Koirala's Stand On Monarchy : Republic, But Gradually

Geja Sharma Wagle

At a time when the leaders of the political parties have been engaging on contentious issue whether or not the interim legislature declare a republic state, Prime Minister and President of the Nepali Congress (NC) Girija Prasad Koirala has cautiously revealed that Nepal has already moved into a republic setup and the republic would be established gradually. Prime Minister Koirala has opined that receiving the credential of the foreign ambassadors by the prime minister is a historic event and a strong philosophical foundation for establishing a democratic republic. Addressing the party men in the capital, Koirala had divulged that the Eight-Party Alliance (EPA) should gradually strip away all the powers of the King and finally declare a republic. As per his analysis, the democratic republic is inevitable but it will take some more time.

Expectation

The Nepali people, all the political parties, and civil society had expected a clear policy regarding the monarchy, restructuring of the state, and the federal structure of the nation. But the-much-media-hyped meetings of the NC presidents did not take any significant political decision, especially regarding the monarchy and federalism. However, Prime Minister Koirala made an ambiguous but strategic statement regarding the monarchy and establishing a republic. He neither turned down the republic proposal as proposed by the prominent cadres nor advocated in favor of 'ceremonial King' as he did in the past. In fact, he strategically opined that the democratic republic should be established gradually rather than hurriedly probably considering the future election strategy. But he outrightly rejected the proposal that has demanded to declare the republic by the interim legislature by the communist parties.

Probably, considering the implication of the declaration, international opinions, and the legitimacy of the declaration, he turned down the controversial proposal of the communist parties. Referring to the interim constitution, he argued that the much-awaited constituent assembly (CA) elections will decide all the centuries-old controversial political, social, and constitutional issues of Nepal including the fate of the monarchy permanently. And the constituent assembly will draft a democratic and inclusive constitution and a complete democracy will be established as per the wishes of the Nepali people. Underlining the historical contributions of the NC for establishing democracy and people's supremacy since 1950, he has expressed the firm commitment to hold the CA elections in November at any cost and which would draft a new democratic constitution respecting the wishes of the people. Considering the political sensitivity in the given situation, he answered both ceremonial monarchists and republicans by the very ambiguous statement. It seems he is trying to follow a centrist policy to defuse the extreme polarization between the monarchists and republicans for democracy and the party to survive. Had the NC decided either for ceremonial monarch or republic, there might be extreme polarization between the ceremonial monarchists and republicans. And the possible polarization might have been harmful for the NC politically as well as strategically because an extreme polarization between the extreme left and extreme right is always detrimental for the centrist.

Not only strategically but ideologically as well, the NC would not be in favor of monarchy and would be in favor of establishing democratic republic, people's supremacy, and rule of law. It is the NC that has been fighting against the monarchy and in favor of democracy since 1950. It is the NC that has overthrown the tyrannical Rana regime and established democracy in 1950 through popular movement. Similarly, the NC has established democracy in 1990. Likewise, under the leadership of the NC the historic people's peaceful movement 2006 had put an end to the despotic regime of King Gyanendra and established democracy. Therefore, it is the NC which has been fighting against the authoritarian monarchy for establishing democracy and people's supremacy since a long time. However, the NC has been following a multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchical policy since its inception. Due to its constitutional monarchical policy, it did not bring an end to monarchy and did not establish a democratic republic in 1950 and 1990 terming it as a symbol of national unity. The NC did believe in the past that a democracy and monarchy could go together and it would not pose any harm to democracy. Had the NC decided against the monarchy, a democratic republic would have been established in 1950 or 1990. But the NC did not decide against the monarchy and the out-dated monarchy had been given a rebirth. But the power hungry kings proved the NC wrong and whenever they got a chance they attacked democracy and the NC, time and again, and they took over power.

