Don't Dissociate

The Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandadevi) has called back its representative Minister Rajendra Mahat from the government, arguing that the grievances raised by the Madhesi people could not be redressed by being the part of the government alone. In a statement issued Monday, Nepal Sadbhavana Party made it clear that the organisation will remain committed to the eight party alliance and extend support to the government even though it has formally withdrawn from the government. There may be several excuses for the Terai-based party to quit the government. But the question is whether it was the right time for the party to dissociate itself from the ruling dispensation because it is a time when a united and associated approach is necessary to address the problems faced by the country. One must mention that the Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandadevi) has always been apart of the national democratic movement in the country.

It has always thrown its weight behind the democratic movement in the country and allied with the forces ranged against authoritarianism. Take the instance of the democratic people's movement accomplished one-and-a-half years ago. The party was at the forefront raising revolting against autocracy. When the citadel of authoritarianism collapsed, it was an important architect in the process of conflict resolution and political transition in the country. When the issue of Madhesh was raised by other actors, including the Madhesi People's Rights Forum, more articulately and vehemently, there was an impression that the political monopoly of Nepal Sadbhavana Party as the singular representative of the Terai issue was being challenged. The party sought to project a bolder image as the sole, democratic and legitimate agent of the Terai people. Its representative in the government, Hridayesh Tripathi, had also resigned from the government, citing explicit displeasure with what was alleged as the indifferent attitude of the government towards resolving the issues of Madhesh. However, the present announcement regarding the dissociation of the Nepal Sadbhavana Party has come at a time when the country is nearing the elections to the constituent assembly. The party should reconsider its decision and be part of the government to add more weight to the resolution of the problem.

Source: The Rising Nepal, August 8, 2007

Immature democracy : What good will it do?

Ganga Thapa

A clear preference for democracy is evident in its acceptance and expansion around the world. While democracy is a multi-faceted concept, sovereignty calls for competent citizenry, responsible state and proper resource allocation mechanisms. Following the April revolution, concern for legitimacy, accountability and participation in the democratic process is gaining ground, but there has been no compatible progress on the democratic front, or in political and institutional reforms to increase direct participation of citizens in policy and decision-making process. Even positive aspects of the democratic process have been undermined by party leadership.

Strengthening democracy entails going through a long and complex process of building state institutions. Democracy, by its nature, is supposed to reflect disagreements and conflicts. But the failure to develop a conceptual framework for citizen participation by institutionalising ties between state and non-state actors has left Nepal with “partial” or “undemocratic delegative democracy”, particularly in the absence of actors who can transform policies and institutions into political resources.

Nonetheless, Nepal has never enjoyed Nonetheless, Nepal has never enjoyed quality governance, which consists of three dimensions: system persistence, inclusiveness and effectiveness. An accountable government responsive to its citizens can be set up through electoral process; its absence only exacerbates the lack of adequate institutions, excessive legislation and formalities, patron-client nexus, and other cultural bottlenecks and characteristics.Democracy leads towards inclusion, enabling citizens to participate directly and indirectly. By any measure, people now have an opportunity to engage in a constitutional mechanism which can dampen aristocratic values and discriminatory social practices with distinctive changes in ground rules. This should be done to make the mechanism vastly different from the old ‘stakeholder democracy’.

In the absence of strong state structures, social constructivist understanding and institutional credibility, democracy post-royal regime has at best been a mixed blessing. Some believe that democracy in an ethnically diverse society can indeed be fostered by broad-based, aggregative and multiethnic political parties. But the fragile institutions of political parties are endangered by excessive clout of their leadership. As a result, they are not successful in bringing about attitudinal and behavioural changes among the people. The issues of power, politics and ground realities can be comprehended by the way the electoral process is progressing. Democratic ideal is essentially about a core set of values such as political autonomy, equality of interests and reciprocity. Although the quest for freedom is universal, it is not the top priority when people have to fear for their very survival.It is too early to draw conclusions on long-term effects of the CA elections. If it acts as an instrument of democracy and can help institutionalise peace and democracy, it can be assumed that there is a link between citizens’ choice and their participation in policy making. Even if the CA polls succeed in achieving and maintaining peace, its ultimate outcome would not be evident until second or third general elections under a new system. Free elections are a prerequisite for instituting legitimate power flows and making the state adhere to the rule of law. This will, in turn, bolster state capabilities through administration, market and civil society and permit broad participation. These three sectors are crucial to building sustainable political and economic networks that help shape the state and enhance justice and political legitimacy.

