Nepal is facing abnormal challenges that require innovative approaches

By Murari R. Sharma

King Gyanendra had a wonderful opportunity, on April 14, 2006 in his Nepali New Year message, to square to the Nepali people and present a viable road map the Nepali people could at least begin to consider. But all he cared to do in his address was to put the old wine in a new bottle, reiterating his old and vague proposal for dialogue with political parties and parliamentary elections next year.

His Majesty King Gyanendra

Not surprisingly, the seven-party alliance (SPA) rejected the king’s offer out of hand and pressed on with the pro-democracy movement, by announcing new and more strident programs. This time, apart from asking all sections of the Nepali population to come to the street, SPA has also called on the diaspora not to send remittance home and donors not to provide assistance to the royal regime. The public response to this new batch of programs has been phenomenal, and this has catapulted the movement to its decisive phase.

Alarmed by this new momentum, the king has launched a new round of political consultations, starting with key ambassadors and former prime ministers, including KP Bhattarai and SP Thapa, both opposed to the idea of constituent assembly and potential prime ministerial candidates. The objective of these contacts remains under the wrap. What is notable though is this: If the purpose was to hand over power, the first candidates for such interaction should have been the SPA leaders.

Now appointing a prime minister whoever it may be or reinstating the parliament will not suffice; the country must go much further seeking to secure peace, strengthen democracy and pave the way for an inclusive and equitable society.
Finding a common ground and seeking people’s mandate to govern constitute the cardinal principles of a democratic system. For this reason, democratic parties should never shy away from fair election and genuine dialogue in normal situations. However, in an abnormal political climate, preserving the substance — values and institutions — rather than the form, of democracy becomes the foremost obligation of responsible parties. Now Nepal is facing abnormal challenges that require innovative approaches.

What strikes me is this: The king in his proposal for dialogue has always been devoid of purpose, content, context or format. His purpose, as stated, has been to hold talks making “patriotism” as the meeting point, which does not tell much other than announcing that some people arrogate to themselves the honor of being more patriotic than others, an arrogant and slanderous but an empty and unhelpful rhetoric. The possible content of talks is not clear either, and there is no way to know whether the king wants to address the issue of constituent assembly, restoration of parliament, or appointment of a new prime minister.

Another point of confusion in the king’s proposal is the lack of clarity as to the context or level of talks. What comes from the ministers is shifting conditions and moving goalposts for dialogue, manifesting the fact that they could not be serious. For instance, the ministers first asked SPA to withdraw its boycott of municipal elections to pave the way for talks; over the last few days, they were asking the alliance to break the 12-point understanding with the Maoists to be invited for talks. And it would be too much to assume that SPA leaders would come running if the home minister and information minister invited them for talks.

Finally, the king or his ministers never bothered to outline the format of dialogue. SPA has no idea, as far as I know, whether dialogue is supposed to be a bilateral between the government and SPA, a trilateral among the government, SPA and the Maoists, or a round-table of those three and all the rest. To presume that SPA would abandon the Maoists at this late stage of the game would be too simplistic, simply because this would not help resolve the Maoist problem, and SPA’s own credibility too would be on the line.

Besides, free and fair parliamentary elections will not be possible without an understanding, if not agreement, with the Maoists, who hold sway in more than 75 percent of the countryside, under which they would allow the elections to go forward peacefully. If the elections were not possible in 2002, they are not certainly feasible now, as the situation has further worsened. The municipal elections are a case in point: the turn out was low and more than 50 percent posts had no candidates in relatively secure towns and cities due to the Maoist threat and SPA boycott. This does not inspire much confidence in the government’s ability to pull off the parliamentary elections in far-flung villages.

In an abnormal political climate, preserving the substance rather than the form of democracy becomes the foremost obligation of responsible parties.
So, SPA has a point in rejecting the king’s vague offer of talks swiftly. In fact, it should not hold dialogue with the government unless its broad contours, with which the pro-democratic agitators feel comfortable, are clearly spelt out beforehand, leaving the details to be fleshed out as agreed later. This line of action becomes imperative because any sense among the energized protestors that the SPA has betrayed them would only push them to the embrace of Maoist rebels, a dreadful but a real prospect.

No one should underestimate the pro-democratic movement. Through the movement, the Nepali people are seeking to restore their democracy and freedom rather than trying to reinstate the status quo ante. This pits the monarchy, Maoists and SPA – with their strengths and weaknesses — into an existential crisis. SPA has people’s power and world opinion on its side but no armies; the monarchy and Maoists have their armies but no broad public support. In other words, none of these political protagonists has the strength to overcome the other two alone, but any two could tackle the third. The 12-point pact is an effort to break that strategic stalemate.

The best scenario could have been for all political players to make a compromise in the interest of Nepal and its people. But the time for it has run out. Now appointing a prime minister whoever it may be or reinstating the parliament will not suffice; the country must go much further seeking to secure peace, strengthen democracy and pave the way for an inclusive and equitable society. For this greater cause, a party or an institution that stands in the way should be dispensable.

(Former permanent representative of Nepal to the United Nations, Mr. Sharma is currently based in New York Please send your comments to [email protected] or [email protected])

(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])