Excerpts
How do you appraise the present political scenario?
The present Nepali politics is heading ahead through a very serious crisis. The million-dollar question posed before us is: Can we conclude the peace process and promulgate the new constitution by the May 28, 2010 deadline. We can move ahead only after answering this question.
Who is responsible for the current crisis?
I don’t want to blame any particular political party for it. Dissatisfaction, disputes and intra-party feuds prevailing in the major political parties are the major factors that led the country to this situation. We are in a transitional phase. It is not a normal parliament. In such a situation, dividing the Constituent Assembly (CA) in majority and minority and trying to rule the country on that basis was the primary mistake. I think that was the point from whence onwards we started committing blunders. We need to review it. Again we have no option but to forge a national consensus among the parties in the new context.
The parties have started discussions about possible alternatives in case the deadline cannot be met. There is also talk of promulgating a brief constitution. What are the options that have surfaced chiefly in the discussions so far?
As of now the emphasis is still on meeting the deadline. We are for making maximum use of the remaining days. We have to finish the statute drafting and peace process within the time that is available. For that, we have to draw up a precise timeline consisting of tasks leading to the deadline and follow it strictly. We are holding talks among the three major parties and among the 25 political parties as well in that light. The question still remains what next if we fail to meet the deadline even after our best efforts.
What about promulgating a brief constitution?
I am a student of political science but I don’t understand what a brief constitution is. I don’t think it will be acceptable in our context. Concentrating our efforts in writing a complete constitution will be in the interest of everyone.
There are voices claiming constitution can be promulgated by putting off state restructuring and some other contentious issues for the time being. What do you say?
We can find out ways to resolve issues like state restructuring and some other contentious issues at a later date. However, it will require national consensus.
It is said that leaders have already made up their minds to extend the deadline but no one is ready to be the first to mention it. Is this true?
Gradually, the parties are beginning to feel that way. Having failed to complete the tasks, it is natural for this question to be raised. But then again, it is the political parties who have to find a solution. For that, consensus is the only way.
At present, the political parties are disputing regarding the contents of the new constitution and at the same time they are also fighting as to who will head the government. Why is this happening?
I have been advocating for a national unity government from the very beginning. We had given top priority to constitution making, peace process and forging consensus among the political parties during the formation of the current majority government under our leadership. These were the three major priorities of this government. The objective of that policy was to extend this coalition to a national unity government. But now it has run out of its time. Therefore, we have no other option left but to reach a national consensus.
What can be the new approach? Will that mean dissolution of the current government to pave the way for forming national unity government?
Realizing the present grave situation, the parties should be open to adopt any viable option to resolve the problems. They should be ready to sacrifice for the sake of peace, for the interest of the people and the nation.
Maoists have been insisting on dissolution of the current government as a precondition to forge a national consensus. Is that possible?
The recently concluded central committee meeting of our party has put forward a new proposal of national consensus. The CC decided to keep all options open to forge such consensus.
Does that mean your party is ready to quit the government for national consensus?
It is obvious that after the formation of the national unity government the majority status of the current ruling party will be an irrelevant issue.
But the UML is reiterating on its old conditions which is implementation of previous agreements?
Violence must be stopped. Paramilitary structure of Maoist youth wing must be disbanded and attacks by such militant groups should be immediately halted. The government must prepare a clear work plan to integrate and rehabilitate the Maoist combatants. These are minimum conditions to head toward forging a consensus. If the Maoists stick to their own agenda, they will dig themselves into a pit.
Parties are in dispute regarding what should come first—the statute or integration of Maoist combatants. What is your view?
The parties needn’t fight on this issue. Common sense suggests that combatants’ integration should be done first. Maoists should know it. We had committed to resolve the combatants’ issue six months after the CA election and write constitution in two years. No one should make any changes on that. Maoists should not use it as a bargaining chip in writing the constitution. First the peace process should be concluded and then the constitution will be promulgated.
What would be the suitable number of combatants for integration?
