Tika Prasad Dhakal
Political Observer, Nepal
January 2, 2013
POSITION VERSUS BARGAINING POINT:
All political parties keep to their positions on the various issues of the day and bargain to influence the process of negotiation. They often have to share interest in reaching the settlement, but use tactics and conditions to maximize their gains (Wagner, 1999). The major bones of contention remain on the following issues.
CONSTITUTION MAKING:
Nepali leaders show a strong penchant for declaring Nepal a secular federal democratic republic. One of the greatest challenges before them today is to craft enduring institutions and workable reforms. The CA was mandated to draft and promulgate a new constitution in two years and the discourse on peace and constitution revolved around searching formulas for unity government, yet the major bone of contention now is who becomes the Prime Minister. The people did demonstrate their faith in the CA and the civil society, media, and other stakeholders kept pressing the parties to allow the CA to do its assigned job. Grassroots civil society actors have put in their own efforts engaging themselves in dispute resolution, relief works, communication, protection of human rights, and establishment of local peace committees, civic education, and monitoring of the peace process.
On the key issues of the day-form of government, separation of powers, and the basis of federal structure, ethnicity, and constitution- making-the parties are yet to agree on how to address the issues. While the CA Committee on the Forms of Governance proposed an all-powerful president directly elected by people, parties opposed tothe Maoists are campaigning for a Westminster-style parliamentary system or a directly elected prime ministerial system. Another issue is independence of the judiciary. Parties have now agreed on a Constitutional Court, in addition to the Supreme Court, whose judges are to be appointed by the head of the state on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council.
Federalism is another controversial issue. The Committee for the Restructuring of State and Devolution of Power (Lohani, 2011: 41-9) has recommended 14 federal states based on identity and capacity, but the report produced by the State Restructuring Commission faces hot opposition. Decision on the electoral system-first-past-the-post vs. list proportional representation-remains to be decided.
Behind the various understandings reached so far among the heads of the major parties lay backroom preparations made under the aegis of civil society. The CA was dissolved without setting these understandings. As long as such endorsement does not come, agreements can be overturned.
INTEGRATION OF COMBATANTS:
The near completion of integration and rehabilitation (FR) of 19,000 Former Maoist Combatants (FMCs) registered a major progress. It is unlikely that the combatants will go back to the jungle but the two standing armies did pose a critical barrier to peace (ICG. Aug. 18, 2011). The CPA promised to ensure the future of the combatants by integrating them into security forces and other areas through rehabilitation. The Seven-Point Agreement signed in November 2011 among the major political forces provided the central ground of consensus for the disbanding of cantonments paving the way for the permanent end of violence. The integration completed recently is a major achievement, but given that it was done under considerable pressure and threats posed by various feuding groups of the Maoists combatants it remains to be seen how the future unfolds.
The debate among the political parties, government, civil society, and other stakeholders had brought forth seven issues on the nitty-gritty of FR. While the parties agreed to create a New Directorate General within Nepal Army, most of the issues relating to its structure are under discussion. Finding agreements on them is crucial. It is fashionable to label PR as a technical issue in Nepal, but its political character demands settlement under an all-party consensus. That said, I/R issue was so inextricably linked to power sharing arrangement that each of the three big parties wanted to see the process move ahead under the government of their own leadership. There was even a tendency to obstruct the process, if a rival occupied the top chair. Leaders thought that the party that claimed a higher stake in the I/R process would seize a larger space in the future political system. The Maoist party held the key to the peace process because the cantoned combatants were its arms. Evidently, it wanted to complete the I/R process while it was leading the government, just as the other parties wanted it to do under them. In such a situation, what the civil society does and does not can become crucial.
For the management of FMCs, the CPA envisaged Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) as well as Security Sector Reform (SSR) linking the latter with “democratization and downsizing of Nepal Army” on the basis of a broad national security policy (Simkhada, 2011). The DDR and SSR models, however, were inadequate to address Nepal’s specific context because they were developed to address the needs of Europe and Africa (Simkhada, 2011). In Nepal’s ongoing peace process, the seven-point Agreement has charted the DRI (Disarmament, Rehabilitation, and Integration) model.