While there is no consensus on what constitutes free and fair elections, Mackenzie puts forward four prerequisites: a) independent judiciary to interpret electoral laws, b) competent and non-partisan administration to conduct elections, c) well organised political parties that can present their policies, traditions and candidates before the voters and d) general acceptance of rules of the game. Many have argued that in addition to free and fair election and counting, the political parties must get an opportunity to compete on equal footing, all people should have equitable access to media, political environment must be free of intimidation, and public grievances must be settled promptly and justly. Another key element is monitoring of elections by national and international observers who can play a significant role in boosting public confidence in democratic transition.Consensus should not only be directed at acquiring political goals. CA elections must be viewed as an instrument of citizens’ influence associated with a vision for building legitimate political system rather than to reward or punish incumbents. Until the old structures that reward vested interests are dismantled and replaced by new ones, neither a “democratic society” nor “free and fair elections” can be realised.

Source: The Himalayan Times, August 8, 2007

Patience And Consideration

The government is engaged in holding talks with different groups from the Terai to take stock of their demands and address their concerns through legitimate means and mechanism. In the same way, several rounds of talks have already been clinched with groups from other areas and regions to settle the impending issues and assuage their feelings and concerns. Though some issues are yet to be thrashed out properly, the government is keeping open rightfully the channels of communication with representatives of the indigenous nationalities, and it is hoped that their conditions and concerns would be given due and patient hearing on the part of the government. The talks with the Madhesi People's Rights Forum have, however, received the media spotlight because of the fact that the Terai issue is billed to be more serious and seminal. The government has already discussed the pertinent issues with the Forum for the fourth time, but principal subjects are yet to be settled and sorted out.

The major demands of the Forum include a federal state structure with regional autonomy, proportional polling system, determination of electoral constituencies based on population and proportionate participation of the Madhesi people and others in organs of the state. Earlier the Forum has also been demanding the dissolution of the interim parliament and formation of the caretaker government to hold polls to the constituent assembly. As the government is strengthening the talks team by including leaders from the major political parties, including the CPN (M), it is expected that the talks could be finalised with agreement on substantive issues soon. As the polls to the constituent assembly are drawing closer, and the Election Commission is making all preparations for holding it successfully, any delay would disturb the poll schedule announced formally in line with the second amendment to the Interim Constitution. No groups should, therefore, create any pretences and obstacles to hurt the process of holding the polls to the constituent assembly. As concerns of all the groups can be addressed after the polls to the constituent assembly is conducted, the agitating groups should be patient and considerate enough and negotiate successfully with the government.

Source: The Rising Nepal, August 7, 2007

Snarling Domestic Politics : Need Of All Inclusive Approach

Madhavji Shrestha

Obviously, Nepal's political process of democratisation is passing through a critical transitional phase from the old order to a newer one. Accumulation of problems, both at the national and local level, is on the increase. The time available for holding the election to the constituent assembly is now less than four months. Given the real achievement the interim government has made in the past four months, it appears that the government will be able to hold the election only if it can work on a war footing.

Lack of accomplishmentUntil the completion of the election in a. credible manner, other problems of various dimensions are bound to remain unaddressed. Considering the performance of the government in the past 15 months, most commitments in word are either being long delayed or not started at all, clearly showing a lack of accomplishment. As of now, the targeted political destination still seems miles away from realisation.In the wake of the resounding success of the people's movement of April 2006, the inflow of external support and sympathy from the international community for the democratisation process is indeed appreciable. However, the government that includes the Maoists has been unable to capitalise on the positive encouragement to move ahead on the democratisation process. The political parties with the state machinery in their hands are grappling with the political problem of how to go further with the coalitional politics so as to bring good prospects for the people long suffering from socio-economic degradation and isolation caused by political instability. This is one of the core issues to be taken up with regard to the approach of the official policy by the interim government. The appropriate step, if undertaken with a true coalitional spirit at heart by the politicians, would eliminate the hurdles and introduce a new and broad chapter in the Nepali political landscape. Had coalitional politics at the government level worked in a proper direction as expected by the common people, the Nepali society would have experienced the steady emergence of the consociational political system, which is characterised by an equitable participation of various ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups spread across the country. Such a political process, if genuinely practised, might have heralded both accommodative and associative democracy.

