 |
|
| Kathmandu, Saturday May 24, 2003 Jestha 10, 2060. |
|
Peace process at the crossroads
Though the first and second rounds of peace
talks ended relatively smoothly, it has very rough path ahead. In essence, the peace
process is at the crossroads. The positive public reception of the peace talks is
overshadowed by several undesirable events in the recent past. The security response of
May 11 towards the political leaders and workers of parliamentary parties, recent
threatening statements of the Ministry of Defence, unusual expression against the King in
the protest rallies organised by the parliamentary parties and public expressions of
politicians have implanted more suspicion and potential difficulties for the further
rounds of peace talks. In my opinion, the current crisis in Nepal is the combined product
of the lack of vision, lack of confidence and erosion of trust and lack of commitment and
determination.
Lack of vision
Whatever politicians of this country
reiterate that there seems to be a lack of a clear vision among themselves on how this
country should be governed and how democracy could and should work to achieve peace and
prosperity. Rather they are entangled in a narrow vested interests and personal gains. The
creation, organisation and operationalisation of legitimate democracy are far from the
vision of present politicians and leaders of Nepal. The fundamental problem lies here.
Confidence crisis
One of the basic foundations of democracy and
political stability is mutual understanding and confidence. In the political history of
Nepal, from the Rana regime to the present Chand regime, mutual respect, common
understanding and political coexistence have been replaced by competition, mistrust and
suspicion. Crisis of confidence exists between the Palace and the political parties,
political parties and civil society, and within political parties, the business sector,
and even among the individuals. No politicians want to realise the importance of trust in
a functional democracy. Instead they focus too much on past mistakes just for the sake of
blaming rival groups at the cost of future democracy. It is fundamentally wrong to be so
obsessed with the past and to ignore future if we want to transform Nepalese society into
a twenty-first century society. Everybody knows that the current peace talks cannot bring
lasting peace if all political forces, the King and civil society do not work together,
which requires trust rebuilding. Political parties do not trust the King’s repeatedly
expressed commitment to multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. The King has
lost trust with the parliamentary political parties for their extremely poor performance
of past 13 years and the recent situation. Political parties and many people do not trust
the present government, as it is not functioning according to the democratic ideals. The
major political forces of this country have also questioned legitimacy of this government.
The recent approach of the government to use ‘monarchy’ as a defence mechanism
for its weaknesses as well as arrogance of parliamentary parties are not only creating the
situation of confrontation but also weakening the ongoing peace process.
Lack of commitment
The expression of leaders of parliamentary
parties and the CPN (Maoist), the Prime Minister and ministers and press communique of the
Ministry of Defence gave a single message to general public that no one is genuinely
committed to peace. I do not believe that politicians do not understand the detrimental
effects of negative expression regarding the peace process. But from the conflict
management perspective the expressions of Girija Prasad Koirala, Prakash Chandra Lohani,
Rabindra Nath Sharma and Nepali Congress Central Committee members on the issue of
confinement of army movement are not only irrelevant but also detrimental to the ongoing
peace process. Rather, they should have endorsed arrangement and strongly asked the
government and the rebel leaders to confine the Maoist rebel force in the same manner to
minimise potential risks. In my understanding, the confinement of army movement to
five-kilometre radius is only a provisional arrangement specific to facilitate peace
process. It does not mean that the army movement is permanently constrained and not
allowed to secure country form external threats. Their responses clearly indicate how
committed and sincere they are towards restoring the lasting peace in Nepal. The Prime
Minister, who was also one of the major players in the last 13 years politics, blames
without hesitation, to others for the wrongdoing. He did not share part of that crime they
have committed to the country. Instead he fuelled the conflict blaming to others.
Clash of interest
Whatever the political leaders say, their
actions are completely guided by vested interests, to go to power, win elections, and
capture state’s resources. People like myself have listen to their speeches for a
decade but they completely failed to convince the general public. Their words and actions
are inconstant, irrelevant and ineffective to address problems of this country. A
ubiquitous interest of general public in Nepal is first to install lasting peace in the
country and restore functional democracy. Everybody knows that democracy, political
parties, constitutional monarchy, civil administration cannot properly function in
violence. Peace is the precondition for all of them. But why politicians and the
government are not fully committed to achieving peace in Nepal? Does any one believe that
what they are saying and doing is contributing to peace building?
It seems that the parliamentary parties,
especially UML, are in a hurry to go to power, which the Maoists and the present
government do not want. The Maoists, for obvious reason of easiness to deal with the
present government as they said is the representative of the King, want to deal with this
government. So, unlike the parliamentary party, they are not eager to change the present
government. The King, also for obvious reason, wants to continue this government. In this
context, in the foreseeable future, it is less feasible for parliamentary parties to
fulfil their dream of regaining power.
Conclusion
Current crisis cannot be solved through one
force of this country. It requires sincere, honest and collective efforts from
parliamentary parties, the King and the Maoists. Whatever the present government and
parliamentary parties are doing cannot bring a lasting solution to the crisis in this
country. When the Maoists are looking for safe landing in multi-party democracy, it is the
responsibility of the parliamentary parties and the King to give them space. The present
peace talks is the perfect opportunity for that. However, the approach of the current
government indicates that its confrontational strategy with parliamentary parties, which
is tragic to this country. Perhaps, the present confrontation between the King/government
and parliamentary parties can be overcome by forming an interim government led by an
ex-judge of the Supreme Court or any neutral personality and endorsed by the King, the
Maoists, the parliamentary parties with a specific mandate to facilitate the on-going
peace process until a negotiation is reached for a broad based consensual interim
government to work on constitution and other social transformation process. Otherwise, the
peace process will collapse, and the country may get back into civil war
(The writer holds a PhD degree in Conflict
Management)
Other Stories
|