GEOPOLITICAL BALANCE:
Another important element of Nepal’s peace politics is its geostrategic location. Sandwiched between China and India, Nepal has attempted to balance its relations with its two giant neighbors and Nepal’s civil society is yet to engage fully in an all-out debate to help evolve a uniform national foreign policy agenda in the region’s fast changing environment. Nepal’s relevance in world politics is often underestimated (Gupto, 2011) except by those who have closely studied it and anticipate a broader and larger role than the historic buffer status given to it so far.
The current fragile situation and the potential for larger political instability here can, however, breed ramifications for the rest of Asia as well (Yardley, 2010). Nepal’s geostrategic location can change from a buffer between India and China to a vibrant bridge between the two emerging economic and military giants. Both have deeply rooted long-term security concerns, and new interests in Nepal. One is that Nepal is centrally located in the Himalayas commanding one-third of its space, which means it also commands a large part of the headwaters of many river systems providing water for hundreds of millions of people in South Asia (Yardley, 2010).
Discourses on Nepal-India relations in the changing context aside, India has perennial interests in Nepal imposed by its geography, culture as well as geopolitics. India acknowledges Nepal’s independence and sovereignty, but sees it as a part of old Bharatbarsh (Indian subcontinent), enforced by the proximity of culture, climate, language, and geography. This is a really powerful element in determining India’s point of view toward Nepal and its policy and
The 1,800-km long shared open border between Nepal and India stands as an evidence of the trust between the two states. But India’s concern is also that the citizens from other South Asian nations can infiltrate. Nepal, too, has legitimate concerns about the innumerable armed groups which operate from the Indian territories to cause trouble in Nepal’s Terai region. But cross-border matrimonial ties (Kansakar quoted by Dipendra Jha, 2011, 349-384) and age-old traditional relations make tight border regulation difficult.
The Chinese interest in Nepal begins with Tibet and ends with Nepal’s consolidated sovereign state. Summing up, there are two key dimensions to Nepal’s neighborhood policy concerns. First, Nepal’s instability is seen as a source of problem by both neighbors. While India’s role has been in supporting promotion of democracy in Nepal, China pursues political stability here. With political parties fragmented and monarchy abolished, Nepal’s protracted transition is a concern to both.
Political standoff by either power could well spiral forces to set off trouble neither state wants. It is in such a context that the civil societies in Nepal, India, and China could probably come to the aid of the political actors. Since Nepal’s weak political leadership looks increasingly incapable of managing the multiple interests of its fragmented society, it is high time for the civil societies in each country to come forward to play their role by mediating and otherwise in a number of areas-social, cultural, economic, and educational-as a bridge between the neighbors.
CONCLUSION:
The success of any peace process depends on its ability to address the underlying causes of the preceding conflict by rationalizing the laws, and politics and building peace at the grassroots level. Nepal’s peace process in the last four years has missed out on its basic dynamics. The temptation to define the process only in terms of integration and rehabilitation of the former Maoist combatants has done an injustice to the people who are victims of conflict and discrimination. The peace process and constitution-making have fallen a prey to the contradictions based on conflicting ideologies, identities, and interests. Only policies of accommodation on these elements can yield a safe transition from violence to democratic peace.
Politics in Nepal has become politicking for peace as peace has been hijacked in the power plays and games of identity politics after the election of CA. In such a situation, it was certainly difficult for the civil society to work independently and provide judgments on a number of contentious issues. Still, it has been working hard to ensure that democracy is embedded deeper and sustains itself.
In its neighborhood relations, Nepal needs to strike the right balance. As emerging global powers, they have a legitimate concern about Nepal’s transition to stable peace. Civil society groups have to work hard to prevent Nepali state squander time in internal squabbles and foster people-to-people dialogue across the border for not just stable positive peace but also for democracy and prosperity.
Finally, multiple fault-lines impede Nepal’s effort to achieve peace and stability and it requires the involvement of multiple actors to address them. Civil society can be one of them in forging consensus on the contentious issues and facilitate and consolidate political and constitutional development. In this respect, the role that the civil society can play in the days ahead can safely be assumed to be a salient one.
