Restoration of Peace in Nepal: Some Issues

- Govinda Neupane

(This is my reply to a friend. The reply was sent on September 12, 2006. Only a few sentences related to personal references have been edited.)

1. Political fluidity and Constituent Assembly (CA) election - The political situation in the country is fluid. All political forces are passing through a phase of transition in regard to their future roles. The king is still on life support system. In other words, he is in hibernation and will try to bounce back, if and when he will have opportunity. Nepali Congress has started to play some sort of accommodative role. If all political forces agree to its agenda and endeavor, there could be peace but socio-political stagnation would obstruct the process of transformation, particularly at grassroots level. Edward Muller (please read his thought provoking article in American Sociological Review, vol. 53, Issue 1, - 1998) argues that in a society where there is extreme poverty, democracy may not be successful. He recommends that in such societies, rule of a strong party may be necessary to create favorable situation by narrowing down the economic gap. He puts Singapore as an example. It is only natural to expect democracy functioning as its socio-political and economic fundamentals allow. In such situation Congress' liberal democracy (democratic socialism?) may not lead us to functioning democracy. UML is playing, most of the time (or always?), the role of a flying object. It understands politics as its profit making business and practices game of convenience to enhance its entrepreneurial objective by flying this side today and that side tomorrow. Its communism is a strange animal that has no shape, size or characteristics. It is regrettable that such a large political organization is in such an ideological and political mess. The Maoists have contributed to build a radical force that could be mobilized to create sound basis for a functioning democracy. When I use the term "radical force", I refer to the militant masses. Primarily, they are the participants of the "Spring Thunder 2006" in Kathmandu and elsewhere in Nepal. Nurturing this mass and creating a socio-economic and political situation where they can play the most important role in the affairs of state and society may be the basis for a vibrant democracy. The CA election could be the new beginning to that endeavor.

2. Arms management - We should see why the Maoists took arms? If it is for building a strong political force or forces and critical mass to transform the society and state, then that objective has not been achieved. Talking peace is nothing new to any political force. Most important is to examine the viability of that statement. The Maoist leadership may be under tremendous pressure from its cadres to take a more pragmatic line on the issues of arms when there is monarchy still breathing, the same army leadership is intact or even emboldened, foreign pressure on Nepali Congress and UML to part company with the Maoists has been growing and uncertainty over the future political course is continuing. As I had mentioned in my previous email to you that the best course could be to keep the Maoist army with their weapons in temporary barracks. I think that that would be the viable option till the CA poll is not over.

3. Renouncing violence: This could be the desire of all of us, but how that option could be materialized. This is not as simple as many intellectuals believe. For them, when the
Maoist leadership declares that they renounced violence, the violence would end there. The Maoist leadership would remain stronger only to that date till they stay predictable. They raised the arms stating that they will transform the society, and without giving an alternative strategy to further the cause peacefully, they may not call it off. CA election could bring such opportunity to state that the peaceful strategy might come into play.

4. Maoists and SPA relation: SPA is a temporary united front created to fight against the totalitarian regime of the king. When the monarchy disappears as a power or as an institution, the arrangement looses its relevance. The same is applicable to the relation between the SPA and Maoists. And, in a multiparty framework that is normal and natural. Unnatural is all party governance (in absence of legal opposition as in the case of Nepal now). Therefore, ruling party or alliances and opposition parties or alliances should play their respective roles to safeguard the interest of the people and nation. Shaking hands between SPA and Maoists for a cause, such as creating an environment and a framework for vibrant democracy through constituent assembly is understandable. For this purpose, to share the responsibilities by coming together in an interim arrangement is also understandable. But making legal opposition irrelevant (such as the role of Rastriya Prajatantra Party in parliament today and probably many others tomorrow) is harmful for democracy. This was the major issue that many communist parties failed to understand. As a result, they had to see set backs all over the world. Therefore, in my opinion, pluralism even today in a transitional arrangement makes perfect sense. Moreover, pluralistic political arrangements and behaviors may contribute to have a sound foundation for democracy in Nepal. Let's not create 'unity' at the costs of pluralistic political practices.

5. Your arguments: I respect your feelings and desire to stop fighting and start building the nation. I could only add that stopping fighting and building the nation are part of a larger socio-economic and political process. Emotionally I am with you, but as a political analyst, I have to travel through the path of realism as far as my understanding of the objective situation directs me to travel to.