In fact, the NC fought against, the then Rana authoritarian regime, despotic and autocratic kings, tyrannical Panchayat, and totalitarian dictator Gyanendra. But the NC never compromised against the democratic principles. Realizing these very realities, the NC deleted its out-dated constitutional monarchical policy from its preamble for the first time in its history. In fact, it is the considerable policy shift towards the democratic republic. Analyzing the evolution to the policy towards the democratic republic gradually and the given political situation, the NC would not be back and it will gradually move towards the republic era as outlined by Koirala. The NC has understood that the monarchy is a past and the republic is the future because the interim constitution has already suspended King Gyanendra. The NC will not be a captive of the past but will be a herald of the future.Whether the NC should declare that it is in favor of republic or not, it is a most controversial debate within the NC at the moment. But, as a responsible political party that has the faith and trust of the Nepali people and the entire international community, NC should take a responsible political decision considering the volatile political situation and the international concerns. Therefore, the NC and the interim government should take a less risky and more acceptable decision to the people. Therefore, as defined by Koirala, the gradual evolution of republic might be the best strategy at the moment for the survival of democracy.

Question

The declaration of the republic from the Interim Legislature might be a controversial decision. There might raise the question over the legitimacy of the proclamation and international community might be divided. Considering the implication of the proclamation, the government should take a legitimate decision. Democracy is not only a declaration; it is a system, people's mandate, and the due process of law.

Source: The Rising Nepal, May 15, 2007

Social standing

Sagar S Rana

King Gyanendra’s actions that eventually led to his takeover of total authority of the state in February 2005 was against the very fundamentals of the democratic process and the Constitution of the nation. Instead of bringing stability as he had expected, under his leadership, the royal coup united the people of Nepal against him and galvanised the ongoing movement aimed at his ouster and for restoration of democracy. The 12-point Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of November 22 the same year, between the seven political parties that led the peaceful Jana Andolan II and the Maoists who had waged an armed struggle, was the natural sequel to King Gyanendra’s blunder.

It took some time for the people at large to digest the message of the MOU and for the eight parties to work out a modus operandi but the movement gained momentum slowly at first, spread throughout the country and rose to a crescendo in the streets of Kathmandu. The unprecedented mass of humanity surging from all directions forced the King to surrender back the powers he had usurped from the people. This well-documented chain of events needs to be repeated here to drive home the relevance of the MOU as a document akin to a Charter for the People of Nepal. The governments that have followed claim rightly that their legitimacy is derived from the will of the people as expressed by the successful culmination of the Jana Andolan II, but at the same time they must accept the MOU as a mandate within which they should function — a social contract they cannot neglect.

The basic goals set by the MOU reflected the aspirations of the people for peace, a democratic system of governance and restructuring of the state with a view to empowering the marginalised sections created by the feudal society. The constituent assembly (CA) was seen as the instrument or mechanism to bring about these changes. It appears some of the leaders of the eight parties are either confused or trying to confuse the people by loud claims that postponement of the CA elections destroys the fundamental aims of the people’s mandate. Means or mechanism to reach the end is being confused with the goals. Indeed, by acting in haste to set totally unrealistic deadlines, whether be it the inclusion of the Maoists in the parliament, or in the government, for adoption of the Interim Constitution, or the date of the CA elections, they have created confusion and administrative chaos that could and should have been avoided through more mature decisions. Within less than two months since the Interim Constitution came into being, more than 60 amendments have been made.

By not involving the marginalised and neglected sections of society in the decision-making process, the rulers, new and old, have lost the trust of the very people whose ‘inclusion’ was one of the main motivational forces of Jana Andolan II. Dissatisfaction turned into violent eruptions in case of one such group, the Madhesis. Other such movements by, for example, Janajatis and Dalits cannot be ruled out. The Maoists have not been able to change their mindset or pattern of behaviour and continue activities of coercion, destruction or forceful occupation of public or private properties and use of force. They are doing so despite their comrades holding ministerial posts in the government.The Prime Minister could have refrained from proclaiming that the elections will be held under any condition within the stipulated date. The government should have concentrated on preparing the prerequisite laws. Preoccupied with the self -imposed deadlines, the government has failed to address the more urgent and important aspects of process and procedure, which influence the quality of the end product.

