Relevance Of HLPM

The High Level Political Mechanism (HLPM) constituted by the three major parties – UCPN (Maoist), NC and CPN-UML – has come under suspicion and fire before it has even started its work. Leaders as senior as Baburam Bhattarai, KP Oli and Bijaya Gachchhadar have raised questions about HLPM, ranging from its relevance to effectiveness to jurisdiction. The government, especially the prime minister and his confidants, seems to have the least confidence, if not a deep suspicion, in the HLPM. They fear that if and when the negotiations pick up, the Maoists will eventually force other leaders to enter discussions on power sharing that could ultimately see the end of this government. As the attacks on the HLPM have increased, the top leaders have volunteered themselves for counter attacks. UML Chairman Jhala Nath Khanal said the other day that there was no sensible ground on which the HLPM was being criticized. Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal was even harsher when he said that those who criticized the HLPM were playing at the hands of the foreign forces. It’s another thing that Dahal, these days, sees foreign hands in everything that he does not like.



It’s unfortunate that the HLPM, which was constituted to bridge the differences among the leaders, has sharpened the divide within and among the parties. Part of the problem lies in our pervasive cynicism – suspicion is often our starting point and we immediately begin to think about troubles that such forums can create instead of thinking about what positive contribution it can bring to the process. HLPM is a nothing more or less than a forum – a space if you may so call – for the top leaders to meet and put their heads together to find a way out of the current political stalemate. Trying to undermine the forum arguing that it’s an unconstitutional body only shows the narrow-mindedness and insecurity of those in power.



Instead of getting distracted with the ongoing criticisms, the HLPM should expedite its work. First on its agenda should be to give itself a full shape. The critiques of the mechanisms are right at least in one respect: It must have the prime minister as its member if it wants to be an effective body. The mechanism should also include leaders of the Madhes-based parties without any delay to broaden its appeal and to strengthen its legitimacy. The second thing that the mechanism should work on is to finalize its work procedure, detailed agendas that it should take up, and finally, its jurisdiction. Once the mechanism finalizes these issues, we hope the suspicion about the necessity and usefulness of the mechanism will significantly subside. The mechanism offers a renewed hope that the leaders will put aside their parochial interest and strike an agreement to break the political impasse, complete the peace process and write the constitution on time. If they miss the chance this time around, the country can plunge into a painful period of chaos and uncertainty.

Related story

Dr KC’s strike loses its relevance, says Minister Baskota