KATHMANDU - Even as Nepal prepares for a crucial session of the interim
legislature on Monday, people at large remain frustrated and skeptical about
their country's stability as a budding democracy. A perception that politicians
of all shades are betraying Nepalis is spreading across the board.
The main reason for this public despair stems from the interim leadership's
inability to do the job entrusted to it immediately after
the pro-democracy movement which ended King Gyanendra's despotic rule in April
2006.
Striking among these promises was the one to organize elections to a
constituent assembly by November 22. The assembly would then write a permanent
constitution making Nepal a democratic republic, confining the institution of
the monarchy to the history books. This initiative has been postponed.
On Monday the legislature will consider a motion adopted earlier that the
government prepare for the declaration of a republic, in a compromise motion
backed by Maoists who had demanded immediate abolition of the monarchy.
The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), a party of former Maoist rebels, has
been blamed for scuttling the polls at the 11th hour by raising demands which
ran counter to both the interim constitution as well as the agreements that
formed the basis of a grand alliance of eight political parties, including the
Maoists.
The Maoists also suddenly wanted to amend the interim constitution to change
the election system agreement (a mixed one involving the traditional
first-past-the-post and proportional representation) into a fully proportional
representative method. The other alliance partners did not agree to these
proposals.
The Maoists now aim to put "moral" pressure on the government to introduce
their amendments in the legislative session starting on Monday.
There has been considerable speculation as to why the Maoists made these
last-minute moves, but what is obvious is that the monarchy, which is currently
under a state of suspension, stands to gain by any delay in a republic being
declared. Had elections been allowed to take place on time, the fate of the
monarchy would have been sealed by December.
So the Maoists have allowed breathing space for the monarchy, the feudal
institution revolutionaries are supposed to despise. Maoist leaders have not
been able to respond to criticism on this count.
Members of rival political parties think the Maoists are shying away from polls
because they do not actually believe in reaching power through elections; they
simply want to seize power. To date, they have five ministerial posts and 84
seats in the 330-member interim legislature. A free and fair election is
unlikely to offer the Maoists any majority position.
Commenting on Monday's parliamentary session, Arjun Narsing K C, a spokesman
for the largest party, the Nepali Congress, said, "The government is not
compelled to abide by meaningless directives," as in the motion adopted earlier
in the legislature that did not have a two-thirds backing.
Girija Prasad Koirala, who combines three roles as interim prime minister, de
facto head of state and president of the Nepali Congress party, had been
expecting Monday's session to be a "peace session".
But it is not certain the Maoists will allow it to be one, especially as they
have called for a nationwide rally on Sunday. Their intention to exert pressure
on the government to amend the interim constitution may come in the form of
filibustering and sit-ins in front of the Speaker's chair.
Several deputies of non-Maoist parties are apprehensive about such tactics as
the Maoists could then say that their methods prove their original point that a
parliamentary democracy cannot address "their" issues - widespread poverty and
deprivation in society.
Once this point is proved in the House, they might immediately announce a
nationwide "peaceful agitation" . How peaceful a Maoist movement could be is a
matter of conjecture.
Despite their differences, coalition leaders have continued to make public
pledges to retain the alliance; or else regressive (read pro-monarchists)
elements would raise their ugly heads.
To achieve this, the leaders are trying to find a new election date as by
announcing a new poll schedule, they think they will automatically extend the
life of the interim Parliament, together with the interim government.
This is a thorny issue. "The legitimacy of the Koirala-led coalition ended the
day it announced the postponement of the November 22 polls," said Nilambar
Acharya, a respected politician who served as law minister during an similar
interim government in 1990/91.
Meanwhile, the deteriorating law and order situation places Koirala in a tight
spot. The police force is low on morale; the civil service is paralyzed due to
political interference; the academic field is affected due to unplanned strikes
and a dearth of personnel.
And Koirala appears to be getting excessively dependent on the Nepal Army, even
though the army is not comfortable with his government which, during
negotiations for a peace agreement, agreed to extend a comparable status to the
Maoist army, often referred to as the People's Liberation Army.
Externally, the issue of the government's legitimacy began to gain prominence
after the government decision to cancel the November 22 polls. United Nations
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon instantly expressed "disappointment".
His special representative in Nepal, Ian Martin, reflects this view, often in a
diplomatic way, through various forums and occasions. "It is now time for a
frank analysis by Nepali politicians and civil society of why two dates for CA
[constituent assembly] elections have come and gone," Martin told the media
last week in Kathmandu after returning from New York.
India, the United States and Japan are also among the countries to be
disappointed by the decision to indefinitely postpone elections. How long can
donor countries and agencies continue to negotiate with members of an unelected
Parliament and officials of a nominated government, diplomats based in Nepal
wonder.
According to politician Acharya, political parties should admit their failure
and identify persons who do not have electoral ambitions but are capable of
running an interim administration. In other words, a national government
consisting of representatives from various sections of the population.
Acharya also thinks it necessary to form a legislative council of up to 100
respected citizens to play an advisory role to the interim set-up.
But those involved in active politics don't find that solution tenable. From
their standpoint, people without stakes in the political process cannot be
expected to perform their role with determination and vision. That is, the
alternative to political parties cannot be organizations which are apolitical.
In the prevailing scenario, it is not the political parties which have failed;
the leaders' competence has been questionable. "These leaders should volunteer
to vacate their posts so that politicians in the younger generation can take on
the challenges of the new century," said Narahari Acharya, a committed
republican who had contested for his party's presidency, but lost it to
incumbent Koirala.
With Nepal passing through an extraordinary phase in its history, some of its
prominent citizens see a need to take extraordinary initiatives to cure the
ills. "Yes, both life and liberty are important in normal circumstances," said
Bishwanath Upadhyay, a former chief justice who presided over the panel that
drew up Nepal's democratic constitution in 1990.
"But we are living in extraordinary times when life - both of the nation and of
the individual citizen - have to be salvaged, even at the expense of the
temporary suspension of liberty," he told Asia Times Online. According to
Upadhyay, whoever takes such a courageous step stands to create a fresh chapter
in the country's political annals.
Dhruba Adhikary, who has been a Dag Hammarskjold fellow, is a
Kathmandu-based journalist.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