We find very good examples of consociational democracy in Belgium, the Netherlands and, particularly, in Switzerland. These European countries have a social fabric that is of a multi-composite nature. However, it is the incomparable genius of politicians and statesmen of these countries that they could invent and put into practice consociational democracy that has been highly successful in ensuring that the coalitional government runs the administration satisfactorily. In reality, accommodative democracy guarantees the sharing of the political power by various multi-ethnic groups, and associative democracy facilitates in sharing the economic growth in a justifiable way. Unfortunately in Nepal, political developments are heading toward digression, if not yet deteriorating irreparably, because most of the political parties are headed and directed by the elite class, which by tradition does not genuinely represent the desire and need of the people at the grass root. Nor is there any likelihood in the near future of a political and governmental leadership surfacing that can reflect the highly composite social structure of the country. We have at least 60 ethnic groups that are sub-divided into several sub groups and mini clusters of people spread all over the country. Many of these groups have remained outside the purview of the modern system of administration and political democracy. The massive participation in the political revolution of April 2006 by the people of various walks and strata of life has opened the floodgates of political awareness and consciousness about political rights.

In the immediate aftermath of the people's movement last year, the common people's expectations have risen greatly for building democracy in the newly emerging society. Some political measures of historical significance have already been rooted. However, these politically inspired actions have yet to be effectively implemented for a democratic process advancing in a proper direction. Political observers point out the inherent weakness of the eight political parties and the interim government in introducing a political culture of working together to translate their commitments into accomplishments. This core need is visibly lacking in them. This immeasurable lacuna has made the country and people pay dearly at the cost of building a democratic society.Its direct consequence implies that the country is now fast moving towards ethnicity building instead of democracy building. True, ethnicity building is also not an undesirable development to look at, if not accompanied by violence. Each ethnic group needs to enjoy freedom and liberty in a congenial atmosphere inspired and characterised by democratic ideals and actions. However, the recently emerging reality points to the other side of development with no indication of a quick solution appearing in the scene. Currently, the Terai belt is in flames, the indigenous nationalities are making vociferous protests and other dissenting segments of the society are wrecking havoc. Constituent assembly electionThe failure to complete the promised election on the scheduled date would unquestionably prove the gross inability and incompetence of the leaders of the interim government led by the eight political parties. These politicians must come out of their political cocoon much dotted by their pre-conceived notion of political belief and behaviour if they are true to the democratic spirit of pluralism.

Source: The Rising Nepal, August 7, 2007

UN role in Nepal dubious

Sandhya Jain

Throughout 1945 and 1946, Britain, the Netherlands and Australia, as occupational forces in Indonesia, sought to reverse Indonesian independence and revert it to Netherlands’ colonial control.

It is strange that all Indian discourse on Nepal avoids scrutiny of the role the West is playing through the auspices of the United Nations Political Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), established vide Security Council resolution 1740 (2007). Recent visitors to the country speak of the Terai disturbances, the growing extortion and lawlessness of Maoist cadres, the rising hills-plains divide, and the danger that elections scheduled for November 22 may be cancelled on some pretext. Some have taken note of the mushrooming growth of dance bars as the only means of income in a stagnant economy. Yet they seem unaware of the growing hatred of UN Mission staff as local citizens witness their flamboyant life styles, suffer their arrogance, and see no beneficial result of their presence in the country. The UNMIN was set up for one year at the request of the Nepalese Government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to help implement the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, monitor the ceasefire, and assist in the election of a new Constituent Assembly.

