Report of the IPCS Seminar held on 7 April 2008

Speaker: Siddharth Vardarajan
Strategic Affairs Editor, The Hindu

Before examining the present situation, one should take a step back and paint a broad picture to understand how Nepal came to where it is today. The upcoming election is not a routine election like in 1994 or 1999. Apart from the fact that it will form a constituent assembly, the upcoming election is part of the peace process that began in 2005, after nine years of armed struggle - the Maoists' "people's war."

The armed struggle came to a halt when Nepal's seven parties agreed that the future of their country should be decided by a constituent assembly. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) plenum decided at some point that armed struggle was unlikely to liberate the country; therefore the need to rely on a political process. Unlike Maoists in India, the situation in Nepal was more or less stable, with Maoists controlling defined "liberated" zones.

In the pro-monarchy mainstream parties, the youth wings have turned more republican as the King proved to be greedy for power. The 12-point agreement between the seven political parties in parliament and the Maoists was reached in November 2005. In March-April 2006, the People's Movement was launched, but was not led by the Maoists. If this was not the case, they may not have felt disposed to cooperate with other parties. By and large, national aspirations have shifted from electing a constituent assembly to establishing a republic.

Maoists have insisted on fair representation being provided to the ethnic groups, and therefore requested that the electoral system be based on a system of proportional representation (PR). On the other hand, the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) preferred the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, and were advised by India and the United States to insist on it. The Maoists had to compromise on proportional representation, so now half the seats will be elected on PR, while the rest would be elected on FPTP.

This issue was picked up by the Madhesis (non-Pahari minority community), who argued that the Maoists had set aside their basic demand on PR - this compromise was a strategic blunder. The Madhesis, organized under the Madhesi Mukti Morcha, feared that, in a new Nepal, they would lose out again. The population of the Terai is only around 31-32 per cent of the total population. The Madhesi movement evolved through different stages, while other parties systematically refused to yield to its demands - such as the recognition of those who were killed in police firings as martyrs. Madhesis seem ready to secede from Nepal and join India. Some want independence of the Madhesh. However, the Indian establishment is not keen to see any further fracturing in the region. India's Madhesh dilemma is similar to its dilemma in Sri Lanka twenty years ago.

Eventually, an agreement was brokered in February 2008, opening the way for elections. What the upcoming constituent assembly will have to face is not the question of the King and monarchy, but the difficult issue of accommodating everybody (which underlies the concept of proportional representation). The election system is fascinating but is often overlooked. The upcoming election will be a dual election. Out of the constituent assembly's 601 seats, 240 (40 per cent) will be elected on FPTP, 335 (60 per cent) on PR, and 26 members will be nominated by the Prime Minister. In the PR seats, the law defines a very rigid reservation system, with half the seats going to women, room for the Madhesis, Janjatis, leaving only 30 per cent of the seats for general constituencies. Among the political parties, only the Maoists have representative tickets.

At present, despite mounting violence, the popular response is tremendous, and so one should not dismiss the opportunities that the election presents. The Chief Electoral Officer pointed out that: first, there has always been fraud during a transition from insurgency to democracy and second, similar violence occurred also in the earlier elections.

In India's Ministry of External Affairs, there was a belief that the election would not be free and fair, but this has now yielded to urgency that the elections take place. To save the monarchy, the king had been advised to step down and passing over his son, Prince Paras, let the "baby king" be crowned, who in twenty years, would have been old enough to become the king. The republican issue would thereby have been delayed, but the monarchy could have been saved. However, Gyanendra was offended and refused to consider the idea.

In some constituencies, the elections are seven-cornered: UML, NC, three Madhesi parties, and Maoists. Therefore, it is very difficult to predict the results. There is a general downplaying of the Maoists' strength. Officials think this will not exceed 8 or 9 per cent of the vote. But the Maoists' leader Prachanda says, judging by the crowds that receive him at every rally, that their votes cannot be so low as 8 or 9 per cent. While the "bourgeois" parties do not have such a charismatic leader, the Maoists have a disadvantage: the first-past-the-post voting system.

