Nepal's polls shrouded in
doubt By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - Nepal's bid to end the current
political transition through an election on April
10 is fraught with pitfalls and doubts persist
among Nepalis as to the viability as well as
usefulness of the exercise in the present climate
of insecurity and deep-seated mistrust between
important players.
The Election Commission
has been told by the interim government to make
preparations to conduct the poll aimed at electing
a 601-strong Constituent Assembly which is to
write a new constitution. Leaders of the Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist) are enthusiastic about the
election because they think their objective of
transforming Nepal from a feudal monarchy to a
republic will be achieved
within months.
They have even projected
their supreme leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (aka
Prachanda or "the fierce one") , as the first
president of the republic. The assembly, they
expect, will endorse Prachanda's name once the
constitution is promulgated. Maoists' impatience
is visible in public forums organized to encourage
the 17 million-plus voters scattered across the
country of 25 million people.
Another
reason behind this newfound Maoist zeal could be
their concerted effort to removed doubts that they
will not be blamed if the election is postponed
for the third time. The previous postponement, in
November, was caused by them after they placed two
demands as a precondition to the poll: that the
interim constitution be amended to declare the
country a republic and to change the traditional
election system to a proportional representation
method. The amendment was accepted, saying that
its execution would be done by the assembly once
it is elected; a compromise deal was made on the
second demand by adopting a mixed method.
April 10 was chosen because the interim
government, which has representatives from seven
parties including the Maoists, decided to complete
the task before the Nepali year 2064 is out - on
April 12.
And after a six-month extension
of the United Nations mission in Nepal was
approved, the UN Security Council on January 23
expressed continued interest in a smooth
democratic transition for the country.
However deep-seated mistrust among the
seven parties about possible sabotage is the a
major indicator of possible disruptions and
violence. Then there are 50 other registered
parties, some of whom are obviously pro-monarchist
groups, that have been deliberately left out by
the alliance of seven parties who claim that they
alone worked to make the April uprising of 2006
successful.
The uprising came to a climax
on April 24, 2006, when King Gyanendra announced
he was ending his 15-month autocratic reign,
following 19 days of protests in the streets of
Kathmandu and around the Himalayan nation. At
least 18 demonstrators died in clashes with police
during the "People's Movement".
The
minister responsible for internal security,
Krishna Sitaula, has issued a three-phased
security scheme. However, the government is not
mobilizing the 95,000-strong Nepal Army (NA)
because the peace accord signed between the
Maoists and the rest of the coalition partners
requires NA soldiers to be confined to their
barracks and Maoist combatants to UN-supervised
cantonments. The combatants, whom the Maoists
prefer to call members of the People's Liberation
Army, number about 20,000.
Despite
preparations, people at large are not confident
about the poll, primarily because of past
betrayals and secondly due to lack of a general
atmosphere of security appropriate for such a
major democratic exercise.
The law and
order situation is precarious. Media reports of
killings, abductions, beatings, looting and
disruptions of traffic on highways are coming to
the capital from all directions and imply that
state authority in outlying districts is
non-existent. Some of the district-based law
enforcement officials even complained that
Kathmandu often sends them orders to release
criminals detained on homicide charges, because
they happen to be workers for one of the coalition
parties.
"An election conducted in a
security and authority vacuum can have neither
legitimacy nor ability to institutionalize
democratic polity," analyst Devraj Dahal told Asia
Times Online.
Conspiracies to abort the CA
polls are another issue of concern. There is a
strong suspicion that the "suspended" king is sure
to use his courtiers and resources to thwart the
poll - the outcome of which is not likely to
please him and his 240-year-old monarchy. While
fears of a palace-induced conspiracy grip all in
the coalition, six of the partners are
apprehensive about the seventh, the Maoists, as
well.
The Maoist commitment to competitive
politics, they think, is little more than
window-dressing, especially if Vladimir Lenin and
Mao Zedong are Prachanda's role models.