The Election Commission had no option but to recommend the inevitable postponement. Commonsense would suggest that the eight parties should have sat together to determine a more realistic new date and then set about the task of implementation and creating a conducive atmosphere for CA polls. But instead, the rhetoric of blaming each other or the vague ‘external forces’ or the ‘regressive elements’ is in full flow. The parliament cannot function as legislators disrupt its normal working. Lawlessness prevails within and outside the parliament. Indeed it appears to the public that it is the political parties that are hell bent on creating the impasse and confusion.There is talk of ‘Left unity’. Not an unnatural process in the normal course of events, but a perilous move that would break the eight-party unity, the very basis for the process of peace and the roadmap set by the MOU. At all costs, such misadventure should be avoided. If the leaders fail the people, they will face their wrath. The regressive elements can rise again, foreign powers may be more active in the country and the people will rise again if the parties fail to unite and deliver.

Rana is CWC member, NC(D)Uday LamaAn individual’s standing is judged by his contributions to society. There is no other yardstick of measurement or evaluation of performance, as far as being with it in the mainstream of activities is concerned. Not the means by which he achieves the end or the methods employed in keeping busy.As a member of society, he is expected to give in a manner befitting his position and status to share his know-how, experience and expertise so that others may benefit. This enables him to carve out a niche and make possible a return of the investment in relationships though setbacks cannot be envisaged. What he does to act as an entity marks him out and accords self-esteem and self-worth which are values to be inculcated through personal sacrifice and hard work. Thus acclaim can be had and given due place by way of reckoning, though a self-seeking person may forsake recognition for cheap popularity and short-term gains.An effort at socialising proves the individual’s mettle; not the ones that are avowed but those that are judged by others. To communicate on a relationship based on respect is the only way to develop and avoid a compromise. Thus a fellow-feeling is brought about.

The true test is in realising how far he can go in seeking the consent of others in agreements and contracts. Only a nod of approval will pave the way for future actions taken on behalf of vested interests. Not the least is the due process in which it is undertaken.The social ladder determines who is going to be up there in the top echelon or occupy the lower rungs. In between are the majority of middle class households and their dependants. There is no indicator of what makes a person a social success. Personal attributes are of course required. Next come contacts which make it possible to reach out to those whose good offices can be relied upon. To a socialite nothing is so important. Perhaps a chance word here or a little chit-chat there can settle matters.One can channelise energy and the urge to do better to gain promotion, or acquire other perks and privileges in line with one’s social standing. Colleagues are responsible for seeing how these should come about. And their goodwill necessary if one is to forge ahead.

Source: The Himalayan Times, May 15, 2007

Nepal: People’s Third Movement In The Offing

Siddhi B. Ranjitkar

Some political parties particularly the Nepali Congress (NC) and Nepali Congress-Democratic (NC-D) had been conspiring against the peace process, and had already called off the election for a constituent assembly that would have put back the derailed democracy on track. These political leaders posturing as the democrats had been trying every possible ploy to preserve the monarchy, as if they would not survive without monarchy. They had already let the army play the discarded national anthem to honor Gyanendra, let the army chief meet the king in secret, and had increased the difference between the pro-republican and pro-monarchists. These leaders were not for peace, as it had revealed by their activities. They had no love for the country but only for power. The possibility of return of chaos in Nepal again had been looming.

On April 24, 2007 while Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala was celebrating the first anniversary of the People’s Movement at ‘Shainik Manch’, Kathmandu, and civil society leaders and other political leaders were at Basantapur, Kathmandu for celebration for commemorating the anniversary of the people’s movement, and Gyanendra still holding the title of a king but without any portfolio was performing worship offering the blood of five animals and birds such as water buffalo, goat, sheep, rooster and duck to the almighty goddess Dakshinkali about 25 km to the south of Kathmandu. On that occasion, the Nepali Army played the discarded former national anthem. It looked more like the mockery of the king than a salute but it also might be the indication of the secret deal Girija had with Gyanendra. Some civil society leaders demanded an explanation from the government for such an unusual behavior of some ministries.

