Holding the Constituent Assembly (CA) election without making a conducive and fearless environment was the first mistake that turned Nepali politics from a consensus model to a majoritarian one. Since then, the conflict flared up as the Maoists started calling other political parties ‘a bunch of losers’ whereas the others projected Maoists as undemocratic. In post-conflict context, holding election is seen as a way of ‘pump-priming peace’ and reducing tensions. Rather than finding alternative options to reconcile the diverse nature of multi-ethnic societies through inclusive participation, the traditional concept of seeing election as the end of democracy in Nepal has proved to be a mistake. The result of the CA election has reinforced the political polarization and ethnic divisions, thereby weakening the tradition of political consensus emanating from the 12-point agreement. Our political parties and the international community, instead of thinking what works and what doesn’t, were in a hurry to apply the Western model to re-legitimize their power, causing harm to the entire peace process.
The second mistake was to adopt a trend of quick fix, immediate impacts and unsustainable solutions, which is now part of Nepali polity. Our political masters have become skilled at short-term crisis management but they don’t have a long-term vision. Following the same path, Federation of Nepali Chamber of Commerce and Industries (FNCCI) is currently pushing for short-term stability rather than addressing the core of the problem. Due to the Maoist threat to maintain neutrality, the nationally-recognized facilitator, FNCCI, has discredited its past image by publicly announcing a 48-hour ultimatum and to ‘boycotting of tax’. As there is little in sight to suggest any coherent strategy for getting out of the deepening crisis, this provocative ultimatum has contributed to further polarization of politics.
Giving less priority to the everyday problems of livelihood, bureaucratic reforms and worsening law and order situation is a major factor creating frustrations among the general public. Widespread poverty, unemployment, traditional land tenure system, neglect, underdevelopment and other social inequities are problems that need urgent attention of the mainstream political parties. Historical roots of conflict should be seen as the major cause of other social, economic and political problems. The urban-centric mass protest of the Maoists signaled the same symptoms of the class-based social movement. The rural cadres came to the urban streets with the expectation of change in their daily circumstances, but the Maoists used the opportunity to consolidate their strength to increase their negotiating powers vis-à-vis other political parties and the government.
After all, the Maoist ability to protest and be present in the public sphere has been precisely what the members of the ruling coalition lack. However, the Maoists seem to have forgotten that the support of the urban middle class is vital for any peace effort. Now people are doubtful of the Maoist willingness to implement the past agreements. This will lead to more polarization and the political factions will be pitting their followers against each other. This may ultimately dismantle the CA and there may be no new constitution.
The fourth flaw is the lack of participation of the historically-excluded groups in the High-Level Political Mechanism. This has isolated the wider community to have their say on the vital issues of state re-structuring and combatant integration and rehabilitation. Their non-participation meant that they had no say on those issues. Negotiations could be more effective and productive by popular representation that can guard deviation from the people’s agenda. Marxist theory suggests that ‘social change is possible, but it must be led directly by marginalized social sectors’. The major political parties should not forget this.
The fifth mistake is the ‘open’ external influence that has proved ineffective to resolve the political differences. Particularly, India’s dual role of sustaining the political dispute as well as pushing for peaceful settlement, depending on what serves its perceived national interests has further complicated the problem.
Indian Ambassador Rakesh Sood’s open diplomacy and visible role in the Rookmangud Katawal controversy, the formation of Madhav Kumar Nepal’s government and a letter to the foreign minister in the Machine Readable Passport deal fostered what could be termed as a continual crisis of political legitimacy affecting the government and ruling regimes. His direct backing of the Nepal Army heightened the issues of civilian control. The mistake has not only antagonized the UCPN (Maoist) but even weakened the moral ground and bargaining capacity of the ruling alliance.
To establish peace and make it sustainable, it is high time for the political actors to diagnose these five flaws to find a common ground for collective actions leaving aside political differences emanating from ‘all-or-nothing approach’. They have to understand that there is no ‘third way’ except a corridor leading either to consensus or confrontation. Where all this will end is difficult to predict. However, the elite’s approach of negotiation focusing on power and resources is a real cause of rigidity and paranoia. The increasing polarization should be best understood as a strategy to establish unchallenged political control of the state. Thus, steering the peace process on the track of indigenous methods of political consensus creating ‘new space’ for inclusive participation seems difficult, if not impossible.
dipjha@gmail.com
Related story
Let’s live in peace and embrace diversity
-1784277548.webp)
