September 16, 2010

NEPAL: POLITICAL CRISIS WITHOUT ANY END

Posted by The Himalayan Voice:
[Adding to the complexity is the fact that neither the Nepalese government nor the all party Special Committee has any idea of numbers or the list of the Maoist Combatants lodged in the special cantonments. According to both the Nepalese Congress and UML the UNMIN has the list but does not share it with both the political parties and special committee. There are wild rumours that numbers of Maoist Combatants have left the camps and actual number is anything between 12-14000 and certainly not the UNMIN and Maoist figure of 19,602.  Yet the Nepalese government has the onus of paying stipend and allowances to the 19,602 Maoist combatants. Under these circumstances present caretaker government blames UNMIN for bias and is not keen on extending the mandate of UNMIN beyond 15 Sep.]


By Brigadier Arun Sahgal (Retd)

Political scenario in Nepal is marked by deep seated mistrust and lack of confidence. Both the democratic parties and the UCPN Maoists are trying to cobble up majority to ensure the other side does not form the government. Adding to the political confusion are two major sticking points one; the closure of peace process and the role of the UNMIN second on the nature of structure of the future Nepalese government; Presidential, parliamentary democracy or in between on the lines of French model.

The jostling for power is for ensuring the above two rather intractable issues are concluded to the advantage of the one or the other.

The basic political deadlock involves what will come first the closure of peace process or formation of the new government. The closure of peace process   involves rehabilitation and integration of erstwhile Maoist combatants; this includes handing over their control and management from the UMNIN to Special committee created for the management, reintegration of erstwhile militant combatants into the Nepalese security including the Army and lastly return of properties illegally ceased by the Maoist armed cadres called the Young.

The issue is becoming complicated and in many ways intractable by focusing more on the process than the solution.  Take for example the integration process; the Maoist demand that for the purposes of integration there should be one yard stick; either the recruitment norms applicable to the Nepalese Army or agreement on number in which case selection norms do not apply.

The Army and democratic parties on the other hand are clear that both the numbers and norms have to be decided before hand before there can be any talk on formation of consensus government. They are adamant that the Maoists cannot go back from the earlier agreed numbers which range from 3 – 5 000 depending upon which political party you talk to.

Adding to the complexity is the fact that neither the Nepalese government nor the all party Special Committee has any idea of numbers or the list of the Maoist Combatants lodged in the special cantonments. According to both the Nepalese Congress and UML the UNMIN has the list but does not share it with both the political parties and special committee. There are wild rumours that numbers of Maoist Combatants have left the camps and actual number is anything between 12-14000 and certainly not the UNMIN and Maoist figure of 19,602.  Yet the Nepalese government has the onus of paying stipend and allowances to the 19,602 Maoist combatants. Under these circumstances present caretaker government blames UNMIN for bias and is not keen on extending the mandate of UNMIN beyond 15 Sep.

There is however a paradox. Whereas at one level Maoists are a political party staking claims to form the Government at another level being party to accord they interact directly with the UN and have offered a contrarian stand of extension of UNMIN mission without change in mandate for another six months. Government on the other hand is ready to extend the mandate but with a proviso that Nepalese Army should not be under the proviso of UNMIN having conducted peaceful elections and should not be penalized for delay in closure of peace process.

In the above standoff both the EU and the United States are with the Maoists who do not want any change in the mandate and appear to have bought the Maoist argument. Nepalese Army on the other hand is livid being confined to camps and cantonments strung all over the country with poor living conditions. This is becoming a serious issue exacerbating standoff.

Similarly in political terms situation remains extremely tenuous. Thus far democratic parties have managed to keep its flock together despite strong influence of money and ideals both UML and United Madhesi Democratic Front have maintained their unity. India is being held responsible for the later.
This brings to the question why there is no consensus possible or why the main political parties cannot unite to draft the new constitution.

Above brings to fore the ideological perspective and basic disbelief among the democratic parties of Maoist intentions. On the issue of multi party democracy as the most suitable political system for Nepal, Maoists draw attention to their post war resolution wherein they declared their commitment to ideals of multiparty democracy, highlighting it as the political compulsion of globalize 21st Century. They highlight this by alluding that the communist regimes flourished in first half of the 20th century but later half saw the demise of all most all communist regimes and even those that survived like China had to adopt market driven model. However on the model perse Maoists are averse to strictly following parliamentary model given the problems being faced in government formation and would like presidential or French model to be incorporated.

Democratic parties on the other hand question this as the backdoor attempt to create less than inclusive political system. They harp on the concept of pluralism based on the heterogeneity of Nepalese society. In their percept social justice in democratic society is derived by not allowing any group to overshadow the needs of the other, thereby allowing maintenance of independent cultural traditions of the minorities.

In the belief of democratic parties Maoists are reluctant to accept pluralism as their political ideology as they strongly believe in a single party. They contest that such a formulation cannot move ahead with democracy based on pluralism.

Thus if the constitution is to be written and peace process concluded both sides will have to make a compromise. The problem is the fear that such a compromise has the potential of severely eroding their political base.

Adding to the confusion is what the Nepalese of all political hues blame are the Indian and Chinese interests. Indians are being blamed by the Maoists on account of lack of imagining their evil intentions without adequate understanding, and there by positioning themselves in an anti Maoist stance. The senior Maoist leadership that I interacted with was keen for engaging with India to remove any misgivings. However on the issue of traditional close cultural and political relations with India, Maoists make a distinction. While acknowledging close cultural ties they differentiate on pursuit of national interests.

Democratic parties on the other hand blame India for not doing enough to resolve the impasse. They would like India to firmly tell all political actors to resolve differences and get on with the task of government formation. They give example of China which by sending 22 strong delegations comprising experts from many diverse fields is sending a clear message to resolve differences and evolve consensus.  Interestingly while Chinese are talked about in constructive terms there is a tendency to assign negativism to Indian role. This is based on the belief that India has greater stakes in stability of Nepal than China.

Given the complicated scenario the political crisis in Nepal is not likely to be over any time soon. The present standoff in large measure reflects ideological and political polarization and conflict.

(The author is Consultant associated with Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, and Distinguished Fellow School of Geopolitics Maniapal Academy of Higher Education. The article is based on a recent visit of the author to Nepal.)
UNMIN TERM EXTENDED BY ANOTHER FOUR MONTHS            
Thursday, 16 September 2010 06:59
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has extended the term of UN Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) by another four months, Wednesday.

A UNSC meeting held in UN headquarters, New York Wednesday decided to extend UNMIN's term for the last time by four months as per the request of Nepal government and Unified CPN (Maoist).

After the decision, UNMIN's term has been extended till January 15, 2011. UNSC has also decided to close its mission in Nepal in January.

UNMIN was set up in Nepal in 2007. Its mandate has been extended for more than six times. In his latest report to the Council on the mission, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon indicated that he is not in favour of repeated extensions of UNMIN’s mandate in an atmosphere of persistent and unfounded criticism that complicates its ability to function.

“As I have stated before, the United Nations interest is to see UNMIN complete its mandated tasks and bring closure to its work in Nepal,” he wrote.

Extending the mission's term by four-months, UNSC has called upon all political parties in Nepal to expedite the peace process, and to work together in a spirit of cooperation, consensus and compromise in order to continue the transition to a durable long-term solution to enable the country to move to a peaceful, democratic and more prosperous future. 
www.nepalnews.com
Related articles