Is Political Consensus Possible in Nepal?

The election of Constituent Assembly has fragmented and polarized Nepali politics and societies that had made significant progress while using the indigenous model of a political consensus in the pre-election period. For the power-holders, of course, election is the best means of getting legitimacy that fits in their definition of democracy; however, for the poor and excluded restructuring the structures for socio-economic justice is more important, and it is their understanding of democracy and peace.

By Dipendra Jha

Deviation from the spirit of the 12 points agreement which emphasized on a political consensus is commonly perceived as a primary threat to the entire peace process. The election of Constituent Assembly has fragmented and polarized Nepali politics and societies that had made significant progress while using the indigenous model of a political consensus in the pre-election period. For the power-holders, of course, election is the best means of getting legitimacy that fits in their definition of democracy; however, for the poor and excluded restructuring the structures for socio-economic justice is more important, and it is their understanding of democracy and peace. The early transformation of Nepali culture of consensus into a liberal politics of electoral game has destabilized all the very achievements of the people’s movement-2 and created a vulnerable situation from where the resurgence of armed conflict would be no surprise. It widens trust deficit among principal political actors, which can have a long-term impact on people’s expectation to deconstructing feudal state into an inclusive design through participatory method.

In the present context, the word ‘political consensus’ has highly been romanticized, particularly by the key political leaders whether it is Girija Prasad Koirala, the President, the Prime Minister, Jhalanath Khanal or Prachanda. They all use the term repeatedly in a hypocritical manner as a face-saving tool to maintain public legitimacy. They are well-aware that the broadest political consensus is the only way to make a new Constitution and bring the peace process to a logical conclusion. However, none of them wants to show courage to rise above petty political interests for a greater national benefit introducing a new framework for consensus building. Their actions reflect just opposite of what they publically speak. Going a step back is like losing a game, so they want to maintain their rigid status quo position even by risking the peace and the Constitution drafting process. The PM MK Nepal in his first speech to the Nation emphasized on a political consensus as a top priority, but on the next day, he announced possible withdrawal of the Maoist-led government's decision to sack Army Chief Rookmangud Katawal. Just a week after the formation of the new government, Speaker Subas Nemwang rejected the Maoist’s proposed motion for discussion in the House. Are these steps of the newly formed government leading towards a national consensus? This is a big question and an actual image of Nepalese politics in which gap between saying and doing is a common practice. Therefore, people cannot expect this government to be different from the earlier ones.

Is revival of political consensus so tough? Who can take the initiation to rebuild trust among the key political parties? The responsibility, of course, is upon civil society to put public pressure on the political parties and if necessary mediate between them to reconnect to the context of the 12 points agreement. However, the problem is that civil society is more polarized and has a more radical position than the political parties. It seems that the current political polarization is rooted in civil society which is clearly divided into three fractions: radical left, moderate left and right-wing. The polarized politics is only a reflection of overall social condition. Thus, the first step is to revive unity among civil society groups who has a long history of playing a catalyst role in re-legitimizing the political parties’ image and has a precedent of bridge-building role in reconnecting people’s expectation. However, the public movement must be led by common people through a unitary effort of civil society. The civic elites who are already co-opted by the political parties may not show much flexibility in their position. This is a primary challenge to reinitiate a movement for a national consensus. The polarization, division and co-option of civil society that is only available option except the political sphere, is a step towards a failed nation.

Is there no other option to finding a mid way for a win-win solution? What can be an appropriate method to deal with a conspiracy theory and vested-interests reflected through pro and anti voices against the Maoist-led government's decision to sack Katawal? I think a comprehensive planning with a renewal of 12 points agreement and a revisit to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement can better address interests of both-Maoists and a coalition of twenty two parties led by NC. It’s time to renew all the agreements that best fit into the present context. Again, the question arises who can take the lead for mediation? Civil society has already been discredited, and the recent steps taken by the moderate UML leaders, such as Madhev Nepal or Subas Nemwang, have only exposed and damaged the moderate image of the party including its leaders who were known as liberals. In this scenario, the vacuum of the moderate role can be fulfilled by some of the NC and the Maoist leaders who have relatively independent image such as Narhari Acharya and Giriraj Mani Pokhrel. Similarly, there is need to develop a concrete proposal to transform the rhetoric of consensus into practices, particularly by giving a face saving new space to the Maoists who are having a strong sense of losing three major power positions- president, PM and Speaker, even though they won the highest number of seats in the CA. Options can be sending both R. Katwal and K. Khadka on early leave with an appointment of third ranking Army official as Chief of the Nepal Army, giving Maoists coordination responsibility of Constitution Drafting Committee and high-level political committee with major portfolios in the government such as Deputy PM with finance and information ministries. Additionally, integrating certain numbers of Maoists combatants into the regular army and creating other attractive options for the larger numbers of combatants such as foreign employment, educational opportunities, private jobs, economic benefits, can open the current political deadlock. Given such deep divisions no one blue-print can easily work, however, the strong will is essential to find the ways. Forgets about who has the majority and who are in minority in the parliament as the public legitimacy is deckling continuously by doing just opposite of what is expected to be done through building a more consensual political system.

(Jha is currently researching on ‘Peace-building process in Nepal’ at University of Bradford, UK. Write to him: dipjha@gmail.com)

(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 editors@mos.com.np)

Have your say ! (Registration required)