South Asia - Articles

Nepal: What Next?

Nishchal N Pandey
Director, Centre for South Asian Studies, Kathmandu
e-mail: nina@ntc.net.np

Nepal's fragile peace process just met with the most serious accident of its kind. The country's first ever Constituent Assembly (CA) could not draft a new Constitution by the stipulated deadline of 28 May. To make matters worse, its own tenure would have ended that fateful Friday night.  In essence the country would have gone where it was before the Maoists ended their people's war almost 4 years ago. An apparent constitutional vacuum coupled with the deteriorating security situation, resurgent pro-Hindu groups and the inability of the state to do anything concrete to resolve the daily problems of the people could have well ignited an internal chaos. At around 11pm, with the clock ticking away, a hasty deal was worked out between the 3 main parties - UCPN (Maoists), Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML). According to this new arrangement, the clause of the Interim Constitution which mandated that the CA would draft the new Constitution by 28 May was amended through the 8th amendment and a one-year extension was brought into effect. This is merely a quick fix and in total contrast to what the Nepali people had hoped when they went to the polls on 10 April 2008, electing the first Constituent Assembly in the country's history.

However there are several critical challenges and the rot in the entire process is already beginning to prop up with differing interpretations to what was agreed on that trembling mid-night. In the past one year, consensus based politics has given way to majority versus minority with all the dirty tricks of a malfunctioning hung parliament. The Maoists agreed to extend the tenure of the CA only after Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal vowed to resign ‘within the next 5 days’. On their part, the Maoists also agreed to abide by past commitments but a controversy has now arisen as to which one of the promises should be met first? Such a comical show of political bankruptcy is not uncommon in Nepali politics. One can only hope that with the soon expected resignation of the current coalition government, the spirit of accommodation and compromise will once again be brought into practice and through a government of national consensus, thorny issues such as PLA integration, federalism and political system will be settled, leading to the promulgation of the new Constitution. 

Surely, what Nepal is witnessing at the moment is an evidently clear power struggle between the Maoists who are the largest party and without whom the agenda of a Constituent Assembly would have never come into the national limelight; and the older parties that consider themselves as 'mainstream democratic forces' but jockeyed power between 1990-2005 under the failed Constitution of 1990. The NC, UML and the Terai based parties are not only faction-ridden but all have a leadership crisis within and are no match to the battle-hardened, youth oriented, ideologically motivated, mass party such as the Maoists. If their Young Communist League (YCL) can be dismantled, maximum PLA cadres can be disqualified from joining the security services, and, fresh elections can be avoided for several years; there is expectancy that the Maoists will lose their current appeal with the electorate. Consequently, the NC has lately stepped up the ante calling on the Maoists to first become a ‘civilian party’. Maoist leadership understands this design which is why chairman Prachanda said to the diplomatic community based in Kathmandu two weeks ago that “we don't need advice on how to become more democratic from those that were defeated in the elections.”

One comes to the conclusion with emphasis that there is no alternate to consensus, conciliation and cooperation among the 3 main parties in order to salvage the nation from the brink. If the need is to wage a decisive final war, the Nepal Army needs to be equipped with arms and ammunition and if the desire is to take the peace process to its logical conclusion, the Maoists need to be in the government. By deliberately choosing to do neither, all that we have done is extended a muddled transition. The longer this transition continues, the more will be the confusion, further exposing the fault-lines of ethno-linguistic and religious fissures. These could be further exploited by extra-regional powers with vested interests, in a politically unstable Nepal.

India's security concerns, from within Nepal's territory, have grown substantially in the past few years therefore it should work with every government that comes to power in Kathmandu. But New Delhi should not be tempted to take sides in a power struggle of a completely domestic nature such as this.

Email :
Please leave your comments Input text you see on right:  (Case Sensitive)