Are the Political Parties Failing Nepal?
15 Sep, 2010 · 3234
PG Rajamohan recommends a concerted effort by the political parties in Nepal to revive the Constitution and democratic rule
The seventh round to elect the Prime Minister has also resulted in a failure, highlighting the apathetic attitude of the political parties towards establishing peace and stability in Nepal. Why is Nepal failing to form a stable government, after the successful restoration of democratic system? Why are the political parties unable to bridge a consensus over the future government? Where is Nepal heading?
The repeated attempts to elect the Prime Minister were doomed to fail, because of the decision taken by the CPN (UML) and United Democratic Madhesi Forum (UDMF) to pursue a strategy of neutrality in supporting or opposing any candidate. As a result, they stayed neutral during the entire seven rounds of elections held within the span of two months, despite knowing that the election will not be concluded without their active participation. Neither did they support the UCPN (Maoist) candidate Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) nor the Nepali Congress candidate Ram Chandra Poudel.
These “neutral” political parties have placed Nepal in a precarious situation. This has not only failed to result in a political consensus, but is treading Nepal towards political disaster.
The problems over framing the new Constitution are another major challenge, being held hostage to the lack of consensus. Only after adopting the Constitution in the Parliament, can Nepal organize general elections to establish a popularly elected government. Both the political parties and the Constituent Assembly members have failed to implement the people’s mandate during the last two years. Besides, the recent audiotape scandal of high-level horse-trading allegation is another evidence for the erosion of political culture.
The above development has international ramifications as well. The UNMIN’s extreme disappointment over the ongoing peace process has been explicitly pointed out in its Chief, Karin Langren’s report to the UN Secretary General. She insisted that the peace process has been a ‘discouraging picture’ and expressed that the parties’ failure to “move forward politically is not a new phenomenon, but it has grown incrementally and in intensity” pointing out the lack of consensus among themselves in recent months.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, in his responses, stated that the UNMIN’s presence for a longer period “may be taken for granted,” and “the mission is repeatedly made a scapegoat for matters which lie beyond its mandate” referring to the accusation by the parties on UNMIN being soft on the Maoists. The UNMIN was commissioned in 2007 to oversee Nepal's peace process under the purview of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed by both the Government and the Maoists and its mandate was extended for the sixth time in May 2010.
UNMIN’s presence has become a serious political issue within the country. Nepal’s government sought the Security Council to renew the mission’s mandate for four months but lifted its monitoring of the National Army and only focused on the Maoists combatants’ cantoned 28 sites across the country under the UNMIN supervision. The Maoist leaders objected to the idea; the UCPN (Maoist) sent a separate letter to the UN requesting it to continue keeping the Nepal Army also under UNMIN monitoring. Although both the parties have managed to send a joint request to UNMIN to extend its term for four months, the protracted dispute between the Government and Maoists is sending a dangerous signal to the peace process and the most crucial issue of integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants.
On the other hand, the Nepal army had continued recruitment since 2007 (in name of deficit of strength to manage the internal peace) in defiance of an arms monitoring agreement. It not only frustrated the UNMIN’s commitment over the peace process, but resulted in the intensification of wrangling among the political parties leading to increased mistrust and added vulnerability in the existing fragile nature of the state. International frustration will have serious implications for Nepal in terms of aid and economic assistance.
Finally, it is important for the parties involved in peace process to understand Karin Landgren’s warning that “Risks to the peace process, and to democratic governance in Nepal, are real.” However, the options are still open for the parties involved in the peace process to rejuvenate it, since it is not a completely failed one. Will Nepal keep aside the self-interests of the individuals and their parties, and work towards an immediate stable government and formulation of an effective Constitution? Not only Nepal’s stability, but also the regional security is also at stake.
The repeated attempts to elect the Prime Minister were doomed to fail, because of the decision taken by the CPN (UML) and United Democratic Madhesi Forum (UDMF) to pursue a strategy of neutrality in supporting or opposing any candidate. As a result, they stayed neutral during the entire seven rounds of elections held within the span of two months, despite knowing that the election will not be concluded without their active participation. Neither did they support the UCPN (Maoist) candidate Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) nor the Nepali Congress candidate Ram Chandra Poudel.
These “neutral” political parties have placed Nepal in a precarious situation. This has not only failed to result in a political consensus, but is treading Nepal towards political disaster.
The problems over framing the new Constitution are another major challenge, being held hostage to the lack of consensus. Only after adopting the Constitution in the Parliament, can Nepal organize general elections to establish a popularly elected government. Both the political parties and the Constituent Assembly members have failed to implement the people’s mandate during the last two years. Besides, the recent audiotape scandal of high-level horse-trading allegation is another evidence for the erosion of political culture.
The above development has international ramifications as well. The UNMIN’s extreme disappointment over the ongoing peace process has been explicitly pointed out in its Chief, Karin Langren’s report to the UN Secretary General. She insisted that the peace process has been a ‘discouraging picture’ and expressed that the parties’ failure to “move forward politically is not a new phenomenon, but it has grown incrementally and in intensity” pointing out the lack of consensus among themselves in recent months.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, in his responses, stated that the UNMIN’s presence for a longer period “may be taken for granted,” and “the mission is repeatedly made a scapegoat for matters which lie beyond its mandate” referring to the accusation by the parties on UNMIN being soft on the Maoists. The UNMIN was commissioned in 2007 to oversee Nepal's peace process under the purview of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed by both the Government and the Maoists and its mandate was extended for the sixth time in May 2010.
UNMIN’s presence has become a serious political issue within the country. Nepal’s government sought the Security Council to renew the mission’s mandate for four months but lifted its monitoring of the National Army and only focused on the Maoists combatants’ cantoned 28 sites across the country under the UNMIN supervision. The Maoist leaders objected to the idea; the UCPN (Maoist) sent a separate letter to the UN requesting it to continue keeping the Nepal Army also under UNMIN monitoring. Although both the parties have managed to send a joint request to UNMIN to extend its term for four months, the protracted dispute between the Government and Maoists is sending a dangerous signal to the peace process and the most crucial issue of integration and rehabilitation of Maoist combatants.
On the other hand, the Nepal army had continued recruitment since 2007 (in name of deficit of strength to manage the internal peace) in defiance of an arms monitoring agreement. It not only frustrated the UNMIN’s commitment over the peace process, but resulted in the intensification of wrangling among the political parties leading to increased mistrust and added vulnerability in the existing fragile nature of the state. International frustration will have serious implications for Nepal in terms of aid and economic assistance.
Finally, it is important for the parties involved in peace process to understand Karin Landgren’s warning that “Risks to the peace process, and to democratic governance in Nepal, are real.” However, the options are still open for the parties involved in the peace process to rejuvenate it, since it is not a completely failed one. Will Nepal keep aside the self-interests of the individuals and their parties, and work towards an immediate stable government and formulation of an effective Constitution? Not only Nepal’s stability, but also the regional security is also at stake.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