For predicting the Maoists' behaviour, one should look at the 1952 elections in India. The main difference is that, unlike the CPI in 1952, the CPN (Maoist) has played a major role in defining today's mainstream politics in Nepal. Democracy, republic, fair representation, were all part of the Maoists' political discourse before it came into the mainstream.

Today, the worrying scenario is not the Maoists going back to the jungle. Their armed struggle chapter is closed. Laying down arms has made them very vulnerable, and they cannot easily go back to armed struggle. If the Maoists fail to enter the constituent assembly in large numbers the risk is that the CPN (UML) and the Nepali Congress would ignore what the population wants, as they are reluctant democrats. For example, the Maoist map of the regions within Nepal is much closer to that of the Madhesis, while other parties are fragmenting the country vertically.

DISCUSSION

Writing a constitution requires building a consensus. Is proportional representation the best way for creating a mechanism for consensus building?

It is true that the PR system may not be the best way to create consensus. In India, the constituent assembly managed to build a consensus, although it was highly unrepresentative. In today's Nepal, several key problems have already been addressed before the elections to the constituent assembly, such as that of women's representation, for example. So the divisive questions will not have to be avoided, as they have been solved before the election process.

How will the results look?

It is likely that there will be a 25-30-35 percentage distribution between the Big Three (Maoists, NC, UML). Under PR, it is not possible for a party to get more than 30-35 per cent of votes. The UML is most likely to come up on top, garnering most of the Pahari votes. The Nepali Congress should come second, but one should not rule out the possibility of Maoists's coming second and if not, at least a strong third. It has to be remembered that the Maoists were ranked third in the 1994 elections.

Why will voters have two ballots?

Voters will have a blue ballot paper for FPTP and a red ballot paper for PR. The necessity of having two ballots arises from the fact that every party is not competing in every constituency. Also there are independent candidates who are in the fray.

The possibility of further armed struggle has been ruled out but the Maoists' armed wing - the People's Liberation Army - is still strong.
True. The integration of the PLA into the Nepal Army will, in fact, be a big challenge in the future.

Will the recent elections in Bhutan influence Nepal in any way?

The Bhutanese elections actually provide the wrong example: because of the FPTP, the Bhutanese opposition People's Democratic Party got only two seats, despite getting almost 33 per cent of the votes.

How will the peace process evolve after the elections?

If the election process is successful, the UN mandate should not be extended.

Is India a major factor in the elections? Should India stay out or get involved?

The coalition government in Nepal was ruling for one-and-a-half years and managed to reach non-controversial agreements with India, such as the Karnali hydro-electric project. The feeling that "India is behind the king" is not so strong these days. Every Nepali realizes that only India can help the transition process.

Who is likely to control the ministries of Home and Defense?

People wonder whether the Maoists will manage to get hold of key ministries like Home and Defense. Prachanda's ambitions are being pursued on a FPTP basis, that is, candidate against candidate, rather than party against party. It is not clear what the Maoists want to achieve, but they are likely to fight at least one election under the new constitution. For now, the coalition between the Big Three will continue till the constitution is implemented. Every party is appointing its own observers for the elections. It will be the "most observed" election ever, with 85,000 to 90,000 observers, out of which there are 2,000 to 3,000 foreigners.

What are the interests of the US and China in the current developments in Nepal?

The Indian approach to the current situation in Nepal is very different from that of the Americans, as India is used to including communists in its political process, while the US prefers to keep them out. As for China, the Maoists recently said they supported China on the Tibetan question. This is more an expression of realpolitik than ideology. Similarly, if the Kashmiris were to declare independence, it would not be surprising if the Nepali Maoists supported India, as it is crucial for Nepal to maintain links with both India and China.

Is there a royalist element among the Nepal Army?

Along with the integration of the PLA, the exclusion of the feudal remnants is a challenge for the restructuring of the Nepal Army. However, this should not be an insurmountable difficulty as long as the Maoists do not humiliate the present military establishment.