Certain standards should be followed while finalizing the number. We should take reference of their weapons as well. We need to check the facts and spirit of the past agreements reached, study some relevant international practice and mainly we have to keep our ground reality in mind.
Should the number of combatants to be integrated be on a par with the ratio of weapons the fighters posses?
Number of weapons is definitely a common basis to decide upon the matter. The number can vary as per the understanding reached by the parties.
A recent cabinet meeting termed UN Under-Secretary-General B Lynn Pascoe’s statement as violation of diplomatic norms. The relation between the government and the UNMIN has soured after the latter refused to share information about the PLA as demanded by the government. What is your view?
We are the ones who invited UNMIN and we have given certain responsibility to the UN body after signing a tripartite agreement. If we demand more than the given responsibility from the body, that will show our ineptitude. Likewise, the UN body should fulfill its responsibility with a firm determination. I think the ongoing disputes are unnecessary.
Do you see any mistake on the part of UNMIN or is the government giving undue pressure?
The UNMIN’s argument is that whatever they are doing is based on past agreements. I have found no logic to refute that argument. The government side should thoroughly study past agreements. It can’t only expect the other side to do so. If it wants new things, it has to reach new agreements to solve the problems. The government must analyze the basis on which those agreements were made. UNMIN should stay until the conclusion of peace process which is in the interest of our nation.
The Maoist seems to be in the mood of registering no-confidence motion against the government. How do you see it?
Introducing no-confidence motion at this time is completely irrelevant. We have seen that the majority governments have failed to resolve serious problems. This is the period for national consensus. Any move or countermove against the spirit of national consensus will be counterproductive. Even if the Maoists succeed to topple the present government through the no-confidence motion, the new majority government will surely be another failure coalition. Therefore, the process they are trying to initiate is not a solution in itself. It will create new problem and further deteriorate the situation.
Is there any possibility of Maoists joining this coalition and transforming it into a national unity government?
There is almost zero possibility of Maoists joining this government.
People say Maoists might join the government headed by you. Is it likely?
We are not too ambitious about ourselves. Our central committee has decided to keep all options open. We can’t reach national consensus unless all the political parties keep options open like us.
Have the Maoists given any indication that a government under your leadership may be acceptable for them?
I have not sought such signals nor have they proposed it to me. But we can’t rule out possibilities in politics. Some say politics is a game of possibilities. This is true to some extent. We have to accept an alternative that can be acceptable for all.
Your party stood sharply divided on some major agenda including the state restructuring and system of governance while casting votes in the CA. How can you forge national consensus while you have failed to unite your own party?
Differences in these issues don’t hold relevance in our party any longer. It has already been resolved by the party’s CC meeting. On system of governance, we have decided to stand in favor of ceremonial president and directly-elected prime ministerial system. This is the official stance that UML has been advocating from the beginning. We will continue to lobby for it. Regarding state restructuring, we have decided to entrust a commission with specific tasks.
Political analysts say that the model proposed by UML has already proved to be a failure in Israel and it is not practiced in any part of the world any longer.
Don’t think that we copied it from Israel. It is absolutely wrong. We proposed it on the basis of analysis of our own ground realities. It doesn’t necessarily mean that any model proposed for Nepal should have been tested in any other country earlier. As our country is full of cultural and ethnic diversity, the head of state should be made a symbol of national unity. We want to make the executive prime minister as effective as an executive president. We want proper checks and balances in between the executive and legislative.
When are you going to let the people know that you are going to extend the CA deadline?
So far, none of the top leaders from the parties have focused their discussions on the contents of the constitution. Now we should. We have decided not to go outside the capital city. We will strive to complete within this deadline. Once we realize that there is no possibility of completing the task within the given time, only then we will think about extending the deadline.
We must make the people realize that now the parties are sincere about the deadline. If we really work hard we can achieve miracles.
Do you mean the constitution will be drafted in time only if a miracle happens?
Yes. Let’s understand it that way for now [laughs].
Related story
Turkey's ‘miracle baby’ interests Nepal’s ‘miracle boy’!
_20230211111215.jpg)
-1780813474.webp)
