April 25, 2010
For the last two years, I’ve asked various Nepali
politicians – from Maoist leaders to members of Nepali Congress: “What happens
if the Constituent Assembly fails to promulgate the new constitution by May 28,
2010?” On more than one occasion the self-assured response was: “Miracles
happen in Nepal.”
Maybe that’s the problem: Politicians relying on miracles –
while jockeying for power – instead of dedicating themselves to serving the
public through old-fashion hard work, sincere dialogue amongst themselves and
forging a consensus based on the greater good.
Now it is a moot point.
Failure to meet the deadline has become a foregone
conclusion. The belief in miracles has given way to the acceptance that the
only thing awaiting Nepalis on May 28 is retrenching on the same old
battleground – a war-weary landscape cluttered with political parties furious
with one another while being additionally hobbled by mistrust for their own party
leaders. There’s a lot of stabbing in the back in Nepal these days.
And so, after two wasted years of negligible leadership –
and no constitution in sight – the last-minute panic begins.
Three days ago, Nepal’s floundering government led by Prime
Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal of the Communist Party of Nepal-United
Marxist-Leninist (UML) put security forces on alert.
The government also demanded that the opposition Maoist
party cease giving military training to its former-rebel cadre – a sure sign that
the Maoists are gearing up for a showdown. In the meantime, the Maoists are
demanding that Prime Minister Nepal resign.
On April 22, the prime minister called a meeting of the
cabinet as well as the chiefs of the three security agencies to discuss how to
combat the Maoists if their anti-government protests turned violent.
“The Maoists are giving military training to their cadre
against the peace pact and the task of drafting a new constitution,” government
spokesman and Information and Communications Minister Shankar Pokhrel said
after the meeting. “We have requested them to stop it. The government has also
asked security forces to be ready to combat any law and order violation.”
The move came after a series of reports in the local media
that the formerly armed party was readying new recruits for a new offensive in
anticipation that the government would fail to meet a much-awaited peace
deadline next month.
How is it that Nepal has come to this impasse when, only
two years ago the future of the world’s youngest republic looked promising?
Perhaps its time to take a step back and remember what has transpired since the
2008 elections occured.
On April 10, 2008, 601 politicians were elected to form the
new Constituent Assembly. The nascent government’s primary obligation was to
pen a new constitution. They were given two years to complete the task.
The results of the elections surprised the world. There was
no mandate, but the Maoists won a simple majority by garnering 38.1% of the
seats. The old powerhouse party, Nepali Congress (NC), came in a distant second
with 19.1%. Bringing up third place with 18% was the UML. The remaining seats
were meted out to 23 lesser known parties and independents.
May 28, 2008: The new Constituent Assembly convened in Kathmandu
and overwhelmingly voted to form a new government. (The monarchist Rastriya
Prajatantra Party, which had four members in the assembly, registered a
dissenting vote.) Nepal was declared a secular and inclusive democratic
republic. The dethroned King Gyanendra was given 15 days to vacate the
Narayanhiti Royal Palace.
August 18, 2008: The first prime minister of the Federal
Democratic Republic of Nepal –Maoists’ Supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” –
was sworn into office. Although he was the head of a coalition government, his actions during his brief eight-month
tenure were ones of a man who believed he had received a Marxist mandate from
the entire country, which was clearly not the case. His inexperience as a
governmental leader showed. A series of divisive missteps ensued.
Right out of the gate, Prachanda’s bravado took him
toe-to-toe with India, Nepal’s mammoth southern neighbor that surrounds the
tiny nation on three sides and Nepal’s largest trading partner: He broke the
tradition of choosing India for his first foreign visit. Instead, he organized
a junket to the Beijing Olympics and claimed that it was an apolitical
decision—that he was merely going to China to support his nation’s athletes.
Few bought his disingenuousness, least of all India.
A few months later there was a huge public uproar when he
attempted to have the Indian high priests removed from Nepal’s most sacred
Hindu temple, Pashupatinath. Prachanda had underestimated the staying power of
Hindu traditionalism and highly charged street demonstrations forced Prachanda
to back down from his unpopular decision.
But his greatest blunder was when he decided that he was securely positioned to oust Nepal’s Army
Chief, General Rookmangud Katawal. It became a rallying point for most of the
ruling parties. They lined up against Prachanda and, on May 4, 2009, Prachanda
resigned. Overnight, the Maoist party switched from being the main player in
the Constituent Assembly to the antagonists of the Constituent Assembly.