On Thursday, April 27, 2007, speaking at an event held by Sanchar Samuha Nepal, NC legislator Binaya Dhwaj Chanda said, "Playing national anthem in honor of the king, who has been rejected by the people and the parliament, was a serious mistake on the part of the government; the action should be protested.” [1]
On April 30, 2007, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala sought clarification from Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Rukmangad Katuwal about his ‘meeting’ with King Gyanendra after the ministers during the cabinet meeting on Sunday April 29 raised the question of the ‘secret meeting’ between CoAS Katuwal and King Gyanendra who had been stripped of all powers. CoAS Katuwal refused to speak to journalists after his meeting with Koirala. However, the Nepali Army (NA) refuted media reports that the army chief had met with King. "There is no process whereby the Chief of Army Staff can meet with anyone without government approval," a statement issued by the NA said. The meeting between the Prime Minister and the CoAS was a regular meeting to brief the Prime Minister about the security situation of the country added the NA statement. [2]

Prime Minister Girija must be posturing by questioning the army chief about his widely hyped meeting with the king probably to counteract the Nepalese people’s growing disenchantment of his love for the monarchy at the same time letting the army to play the discarded national anthem in honor of Gyanendra.
On April 26, 2007, addressing a function held to mark the eighth-death anniversary of the first-elected communist Prime Minister, Manmohan Adhikari, Speaker Subhas Chandra Nemwang said he was ready to declare the country a republic from the parliament’s rostrum if all the parties decided to this effect and urged the parties to resolve their differences soon so that the interim parliament could start its business smoothly. Speaking at the same function, CPN-UML General Secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal said that the eight parties must reach a consensus on deciding the future of monarchy either by referendum or through the interim parliament, as constituent assembly polls were uncertain. General Secretary Nepal said that it was possible to declare the country a republic through the interim parliament if all the constituents of the eight parties were ready to do so. [3]

On April 27, 2007, sharply reacting to the readiness of the Speaker to declare Nepal a republic, Peace and Reconstruction Minister and General Secretary of the NC, Ram Chandra Poudel speaking at an event in Nepalgunj said, “The House does not have authority to declare republic as it has already been agreed that the first meeting of the constituent assembly will take a decision on monarchy.” [4]
Nepalis could imagine the intellectual power of Mr. Poudel based on his strong statement about the authority of the House. Probably, he must have forgotten in the rush to protect the monarchy that the revived House had in its Declaration of May 18, 2006 stated “5.1 The rights to make, amend and annul the laws on the heir to the throne shall be vested in the House of Representatives.” And he ignored the agreement the eight parties in the interim government had reached to add a provision in the interim constitution by the second amendment for removing the monarchy by a two-third majority if the King was found to be conspiring against the constituent assembly elections. In addition, the interim legislature even if it was not elected represented the whole nation while the eight parties represented only their party members. They have no authority to speak for the whole nation. All these things indicated the intellectual bankruptcy of Mr. Poudel. Any morally strong person in his place would have resigned from the cabinet.

Then, Finance Minister and NC Member, Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat took the turn to declare that the legislature had no authority to declare Nepal a republic. On April 29, 2007, speaking at a village awareness campaign held by the NC in Aambhanjyang, Makwanpur Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat said, “the eight parties have already agreed in writing that the first meeting of the constituent assembly would decide the fate of monarchy. The parliament cannot declare a republic, against the norms and spirit of the interim constitution.” [5] The intellectual such as Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat had either betrayed his intellectual status or got the order from the party-high command to take the stance on not declaring Nepal a republic.
The NC did not agree to declare Nepal a republic through the legislature and did not want to hold a referendum on the monarchy but stuck with the CA polls that were called off and put to uncertainty. All these things made further clear that the NC wanted to prolong the state of no republic no king to hold on to power as long as possible not willing to understand or deliberately allowing to create an environment conducive to revive the already almost dead monarchy.

