and unlimited powers. As in all revolutions, there was always the danger that the forces of reaction would regroup and old hawks of Nepali politics will try to have their way.

After over a decade of underground struggle, Maoists came over ground, disarmed and joined the government with the Seven Party Alliance. They put forward a series of unprecedented proposals for the restoration of true democracy, the disarming of the militia and drafting of a new Constitution. It was a brave decision by Maoists to outline the roadmap for a brave new Nepal.
Maoists, as much as the people, were always clear that monarchy should have no place in Nepali politics, that the country should be immediately declared a Republic. They never had any doubt that Nepal needs a general election, having abolished monarchy where the most marginalized - the dalits, the adivasis, madhesis, vanvasis, women, minorities and other weaker sections - will have adequate representation.

At that time the move was seen as an end to their armed rebellion and this little, beautiful Himalyan nation appeared to be on the threshold of a new era. This week, Maoists have resigned from the government after most governing parties opposed their demands that the monarchy be abolished before the elections scheduled for November.
They have clearly accused Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and his Nepali Congress of trying to protect King Gyanendra and have warned to start a new "people's revolt" for the abolition of monarchy. Other coalition partners contend that the decision about Nepal's future political system should be decided by a special assembly after the November elections.

The Maoists had earlier joined the interim government in April 2006, after signing a peace agreement with the government. The new developments simply signify the fact that Nepal's politics has been slowly but steadily lapsing into complacency from such momentous changes that were paving the way for not just consistent and lasting democratisation of the State but also its secularisation from a declared only Hindu State.
Maoists were quick to gather that conservative elements in political parties are gathering together. However, these forces would be compelled to come to negotiation with Maoists as the tide might rise once again. Maoists may have lost some ground after April Revolution of last year, but they have enough base to win back that ground. And they know it, for otherwise none is going to be as hard hit by new developments as Maoists who had laid down their weapons at a time when the mood in Nepal was upbeat.

The crisis that had been gathering over Nepal howsoever surreptitiously during past few months bode ill for the Maoists. And, they had no option but to take a strong decision to quit the government. Koirala had sadly been missing this till the Maoists decided to part away with his dispensation. Even if the country goes to polls on November 22, the appeal of the Maoists would be powerful, as they have raised more basic issues than merely electing legislators. So it is in the best interest of the government and the people to see as to how the Maoists' participation in not just polls but the political process is won back.

India has come under Nepalese ire, for Koirala has been blamed of toeing New Delhi's line. Yet, the fact is that the Manmohan Singh Government is grappling with its own crisis where the Left is miffed by it over the nuclear issue and it lacks the kind of cohesion that it had until last year when the Nepal crisis was solved.
India can facilitate in solving a crisis in a neighbouring country like Nepal, but it can only ill afford to dictate anything to any one. The move by Maoists has raised fresh questions about the peace process and stability in Nepal. Will the feudal, pro-monarchy forces and their external patrons come together for maneuver? Does the political mainstream of Nepal now belong to these elements or to radical forces?

Is the spirit of the April revolution still lingering in the hearts of Nepalese people? Are some of the parties engaging in a conspiracy against the peoples' aspirations and demands? The answers to these and many other questions will unfold in coming weeks and months.

Source: Counter Currents.Org, September 25, 2007

NEPAL: INDIA IMPOSE TRAVEL RESTRICTION ON MAOISTS

Latest reports have it that the Indian establishment has issued a ban order against the Maoists in Nepal from entering into their Territory. To recall, it was India that sheltered the Nepali Maoists for over a decade when they were waging a revolt in their homeland and were categorized as terrorists across the globe. The US has yet to lift the terrorist tag from the Maoists.

Now, the Maoists after joining the main stream politics consider themselves as a democratic force and prior to that signed an agreement in New-Delhi with the main stream political parties in Nepal, this Indian move to stop the Maoists is rather perplexing, say analysts. To recall, the Indian establishment brought the leaders of the then agitating seven parties in Nepal in Delhi and managed a “12-Point Treaty” with the Maoists on November 22, 2005 which facilitated the Monarch to step down from power.

As reported, some Maoists’ leaders along with their cadres who were trying to cross the border from somewhere in Baitadi district were stopped by the Border Security Force saying that they have orders to stop them from entering into India.

Source: The Telegraph Nepal, September 27, 2007

Why the king must go

Billy Briggs

In an exclusive interview, Billy Briggs talks to the Maoist commander who may soon determine his country’s fate

Chairman Prachanda sits on a leather sofa and glances out at the torrential rain of Nepal's monsoon season. We are in his office at the Maoist headquarters in the capital, Kathmandu. On the wall above his head are framed photographs of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Chairman Mao. "They were all great men, but I particularly admire Lenin's political dynamism," says the leader of Nepal's Maoists and commander of a rebel army that waged war in the Himalayan nation for more than a decade.