What most Indian analysts fail to realise, however, is that UNMIN is not an ordinary peace-keeping force, but a Political Mission. Only an absolute abdication of responsibility could have let the Sonia Gandhi-dominated UPA regime acquiesce in the arrival of the Mission to determine events in a country that lies in India’s natural sphere of influence. It is well known that India’s sad experience with UN officials in Kashmir compelled her to seek friendly ties with the Soviet Union so as to procure the Soviet veto against Western unilateralism in the Security Council. A more telling example of what the UN can do to non-Western nations can be seen in the case of Indonesia, one of its worst victims. The UN was set up in 1945 ostensibly to save the globe from future world wars; uphold fundamental human rights and the equal rights of nations regardless of size, among others. Yet its founding members, Britain, Australia and the Netherlands, were the principal wreckers of Indonesian independence. Throughout 1945 and 1946, Britain, the Netherlands and Australia, as occupational forces in Indonesia, sought to reverse Indonesian independence and revert it to Netherlands’ colonial control. The UN ignored this brazen violation of its Charter. In 1947, after two years of atrocities by the occupation forces against the Indonesian people, the Security Council merely called for a cease-fire on August 1, 1947. In an unpublished paper, public opinions activist Ms. Radha Rajan points out, the UN failed to declare the continuing presence of the Dutch in Indonesia or of the British in the Malay province (British Malaya) as illegal and violative of the Charter. The call for cease-fire suggested that Indonesia was a party to the hostilities, rather than an victim of continued western and colonial aggression. UN did not direct the Netherlands to withdraw from Indonesia, or UK to quit British Malaya. Instead, UN set up a “Good Offices Commission” in October 1947 to work out a ‘settlement’ in Indonesia. This naturally made the Netherlands a legitimate party in the negotiations, thereby legitimising colonialism and the refusal of European powers to withdraw unconditionally from their colonies.

In the context of Nepal, it bears mentioning that India can ignore the political activities of the UN Political Mission only at its own peril. The grim reality of Nepal today is that violence and lawlessness are increasing daily and Maoist cadres are flush with funds. Some of the funds can be explained in terms of government grants under the ceasefire, and extravagant extractions from businessmen and traders. It is my understanding, however, that these sources are being used as a ‘cover’ to shield the fact that the Maoists are being funded by external forces with a view to secure an anti-India and anti-China foothold in the region. Nothing else can explain the truth that under UNMIN auspices, Nepal is daily moving further away from the possibility of elections for a new Constituent Assembly. Instead, Maoists are trying to force the unelected coalition government to declare a Republic and dethrone the monarchy. Reports from hitherto reliable sources suggest certain Madhesi leaders of the Terai are being wooed and offered representation in the current makeshift Parliament. Should they agree, this would be unilaterally converted into a Constituent Assembly (again unelected), and this will proceed to declare a Republic, despite the growing public sentiment that the King represents the nation’s continuity with its Hindu civilisation and culture. Observers to the mountain country also say that the Maoists appear to have access to weaponry which has not been accounted for (there are districts that neither the government nor the UNMIN can enter). It is feared that if the scheduled elections are actually held, they may be violent and of doubtful fairness. UNMIN appears blissfully unaware of this reality, which is very suspicious.

New Delhi would do well to take a fresh shock of events in the Himalayan kingdom, rather than accept the prevailing rhetoric as truth. For instance, it is said that a ‘people’s movement’ brought about the brief period of ‘democratic’ rule in Nepal in April 1990. Yet with hindsight, this seems to have been an orchestrated preamble to a more violent movement by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which launched an insurgency in 1996 because the various political parties simply failed to unite and give the country stable governance. The Maoists launched a decade of armed conflict during which thousands of persons ‘disappeared’ and many more were displaced. King Gyanendra’s intervention in October 2002 must be placed in this context. Various prime ministers appointed by him up to February 2005 could not control the violence, failing which he assumed executive powers on February 1, 2005. It is now well-known that the April 2006 agitation that led to restoration of Parliament was based on rented crowds. As such funding is normally associated with the West, India would do well to wake up to developments in its neighbourhood.

Source: The Organiser, Issue, August 12, 2007