On Saturday, April 28, 2007, senior leader of the CPN-Maoist and former commander-in-charge of the Maoist militia, Ram Bahadur Thapa “Badal” addressing the mass rally held by the CPN-Maoist in Pakhribas, Dhanakuta said that the CPN-Maoist was making necessary preparations for the third Jana-andolan for declaring Nepal a republic. He said that foreign and national reactionary forces were undermining the republican set-up. He claimed that the upcoming third Jan- Andolan would finish off the political leaders who had collaborated with the reactionary forces to hatch the conspiracy. He further said that the CPN-Maoist was determined to set up a “Loktantrik” Republican state as Nepalese would not get justice and be free in the real sense of words without a democratic republic. [6]
On April 28, 2007, addressing a training program launched by the Gorkha-Kathmandu Ganatantrik Manch in Banasthali, Kathmandu, Maoist second-in-command, Dr Baburam Bhattarai said that his party would launch a peaceful agitation for an indefinite period if the interim parliament failed to declare the country a republic by the third week of May. His party would announce a series of protests if the interim parliament did not declare republic by that time. “Our efforts will be to generate a consensus among the eight political parties on declaring the country a republic through the interim parliament. If that does not happen, we will forge unity among the leftist and republican forces and declare the country republic by simple majority of the interim parliament,” said Dr. Bhattarai. He further said that the peaceful agitation would be focused on declaring the country a republic; the monarchy must be uprooted to bring an end to the feudal system of economic relations in the society; however, the NC and the NC-D were opposed to the idea, saying that the interim parliament had no rights to take any decision on the monarchy and the constituent assembly would decide on it; they argued that in the interim constitution promulgated on January 15, 2007 there was no constitutional provision for doing so; even if the provision of removing the monarchy by a two-third majority was added to the constitution, the left parties would not have adequate number of votes to overthrow the monarchy without the support of NC and NC-D. [7]

On April 27, 2007, speaking at a Face-to-Face program held by Sanchar Samuha Nepal in Kathmandu, NC student leader Gagan Thapa said that the eight-party government had lost the mandate of people, and the need for again launching a movement for declaring Nepal a republic. ANNFSU vice-chairperson Ram Kumari Jhankri said that the constituent assembly polls would be disrupted if the government failed to take actions against those found guilty by the Rayamajhi Commission. Former president of the Nepal Students Union (NSU) affiliated to the NC, Guru Raj Ghimire said that it was a mistake to administer oath of office to former Chief of Army Staff Pyar Jung Thapa (after the people’s movement) and appoint Rukmangad Katuwal to Chief of Army Staff (after the retirement of Thapa); both of them were found guilty by the Rayamajhi Commission and added that the top leaders should learn from their previous mistakes in a bid to chart new Nepal. [8]
The young generation should takeover to abolish the monarchy totally. The old generation leaders were for preserving the monarchy. Some newspapers started off writing the monarchy was already abolished need not talk about it anymore. Former Minister Nilamber Acharya said that the monarchy was already dead ignoring the palace was still occupied by the so-called king and queen. So, this might be another ploy of Gyanendra to prolong the life of the Shah dynasty as much as possible bribing some journalists and politicians.

On Sunday, April 29, 2007, Chairman of the Madhesi People’s Rights Forum (MPRF), Upendra Yadav went to New Delhi, India to garner the support of the Indian political leaders for the political movement of the MPRF. Upon arrival in New Delhi he said, “We have come here to garner moral support for our demands for declaring Terai a federal autonomous region, establishment of a republic, proportional representation at all state machineries, after the government failed to practically address these demands.” Senior leader of the NC-D, Pradip Giri was acting as a mediator between the Indian leaders and Yadav for their meetings. In the press conference held by Yadav, Pradip Giri said that the MPRF movement was more democratic than the Maoist movement. On Monday, April 30, 2007, Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula suffering from an ear ailment arrived in New Delhi afternoon for treatment at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). [9]
So, it was not baseless that the Maoists’ accusation of the NC and NC-D were trying to neutralize their influences in the Terai assisting the MPRF in acting against the Maoists. According to the human rights activist, Mathura Prasad Shrestha, MPRF leader Upendra Yadav was a village-level leader only.