The insurgency, an attempt to establish a communist republic, claimed 13,000 lives, ending only last year after protests forced King Gyanendra to end his dictatorship and restore democracy.
Prachanda, a nom de guerre that translates as "the fierce one", was the man who signed a historic peace deal last November. He agreed to return 30,000 People's Liberation Army fighters to the jungle in camps monitored by the UN, a move that took the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - CPN (Maoist) - into a transition coalition government. The Maoists joined the interim parliament in January, gaining 83 seats out of 330, and in April secured cabinet posts. "The rebellion was justified and we have embraced democracy," says Prachanda, whose real name is Pushpa Kamal Dahal.

Nepal's nascent peace process has been fragile, however. The Maoists continue to demand the abolition of the monarchy and that a republic be declared ahead of constituent assembly elections due to be held on 22 November. The poll is designed to elect a body that will rewrite Nepal's constitution and decide if the monarchy should stay or go, part of the peace deal agreed last year. But despite signing up to this, the Maoists recently stormed out of the coalition after the government refused to bow to their demands, throwing the process into crisis. I ask Prachanda why he reneged on the accord and will not allow the Nepalese people to vote on the future of the king.

"The masses took part in a rebellion against the king, so they have already given their mandate for Nepal to be a republic," he says. He claims that supporters of Gyanendra, and the king, already stripped of direct power and his status as head of state, would probably sabotage any election. Prachanda's critics say the Maoists are scared of a vote because popular support for the party has fallen in recent months as a result of rising violence across Nepal, much of it blamed on the youth wing of CPN (Maoist) - the Young Communist League, which appears to have embarked on a campaign of terror. At least 60 people have died in fighting between various political factions, but Prachanda denies Maoist involvement. "There have been problems with armed groups, and this is why we feel the environment is not conducive for an election at the moment. But we are not organising the violence."

The Maoists' strategy, he says, will be to appeal to the masses to demonstrate peacefully, adding that his party will not prevent the vote taking place and will fully respect the outcome. Although many in Nepal feel Prachanda is holding the nation to ransom, with a ballot box in one hand and a rifle in the other, he insists his party will not break the ceasefire. "We will not resort to violence . . . unless the demonstrations are forcibly put down." The US ambassador, James Moriarty, has reiterated America's position that the Maoists remain on Washington's list of terrorist organisations. The EU and the UN have also condemned the recent violence. Prachanda laughs. "How can the US accuse anyone of being terrorists when it is they who export violence to places like Iraq and Afghanistan? Who are they to talk about morals?" he says.
Ethics are certainly a concern for Prachanda, who is puritanical in his determination to outlaw alcohol, gambling and "vulgar literature" from India and the US.

Let's talk morals, then: what about the recruitment by the People's Liberation Army of thousands of child soldiers, many of whom have not yet been returned to their families? He denies that any such policy ever existed, despite strong evidence to the contrary, presented in February by Human Rights Watch. "I do not know why people are afraid of us," he says. I point out that a stated aim of the Maoists is to export communism to the world through a global revolution. Prachanda nods, and says he looks forward to an ideological debate with the west.
"Would the revolution you envisage involve an armed struggle?" I ask. "That would depend on the masses," he replies.

Prachanda admits there are direct links between Nepal's Maoists and the Indian Naxalites fighting for communism in impoverished states such as Andhra Pradesh. He also supports the repatriation of more than 100,000 refugees from Bhutan who have languished in camps in eastern Nepal for 17 years. Bhutanese Maoists, with whom he says local groups "may have a relationship", are active in the camps. There have been rumblings about an armed struggle in emulation of the Nepalese Maoists.

Does he still advocate the execution of the king? Prachanda replies that a "people's court" should decide the monarch's fate, adding that his adversary is responsible for the deaths of many innocent people. I counter that the Maoists tortured and summarily executed many people during the conflict and that as leader, pursuing his own logic, Prachanda is surely as guilty as the king. "Ours was a mass movement, a mass rebellion of the people," he says. "So it was all completely justified."

Source: New Statesman, September 27, 2007

Sounding the red alert

SD Muni,

With the Maoists quitting the government, there is a real risk of the peace process in Nepal going astray. Though the leadership has promised to keep the struggle peaceful, the country faces a serious crisis

The decision of Nepal’s Maoists to quit the Eight-Party Alliance government and launch a ‘peaceful’ agitation for the establishment of a republican Nepal even before the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections is, on the face of it, a breach of their commitment. In their Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of November 2006, with the G.P. Koirala-led Seven Party Alliance (SPA), the Maoists had agreed to let the elected CA decide on the issue of monarchy or republic in its first meeting. The Maoists have also reversed their earlier decision to opt for the elections on the basis of a mixed system of direct and proportional voting. Now they want a wholly proportional basis for the elections. These are the two principal demands in their 22-point charter that the SPA has refused to accept.