Other relevant questions include: Can
small Nepal afford to have an assembly of 601
deputies to write a new constitution? Similarly,
how can Nepal with its limited resource base
create and sustain provinces and provincial
legislatures - and all on ethnic lines?
Isn't the proposition of autonomy with the
right to self-determination to the provinces an
outright prescription for the disintegration of
Nepal? These are some of the points being
discussed by the country's intelligentsia; but
neither Maoists, who sowed the seeds of division
and inter-communal conflicts, nor leaders of other
political parties, offer any convincing answers.
One of the other hot subjects of debate
was raised from the southern flatland, called
Terai, which shares a porous border mainly with
the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Some
of the Terai-based analysts see these separatist
tendencies as the negative outcome of the interim
Parliament's ill-conceived decision to declare
Nepal a secular country, in May 2006.
"Why
wasn't Nepal allowed to retain its Hindu identity
when over 80% of its inhabitants are Hindus?"
wondered Chandrakishore, editor of Terai
Khabarpatrika, a Nepali language magazine
published from the southern border town of
Birgunj. In his opinion, the bond of the Hindu
religion had played a significant role in keeping
hill-plain harmony intact and the elimination of
that bond threatens its unity.
The trouble
in Terai is believed to have been fanned by
elements deriving political support from New
Delhi. This might seem to be a response made on
the basis of an Indian perception the Napali
Maoists, if not checked at Nepal's plains, could
cross the porous border and enter Indian territory
to assist Maoists (also known as Naxals) in India.
As voiced by Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh, communist extremism has already
become the biggest threat to India's internal
security. If that is the case, it was sheer
foolishness on New Delhi's part to assist Nepali
Maoists to be a part of this country's
establishment. Prime Minister Girija Prasad
Koirala is said to be irritated by such signals,
which are essentially based on inconsistent
policies.
In any case, the bulk of Nepal's
external challenges come from India. In its report
released on December 18, the Brussels-based
International Crisis Group summed up New Delhi's
approach in these words: "India ... appears to be
using its influence in the Terai to pressure the
parties and underscore its capacity to shape
events."
That Nepal must deliver the CA
polls on time to complete the ongoing peace
process is not disputed by anyone. Parties outside
of the seven-party alliance also subscribe to the
understanding that there is no alternative to the
democratic exercise. UN representative Ian Martin
told the media in New York last week that he was
still optimistic, even though the security
situation in districts of central and eastern
Terai are not conducive for elections.
But
Nepali leaders do not appear to possess the
ability and vision needed for the task and most of
them, including Koirala, have not been able to
sacrifice their personal agendas for the sake of
greater national interest. By appointing his
daughter, Sujata, as the minister to look after
the prime minister's office, Koirala has sent a
message to the masses that he, like several other
South Asian leaders, is keen to build a political
dynasty.
But if a dynasty was something
that the Nepali people were looking for, they
already had an established dynasty of the Shah
kings. Or do they need a new dynasty, one for the
"New Nepal"? New Nepal is a slogan handed down by
the Maoists.
Socially conscious citizens
and Kathmandu-based diplomats also feel that
Nepali leaders have one last opportunity to prove
their worth. But each of them knows an election in
the existing security atmosphere is not possible,
but they all want that fact to be stated by
someone else. The alternative to an election,
informally floated, is to pass a resolution
transforming the present unelected Parliament
itself into the Constituent Assembly.
But
will such ingenuity be acceptable to the people at
large? Are Nepal's friends and donors likely to
approve this method as a medium to gain
legitimacy? Doubts persist.
Amid these
speculations comes the idea of a coup. Maoist
leaders have alerted the people about an impeding
"democratic coup" , involving a group of civilians
(not the king ) with the support from the army.
Apparently, Maoists have a better alternative
model in the shape of a "nationalist coup".
Ultimately, it comes down to a choice
between two types of military takeovers, in other
words, Hobson's choice.
Dhruba
Adhikary is a Kathmandu-based journalist.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
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