NC vice president Sushil Koirala issued a threatening warning to the Maoists saying the continued lack of discipline of the Maoists could trigger a civil war in the country. "Sometimes they carry weapons, sometimes they take out rallies. What happens if the Nepali Army, too, loses its discipline? There will be civil war," NC vice president Koirala said at the event held by Nepal Peasants Association. Speaking at the same function, NC General Secretary Kul Bahadur Gurung condemned the Maoists' demand for the immediate announcement of Nepal a republic. He said republic cannot be declared based on whims. In another event, NC legislator Sujata Koirala warned that if Congress, too, lost its cool, democracy could again be endangered. On Monday, April 30, 2007 talking with the media people in Charikot of the Dolakha district, Mohan Baidya 'Kiran’ accused the NC of conspiring with MPRF to sweep the Maoists away from Madhes (Terai). [10]
While Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula, one of the architects of the ongoing peace process in Nepal was in India for medical treatment, the NC hawks had started off firing salvos against the peace process, and made preparations for another conflict with the advocates of republic probably in conjunction with the Nepali Army.
The enemies of the peace had been trying to undo the peace process widening the difference among the political parties although such difference was a trivial matter compared with the benefits of peace. Nepalis wanted peace but the politicians were for grabbing power and staying on power at any cost to the people. Nepalis did not want Nepal become a slaughter house as had been Iraq since 2002. Therefore, all peace-loving Nepalis make their call to Girija and his clique instead of preserving the most reviled monarchy at any cost to the nation continue the peace process setting the date for an election for a constituent assembly immediately for keeping the aspirations of Nepalis for peace, democracy, republic, proportional representation, autonomy and federalization alive. The intensified activities of the king were the threat to all democracy-minded Nepalese people. So, Nepalis needed to eliminate the monarchy at the soonest possible.

Footnotes:
[1] The Himalayan Times, April 27, 2007, “Army's 21-gun Salute to King Draws Flak”
[2] Nepalnews.com pb Apr 30 07, “PM seeks clarification from CoAS on his ‘meeting’ with King”
[3] The Himalayan Times, April 26, 2007, “Speaker says House can declare republic”
[4] Nepalnews.com mk Apr 27 07 “Parliament cannot announce republic, says Poudel”
[5] The Rising Nepal, April 30, 2007, “House cannot declare a republic”
[6] The Rising Nepal, April 29, 2007 “Third Jan-Andolan in the offing: Badal”
[7] The Himalayan Times, April 28, 2007, “Declare republic by third week of May: Bhattarai”; Nepalnews.com sd Apr 29 07, “Maoists threaten to unleash indefinite agitation”; Ekantipur.com, April 28, 2007, “Stage set for indefinite pro-republican stir: Baburam Bhattarai”
[8] The Rising Nepal, April 28, 2007, “Student leaders demand action against suppressors”
[9] Ekantipur.com, April 30, 2007, “Home Minister Sitaula, MPRF Chairman Yadav in Delhi”
[10] Nepalnews.com sd Apr 30 07, “Congress and Maoist leaders trade charges”

Source: Scoop Articles, May 14, 2007

Catch ’em young, Maoist style

Ambarish Dutta

Alert sounded along the Indo-Nepal

Catch them young" is now the slogan of Maoists in Bihar.
In their bid to regroup after their counterparts in Nepal joined mainstream politics, Maoists here have come out with a new recruitment scheme that revolves around targeting hapless villagers to send a male or female child to join the Red army.
The anti-Naxal wing of the intelligence recently gained access to some documents suggesting the Maoists’ new recruitment scheme.
Villagers, reportedly, refrain from filing missing persons’ complaints as they fear reprisals from Naxal groups.
Sources in the intelligence said that the numerous Islamic terror outfits here are now recruiting children in remote villages, mostly in North Bihar bordering Nepal, to fight their battles.

According to sources, over a dozen schools in central Bihar were shut down in the recent past following Maoist threats as it was education which could prevent children from being misguided by them in the name of revolution.
The Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and the local police have already sounded an alert along the Indo-Nepal border against the possible arms infiltration in the border districts which include east and west Champaran, Sitamari, Sheohar and Madhubani.
Sources said that the infiltration of arms was planned in view of the warning by the Nepal Government to the Maoists there to hand over arms or face stern action.
The police and intelligence agencies are trying to verify whether the recent attack on Riga in Sitamari near Nepal border by the Maoists was a planned to create panic among the people and the police for safe transport and dumping of a portion of arms belonging to Nepali Maoists.

