Late Koirala played a key role in ending the monarch’s authoritarian regime and paved the way for a peaceful resolution to violent conflict. Credit must go to Koirala as one of the principal figures for building bridges among political actors, particularly to those who were practicing parliamentary democracy for one-and-a-half decades, and also for creating a safe space for the rebel force, the Communist Party of Maoists (CPN-M) to join in peace negotiations. While recognizing Koirala’s contribution for ushering peace as the country’s prime minister and president of Nepali Congress, other parties too, including CPN-UML and CPN-Maoists must be acknowledged for equally significant contributions toward the foundation of a republican polity, and transformation of the state-based on principles of inclusion, equality and non-discrimination.
While implementing the peace agreement, leaders not only of influence but of integrity create a conducive atmosphere among stakeholders in the peace process. However, losing key leadership or the absence of genuine leadership can create an unhealthy competition for power, and could lead to further complications in developing understanding and cooperation to discuss and decide on issues either not documented during the dialogue process or that were not officially incorporated into the peace agreement.
In the absence of true national leaders, competition for credit, power, and other gains can increase with stakeholders reverting back to polarized positions and old hostilities. This kind of crisis of confidence was witnessed in the Middle-East peace process after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin of Israel and subsequent death of Yasser Arafat, who had played instrumental roles for the 1994 Oslo Peace Agreement, mediated by the former US President Bill Clinton. On the other hand, the peace process has smoothly moved in South Africa due to the continuous involvement of the same leadership, including Nelson Mandela and FW De Clark that ended the decades-long apartheid regime, and helped establish democratic space for all nationals with dignity, respect and freedom.
Koirala’s passing away could be the call needed for other national leaders to come forward and build confidence of political parties who have to play a responsible role for achieving the goals set out in the peace process.
While the peace process and constitution drafting were not moving ahead at the pace or in the nature best suited for the country, the demise of a leading personality in Nepal’s peace process has the potential to cause a leadership vacuum in his own political party, the Nepali Congress, and consequently the country’s. However, Koirala’s passing could be the call needed for other national leaders to come forward and build confidence of political parties who have to play a responsible role for achieving the goals set out in the peace process.
The country has lost a very determined national figure, whether one agreed or not with his ideology, working style, and priorities or not. Koirala was able to help build a common platform despite numerous differences during the peace process, and the High Level Political Mechanism. Losing leadership may mean losing confidence and having to build a fresh understanding on contentious issues.
As Nepal’s peace negotiations were largely undisclosed, there are numerous issues which were dealt through one-on-one negotiations between Koirala and CPN-Maoist chairperson Pushpa Kamal Dahal. In his memorial remarks, Dahal highlighted his special relation with Koirala, and indicated that they could easily resolve even highly disputed issues through mutual understanding during negotiations and the period of drafting the peace agreement, as well as finding consensus for holding the constituent assembly election. He even mentioned that they had talked about the number of former Maoist combatants to be integrated into national security agencies. But with Koirala’s passing away, the progress on these issues could falter yet again.
Many Nepalis fear that the peace process will fall apart, and the country may go back to conflict due to Koirala’s demise, or that it will be more difficult to promulgate a new constitution by May 28, 2010. This might be a genuine argument if political and civil leaders allow Koirala’s absence to be an excuse for the absence of national leadership.
Koirala certainly deserves credit and respect for his contribution to the country. He was nationally and internationally accepted due to his personal, family and party legacy, and had dedicated more than six decades for the establishment of democracy and freedom in the country. Despite reservations, his courage to stand up against the monarch certainly eased the process of declaring Nepal a republic nation.
Traditionally, people do not want to be critical after the death of a powerful person and want to project a glorified history. But it does not do the country justice to rewrite history. While Koirala was often determined and popular, he befell so many political leaders by replacing the national interest by party or personal interest. The country cannot continue to be ruled by leaders who are unwilling to represent all Nepalis or who are unwilling to compromise, with power centered on family or party legacy. With due respect, the peace process and constitution-making process cannot be jeopardized in the absence of Koirala, instead our current leaders should reaffirm their commitment to the process and learn from Koirala’s strengths and weaknesses.
In the end, it will be a true tribute to Koirala for all leadership across the aisle to demonstrate their willingness to work together, build consensus for a comprehensive nation-building process, and pursue only peaceful methods for transitioning the country. The challenge that faced Nepal has not changed with Koirala’s demise. We need a national leader with the interest of all Nepalis in the forefront of his or her mind to come forward and lead us to peace.
(Writer is a conflict analyst.)
peace_sb@yahoo.com
Related story
Let’s live in peace and embrace diversity
