Drawing attention

TKP 18/1/2010


A gathering of civil society leaders on Sunday was a reminder that the peace process agreements have been forgotten

On Sunday, around a hundred individuals gathered outside the Constituent Assembly (CA) in New Baneshwor and, under the banner of the Citizen’s Movement for Democracy and Peace (CMDP), staged an hour-long sit in. The purpose of the dharna was to draw attention towards the fact that the struggle for power between parties had become the sole end towards which they strived; and as a result, the vision enshrined in the peace agreements, according to which all parties would “learn from the mistakes of the past” and move ahead in cooperation towards the establishment of peace and far-reaching socio-economic change, had been forgotten. It was thus necessary, CMDP urged, to reestablish the politics of consensus, form a national unity government, discuss outstanding issues of disagreement in the legislature-parliament and focus on the drafting of the constitution and the culmination of the peace process as charted in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).

A simple message. And one which some would perhaps consider to be naïve and divorced from the exigencies of raw politics. Every party seems to feel after all, if their leader’s words are to be taken at face value, that whether the nation becomes peaceful and prosperous depends entirely on whether their particular party is able to outmaneuver all others and emerge supreme. Radical socio-political change in favour of the marginalized can occur only under the leadership of the Maoists, the party claims. Only the Nepali Congress can save the nation from a totalitarian takeover by the Maoists and the fragmentation of the nation along ethnic lines, runs the counter-claim. It is in this way that the self-interest of one group is presented as the common good.

Yet there were a number of political leaders from various parties who showed up at the gathering. They were those known for their moderate views; those genuinely committed to the principles of the peace process -- a progressive restructuring of state undertaken jointly by all political parties. The Nepali Congress leader Gagan Thapa was present, as was the Maoist Politburo member Hisila Yami. (Laxman Tharu made a passing appearance, although he didn’t appear to be aware that the sit-in was to be held or what it was to be held for. He had just been passing by and was curious why all these people, some of whom he recognized, were gathered outside the CA).

So there was solidarity and respect for CMDP leaders present at the sit-in. They were after all prominent leaders of the 2006 Jana Andolan, who played a key role in facilitating the alliance between the parliamentary parties and the Maoists and in rebuilding the legitimacy of the parties among the population. Much may have happened over the past four years, and these individuals -- Devendra Raj Panday, Krishna Pahadi, Khagendra Sangraula and Shyam Shrestha, among others -- may now be perceived by the parties as irritants they could do without. But the Jana Andolan has not -- yet -- been totally forgotten, and they still command respect, grudging though it may be.

It is well known that soon after the 2006 movement, many in the traditional parliamentary parties and their affiliates in civil society, branded CMDP “the Maoists’ civil society.” And this charge has been repeated periodically since then, most recently when this group came out against the president’s decision to overturn the Maoists’ attempt to sack former Army Chief Katawal. And even in the list of demands presented on Sunday, innocuous though it may seem, there are a few that will almost certainly be viewed as “Maoist demands” -- in particular the ones for the formation of a national unity government and that political disagreements be discussed in the legislature-parliament. While the first demand will be interpreted by insecure politicians in the Nepali Congress and the UML as call for the replacement of the current government by a Maoist-led one, the latter will be perceived as support for the Maoist claim that the president’s move against “civilian supremacy” be discussed in parliament.

This, however, is a wholly myopic way of looking at things. It is a perspective driven wholly by fear regarding the Maoist “capture of state” and “destruction of democracy”, which if certain leaders in the Congress and UML are to be believed, is imminent unless the Maoists are totally marginalized from any kind of state power and thus weakened. This view disregards the nature of Nepali society, as Devendra Raj Panday states, in particular its great complexity and the mass political awakenings of various kinds that have arisen over previous years, that will make it impossible for a hard authoritarian regime -- whether of the left or the right -- to exist for a sustained period of time.

Viewed in the correct context, the above two CMDP demands have to be seen as entirely in accordance with the principles of the CPA and other peace process agreements. The parties had committed to a consensus government, it will be remembered, and that is exactly what a national unity government is. Examples of a peace process that has succeeded while excluding an entire side to the conflict from a power sharing arrangement are hard to find.

Similarly, the demand that issues of contention be debated in the legislature-parliament is a call to utilize, and in the process strengthen and give respect to, the institution that commands the most legitimacy in the current transition. The penchant to bypass the CA which doubles as the legislative body -- elected in historic elections and representative of the diversity of Nepal’s population -- in favour of backroom dealings has led to the reemergence of old, rejected forms of politics. Significantly, this has allowed the emergence of the president as a major power centre who is propagating the line that the CA will be dissolved and executive power concentrate in his hands if the constitution is not drafted by the end of May.

That particular outcome will likely not come to pass. Political leaders across party lines now appear to be nearing consensus that in the likely event that the constitution is not drafted on schedule, the interim constitution should be amended to allow for an extension of the CA so that the nation does not enter into a crisis period of nebulous extra-constitutional rule. But this by itself is not a sufficient resolution; it is only, as Gagan Thapa says, a temporary patch-up to buy more time. In order to truly act in a manner that will not merely postpone the emergence of crisis but will remove all possibility of it, the pursuit of methods advocated by CMDP -- the end of the focus on struggles to consolidate one’s power at the expense of others and a genuine attempt to accommodate diverse interests in the constitution -- will be necessary.