May 23, 2009. The Constituent Assembly elected UML party
leader Madhav Kumar Nepal to become the new prime minister.
Since then, the Maoist opposition party has beleaguered the
CA, both inside the halls of Parliament and outside in the streets with mass
demonstrations and bandhs (nation-wide
strikes). Very recently the Maoists have also ratcheted up their anit-Indian
rhetoric by calling the Constituent Assembly the “puppet government” of New
Delhi.
But the CA also has itself to blame for the current impasse.
Instead of keeping an eye on the prize – i.e. the writing of the new
constitution –under the present prime minister’s watch, the contentious members
of the CA have digressed and become distracted by one second-tier issue after
another.
Now that the deadline for the promulgation of the new
constitution is just a month away, the Prime Minister is fighting for a
six-month extension of the current CA’s tenure (as well as his political
position). The interim constitution does
provide for a contingency plan for an extension. The problem is that the
provision only applies if there is a state of emergency such as one created by
a war or a natural disaster. Since neither calamity has occurred in Nepal, the
validity of the current parliament and government after May 28 becomes a critical issue. Some now worry that
if the UML and other parties manage to impose a state of emergency, against the
people’s wishes, the situation could lead to martial law and fresh violence.
In the meantime, Nepali Congress, the other leading party in
the current government, is advocating fresh elections come May 28, to choose a
new parliament. Opponents have countered that, given the CA’s ineptness over
the last two years, what good would new elections be at this juncture? Besides,
Nepali Congress has its own demons to deal with.
Internal power struggles,
particularly after the passing away of the party’s patriarch, Girija Prasad
Koirala (March 20, 2010), has left the hierarchy in disarray. (Sujata Koirala’s
clumsy handling of the passport issue last month didn’t help matters.)
And this addresses an underlying problem that has now reared
its ugly head: In two year’s time, national optimism has morphed first into
dismay, then into disillusionment, and now into growing cynicism.
Two years ago, most Nepalis agreed that the monarchy was a
dead issue. Today, one has to wonder. Nepal’s only openly royalist party,
Rastriya Prajatantra Party, is sending up trial balloons to see if Nepalis are
in a forgiving mood. In spite of King Gyanendra’s ham-fisted autocratic maneuvering
and control of the Nepal Army, many common folk are asking themselves: “Was it
really that bad during the king’s reign?” Few loved Gyanendra, but many valued
the 240-year continuity that the monarchy represented. Both inside and outside
the Kathmandu Valley, people are wondering why they – not the politicians – got to
decide the fate of the monarchy. Ultimately, if the political situation
continues to unravel, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party could get a bump from the
very people who, in 2006, were calling for Gyanendra’s head.
Of more immediate concern is the security forces being put
on high alert. There is no question that the existence of the Nepal Army has
been the only real barrier for the Maoists. It brought the Maoists to their
knees last year without the army having to squeeze off a single round.
Especially during the controversy over General Katawal, the army managed to
stay above the fray while the politicians slugged it out among themselves. (The
Nepal Army also enjoys esteem from in the international community. It has
contributed more than 36,000 peacekeepers for various United Nations-sponsored
missions, including current substantial presence in Haiti and Sudan.) The mere
reputation of the Army, in a country that can boast few top-notch institutions,
is enough to allow anti-Maoists to have a good night’s sleep.
Martial law is another matter. Curfews, the suspension of
civil law, and the other impositions that accompany martial law would shackle
Nepal’s budding democracy. There
again, what happens if, on May 28, the government decides that the only way it
can hang on to its power is to declare a state of emergency – martial law, to
some degree or another, would almost certainly have to be part of the process. At what cost?
In the meantime, the Maoists are turning up the heat with a
wave of scheduled mass demonstrations designed to curtail progress in
parliament, while at the same time posturing to the press that they support the
completion of the constitution by the May 28 deadline.
This may have prompted the U.S Ambassador of Nepal DeLisi’s
cautionary statement a few days ago: “…demonstration in a peaceful manner is
the right of the people, but, at this critical juncture, demonstration cannot
be an alternative to a dialogue.”
Does anyone remember when there was genuine dialogue in Nepal? The notion of peaceful discourse had been turned upside down. Is
there any leader in Nepal who could come forward at this late date and bang the drum for inclusiveness?
………………….............................................………………….