Source: The Tribune, May 14, 2007

Poll postponement: Parties should follow people’s mandate

Sagar S Rana

King Gyanendra’s actions that eventually led to his takeover of total authority of the state in February 2005 was against the very fundamentals of the democratic process and the Constitution of the nation. Instead of bringing stability as he had expected, under his leadership, the royal coup united the people of Nepal against him and galvanised the ongoing movement aimed at his ouster and for restoration of democracy. The 12-point Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of November 22 the same year, between the seven political parties that led the peaceful Jana Andolan II and the Maoists who had waged an armed struggle, was the natural sequel to King Gyanendra’s blunder.

It took some time for the people at large to digest the message of the MOU and for the eight parties to work out a modus operandi but the movement gained momentum slowly at first, spread throughout the country and rose to a crescendo in the streets of Kathmandu. The unprecedented mass of humanity surging from all directions forced the King to surrender back the powers he had usurped from the people. This well-documented chain of events needs to be repeated here to drive home the relevance of the MOU as a document akin to a Charter for the People of Nepal. The governments that have followed claim rightly that their legitimacy is derived from the will of the people as expressed by the successful culmination of the Jana Andolan II, but at the same time they must accept the MOU as a mandate within which they should function — a social contract they cannot neglect.

The basic goals set by the MOU reflected the aspirations of the people for peace, a democratic system of governance and restructuring of the state with a view to empowering the marginalised sections created by the feudal society. The constituent assembly (CA) was seen as the instrument or mechanism to bring about these changes. It appears some of the leaders of the eight parties are either confused or trying to confuse the people by loud claims that postponement of the CA elections destroys the fundamental aims of the people’s mandate. Means or mechanism to reach the end is being confused with the goals. Indeed, by acting in haste to set totally unrealistic deadlines, whether be it the inclusion of the Maoists in the parliament, or in the government, for adoption of the Interim Constitution, or the date of the CA elections, they have created confusion and administrative chaos that could and should have been avoided through more mature decisions. Within less than two months since the Interim Constitution came into being, more than 60 amendments have been made.

By not involving the marginalised and neglected sections of society in the decision-making process, the rulers, new and old, have lost the trust of the very people whose ‘inclusion’ was one of the main motivational forces of Jana Andolan II. Dissatisfaction turned into violent eruptions in case of one such group, the Madhesis. Other such movements by, for example, Janajatis and Dalits cannot be ruled out. The Maoists have not been able to change their mindset or pattern of behaviour and continue activities of coercion, destruction or forceful occupation of public or private properties and use of force. They are doing so despite their comrades holding ministerial posts in the government.The Prime Minister could have refrained from proclaiming that the elections will be held under any condition within the stipulated date. The government should have concentrated on preparing the prerequisite laws. Preoccupied with the self -imposed deadlines, the government has failed to address the more urgent and important aspects of process and procedure, which influence the quality of the end product.

The Election Commission had no option but to recommend the inevitable postponement. Commonsense would suggest that the eight parties should have sat together to determine a more realistic new date and then set about the task of implementation and creating a conducive atmosphere for CA polls. But instead, the rhetoric of blaming each other or the vague ‘external forces’ or the ‘regressive elements’ is in full flow. The parliament cannot function as legislators disrupt its normal working. Lawlessness prevails within and outside the parliament. Indeed it appears to the public that it is the political parties that are hell bent on creating the impasse and confusion.There is talk of ‘Left unity’. Not an unnatural process in the normal course of events, but a perilous move that would break the eight-party unity, the very basis for the process of peace and the roadmap set by the MOU. At all costs, such misadventure should be avoided. If the leaders fail the people, they will face their wrath. The regressive elements can rise again, foreign powers may be more active in the country and the people will rise again if the parties fail to unite and deliver.Rana is CWC member, NC(D)

Source: The Himalayan Times, May 15, 2007