The Maoists are driven by three motives. The first is that they have genuine concerns over the ‘regressive forces’ led by the monarchy that will not allow smooth, free or fair elections, only to ensure that the republican agenda is thwarted. The role of these forces in fuelling the Terai violence, instigating the recent blasts in Kathmandu and vandalism in the Terai region are cited by Maoists to justify their fears. In their assessment, the present king and his coterie, though politically redundant, have enough resources to create mischief. They refer to the June 2007 amendment to the interim constitution which says that if the king is found to be disrupting the peace process, the interim parliament may, by a two-third vote, declare Nepal a ‘republic’. But the Maoists suspect that sections of the SPA, as well as countries like India and the US, would still prefer a ceremonial monarchy over a republic.

Second, the Maoists complain about being shabbily treated by the interim government and that they were kept out of the key ministries of home, finance, foreign and defence. None of the important ambassadorial assignments, in India, China, US and Britain, were given to them. In other critical administrative and political appointments, they were not offered adequate representation. Their cadres have not been given promised facilities. They also allege attempts to marginalise them politically. The turning of the Madheshi movement against the Maoists that seriously dented their political base in Terai is pivotal to this impression. The Maoists have a real fear that the drive against them will lead to a serious slump in their electoral prospects. They have, accordingly, been asking for an assured share in the winnable seats in the elections.
The internal divisions within the Maoist organisation have deepened. There has always been two viewpoints among the Maoists: those who want to get into the democratic mainstream and the rest who want to carry on with their ‘struggle’ until all their demands were met.

Prachanda and Bhattarai can ignore the 22-point demand charter at the cost of their credibility within the organisation. The Maoists, however, are conscious that their move will lead to sullying their public image and international reputation. They were desperately seeking a face-saving mechanism to solve their political dilemma. They proposed a parliamentary resolution to declare Nepal a republic before the elections, but subject to final endorsement by the elected CA. Prime Minister Koirala refused to concede that, as that would have made the elections appear to have ben fought on a Maoist agenda, giving them huge political mileage.

The Maoists’ action has raised serious questions on the peace process as a whole. They have threatened to withdraw from the CPA as well as various understandings worked out with the SPA. There is a real possibility of accidental violence as well as a possibility that hardliners among the Maoists can instigate violence. Though the Maoist leadership is committed to keeping the struggle peaceful, but there is real risk of losing control.

The Maoists may realise that it will be impossible for them to achieve their political goals through an armed struggle particularly under an internationally supported democratic government. The regressive forces and all those who have stakes in disrupting peace and stability in Nepal may also exploit the opportunity provided by the Maoist agitation. This can only serve to worsen the suffering in the poorly governed mountain nation. A further loss of credibility of the democratic experiment will only frustrate the aspirations of the Jan Andolan-II of April 2006.

All those who have stakes in a stable and democratic Nepal, particularly India, need to ensure that the narrow political space still available to resolve the crisis is harnessed constructively.

SD Muni is visiting scholar, IDSA and Editor, Indian Foreign Affairs Journal.

Source: The Hindustan Times, September 20

Maoists to quit govt by Monday if there is no agreement: Prachanda tells PM

KATHMANDU, Sept 15 - Maoist chairman Prachanda informed him that they have decided to quit the government by Monday if there is no agreement on the 22-point “pre-requisites” floated by the Maoists for the Constituent Assembly elections soon.
Prachanda flanked by his second-in-command Dr Baburam Bhattarai had gone to meet Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala Koirala at the latter’s official residence at Baluwatar Saturday morning.
“The Prime Minister told the Maoist leadership that this is not the time to quit the government,” Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula told reporters after the meeting. “The Prime Minister also said that the eight-party unity must be further strengthened.”
The Prime Minister also said that the unity between the eight parties must be maintained for the next 8 to 10 years.
However, Prachanda insisted that they will quit the government if there is no agreement on their demands including declaration of a republic ahead of the Constituent Assembly elections, then they will hold a mass assembly in the capital in two days to announce Maoist withdrawal from the government.
The Maoists plan to hold mass assemblies in different parts of the country to declare their upcoming strategies in the next couple of days.
The Maoist leaders are due to meet CPN-UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal this afternoon to discuss their demands.
Only yesterday, Communications Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara had disclosed that the Maoists have already issued an ultimatum to Prime Minister Koirala to quit the government within the next few days if their demands were not fulfilled soon.
“We, all four Maoist ministers in the government, have issued an ultimatum to the Prime Minister to draw serious attention of the government to our issues related to 22 point (demands),” said Mahara, who leads the Maoists in the government. “We told him that if these issues do not become the agenda in the cabinet than we won’t have any other choice than to quit the government.”
When asked when they plan to quit the government, Mahara said that if the Prime Minister keeps on turning a deaf ear to their demand than they will be forced to quit the government by the end of the Nepali month of Bhadra (September 17). Earlier yesterday, Prachanda had said that efforts were on to take the other seven parties on board on “pre-requisites” for the elections.
At the same time, he had added that they would be compelled to take to the street if the consensus does not materialize.
The major factions of the ruling alliance such as Prime Minister Koirala-led Nepali Congress and CPN-UML have criticized the Maoists for trying to impede the November 22 elections by setting pre-conditions.
All other parties inside as well outside the parliament have already geared up for the elections.

Source: The Kathmandu Post, September 15, 2007