Prachanda’s Resignation and the Turmoil in Nepal
18 May, 2009 · 2868
Sangeeta Thapliyal analyzes the recent instability in the neighbouring country
The present turmoil in Nepal began with the Maoists trying to establish “civilian supremacy” over the military. The major political parties such as the Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist) were in favour of a consensual approach while taking any decision on the Army Chief. However, Prime Minister Prachanda sacked the Army Chief without obtaining support from the other political parties, a decision that was revoked by the President in favour of the Army Chief. Prachanda resigned on principle that it was against the spirit of civilian supremacy over the military.
The present political developments in Nepal show a contest among the political actors and between the political actors and the institutions. This kind of political contestation is not new and has prevailed in Nepal since the introduction of multi-party democracy in 1990. Nepali politics has been unstable, faction-ridden and marred by intra- and inter-party feuds. The general election of 1991 saw Nepali Congress getting a majority, but since then no single party could obtain a majority and governments were formed with various combinations of coalition partners irrespective of ideology. Not much has changed except that Maoists are now also a part of the coalition.
Soon after the changeover of power from the Panchayat to multi-party democracy, there was a clash of interests between the sympathizers of these two political systems along with the problem of institutional efficiency. Loyalties of army, police, bureaucracy and other institutions were suspected to be pro-monarchy, since it was the King who had nurtured them for thirty years. This created conflict between subsequent democratic governments and these institutions.
The interim government formed by the Maoists and other coalition partners faced a similar situation and more. There was competition between the political actors as none had expected Maoists to gain as much in the elections and form a government. The Maoists felt that the coalition partners were not supporting them wholeheartedly on issues that were earlier agreed upon in principle such as integration of the Maoist cadres with the Nepal Army.
The parties, on the other hand, felt that the Maoists were trying to control the institutions in Nepal and moving towards their goal of one party rule. The six Brigadier Generals who were not given extension in service was a case in point where the Maoists were trying to get higher officials belonging to the dominant, elite communities to retire. This was seen by others as a move by the Maoists to promote their own sympathizers who would be amenable to integrating Maoist cadres with the Nepal Army. Similarly, those in the police and paramilitary services too, who had attained 52 years of age or 30 years of service were asked to retire.
The second apparent contest was between the government and the Army Chief. The Chief not only challenged the Prime Minister but also received support from the political parties and the President. Evidently everyone seemed to be worried about the growing Maoist influence in government institutions.
Prime Minister Prachanda’s resignation was a tactical move. It helped him to consolidate his power in the party in the backdrop of the rise of hardliners. Next, by resigning the Maoists got the freedom to be in the legislature and simultaneously to go to the streets. The Maoists also can now go back to their constituencies and prepare for the next elections. People have been disappointed with Prachanda’s failure to deliver and rebuild infrastructure that was earlier destroyed by the Maoists, a feat which in any case is difficult to achieve in a short time period. The Maoists would like to gain control over the constituencies in order to have an upper hand at the time of elections. In the first-past-the-post system in the Constituent Assembly elections the Maoists had an upper hand because they had monopolized the constituencies during the people’s war. Prachanda’s resignation is a step that is likely to strengthen his hold over the constituents and party cadres.
Prachanda’s rhetoric against foreign intervention in general and India in particular, is also for domestic consumption. It gives his tactical moves further authentication by saying that he had to resign in the face of forces inimical to the country’s national interests and this includes the political parties, the President and the Army. This touches an emotional chord with the Nepalese and gets acceptance from the masses. Even though Indian presence in Nepal cannot be ignored, to blame it for recent political events would mean negating the issues concerning the parties and will come in the way of building trust and negotiations between the political actors.
The continuation of the peace process and smooth functioning of the Constituent Assembly is in the interests of all the political actors including the Maoists. However, the need of the hour is the formation of a government with or without the Maoists; else the country might see another emergency-like situation.
The present political developments in Nepal show a contest among the political actors and between the political actors and the institutions. This kind of political contestation is not new and has prevailed in Nepal since the introduction of multi-party democracy in 1990. Nepali politics has been unstable, faction-ridden and marred by intra- and inter-party feuds. The general election of 1991 saw Nepali Congress getting a majority, but since then no single party could obtain a majority and governments were formed with various combinations of coalition partners irrespective of ideology. Not much has changed except that Maoists are now also a part of the coalition.
Soon after the changeover of power from the Panchayat to multi-party democracy, there was a clash of interests between the sympathizers of these two political systems along with the problem of institutional efficiency. Loyalties of army, police, bureaucracy and other institutions were suspected to be pro-monarchy, since it was the King who had nurtured them for thirty years. This created conflict between subsequent democratic governments and these institutions.
The interim government formed by the Maoists and other coalition partners faced a similar situation and more. There was competition between the political actors as none had expected Maoists to gain as much in the elections and form a government. The Maoists felt that the coalition partners were not supporting them wholeheartedly on issues that were earlier agreed upon in principle such as integration of the Maoist cadres with the Nepal Army.
The parties, on the other hand, felt that the Maoists were trying to control the institutions in Nepal and moving towards their goal of one party rule. The six Brigadier Generals who were not given extension in service was a case in point where the Maoists were trying to get higher officials belonging to the dominant, elite communities to retire. This was seen by others as a move by the Maoists to promote their own sympathizers who would be amenable to integrating Maoist cadres with the Nepal Army. Similarly, those in the police and paramilitary services too, who had attained 52 years of age or 30 years of service were asked to retire.
The second apparent contest was between the government and the Army Chief. The Chief not only challenged the Prime Minister but also received support from the political parties and the President. Evidently everyone seemed to be worried about the growing Maoist influence in government institutions.
Prime Minister Prachanda’s resignation was a tactical move. It helped him to consolidate his power in the party in the backdrop of the rise of hardliners. Next, by resigning the Maoists got the freedom to be in the legislature and simultaneously to go to the streets. The Maoists also can now go back to their constituencies and prepare for the next elections. People have been disappointed with Prachanda’s failure to deliver and rebuild infrastructure that was earlier destroyed by the Maoists, a feat which in any case is difficult to achieve in a short time period. The Maoists would like to gain control over the constituencies in order to have an upper hand at the time of elections. In the first-past-the-post system in the Constituent Assembly elections the Maoists had an upper hand because they had monopolized the constituencies during the people’s war. Prachanda’s resignation is a step that is likely to strengthen his hold over the constituents and party cadres.
Prachanda’s rhetoric against foreign intervention in general and India in particular, is also for domestic consumption. It gives his tactical moves further authentication by saying that he had to resign in the face of forces inimical to the country’s national interests and this includes the political parties, the President and the Army. This touches an emotional chord with the Nepalese and gets acceptance from the masses. Even though Indian presence in Nepal cannot be ignored, to blame it for recent political events would mean negating the issues concerning the parties and will come in the way of building trust and negotiations between the political actors.
The continuation of the peace process and smooth functioning of the Constituent Assembly is in the interests of all the political actors including the Maoists. However, the need of the hour is the formation of a government with or without the Maoists; else the country might see another emergency-like situation.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
