South Asia - Articles

Given the problems explained in the previous article (Political Instability in Nepal-I), the situation in political terms remains tenuous. So far, the democratic parties have managed to keep its flock together; both the UML and United Madhesi Democratic Front have maintained a degree of cohesion and unity. India is being held responsible for the latter. How long will this last?

Maoists according to their own admission will go to any length to get the majority. Unfortunately the political parties on being questioned tend to brush this issue. This brings up the question why there is no consensus possible or why cannot the main political parties unite to draft the new constitution?

Prime reason is the ideological perspective and basic disbelief among the democratic parties of the Maoist intentions. On the issue of multi-party democracy as the most suitable political system for Nepal, Maoists draw attention to their post-war resolution wherein they declared their commitment to ideals of multi-party democracy. They highlight it as the political compulsion of the globalized 21st Century, by alluding that the communist regimes flourished in first half of the 20th century, but second half saw the demise of all most all communist regimes and even those that survived like China had to adopt a market driven model. On the model per se, Maoists are averse to strictly following the parliamentary model given the problems being faced in government formation and would like presidential or French model to be incorporated.

Democratic parties, on the other hand question this as the backdoor attempt to create a less than inclusive political system. They stress on the concept of pluralism based on the heterogeneity of Nepalese society. In their perception, social justice in democratic society is derived by not allowing any group to overshadow the needs of the other, thereby allowing maintenance of independent cultural traditions of the minorities.

In the belief of democratic parties, Maoists are reluctant to accept pluralism as their political ideology, as they strongly believe in a single party rule. They contest that such a formulation cannot move ahead with democracy based on pluralism. Thus if the constitution is to be written and peace process concluded both sides will have to make a compromise. The fear, however is, such a compromise will erode their political base.

Adding to the confusion is what the entire political spectrum blame: the Indian and Chinese interests. India is being blamed by the Maoists for imagining their evil intentions without adequate understanding, and thereby positioning themselves in an anti-Maoist stance. The senior Maoist leadership is keen for engaging India to remove any misperceptions. However on the issue of traditional close cultural and political relations with India, Maoists make a distinction. While acknowledging close cultural ties they differentiate on pursuit of national interests.

Democratic parties on the other hand, blame India for not doing enough to resolve the impasse. They would like India to firmly tell all political actors to resolve differences and get on with the task of government formation. They give the example of China, which has sent a 22-member delegation (in mid-September) comprising of experts from many diverse fields as a clear message to the Nepalese polity that they should resolve differences and evolve consensus in the interest of Nepal while affirming its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Interestingly, while China is seen in a constructive and deferential perspective, there is a tendency to assign negativism to an Indian role. This is based on the belief that India has greater stakes in stability of Nepal than China.

Considering the current political milieu four scenarios are plausible. Firstly, the UCPN (Maoist) poaches on the other parties mostly the Madhesis to cobble up a simple majority and installs its own PM. In the second scenario NC and UML remain unified and are able to elect their own PM (other than Madhav Nepal) with the support of UDMF.

In both scenarios it would be difficult for the ruling dispensation to last long and also obtain the requisite support of two-thirds of CA members for promulgation of the new Constitution.

Third scenario could be a variation of the first; there is a split in UML cadres (Khanal Group) frustrated with the unending impasse and instability and agrees along with the components of UDMF to support UCPN (Maoists). This   enables the UCPN (Maoist) to get a working two-third majority to achieve their objective of closure of peace process and constitution formation on their terms.

Fourth revolves around continuing political deadlock with both sides maintaining intractable positions despite number of fresh attempts. This could enrage people against the politicians, together with deteriorating the economic and security situation. The above could result in street protests and violence forcing the President as the head of the state and custodian of the Constitution to form a government of national unity. The President with the backing of Nepalese Army forms such a government with representatives from civil society including political representatives after dissolution of the CA and orders fresh elections. Whereas the first two scenarios appear probable the fourth appears less likely under the prevailing situation but Presidential hand could be forced if the present deadlock continues. Nepalese political leaders while assigning it a low probability do not rule it all together.

Thus, given the complicated scenario the political crisis in Nepal is not likely to be over, any time soon. The present standoff in large measure reflects ideological and political polarization and conflict.