HLPM Is Good But Should Deliver
Yuba Nath Lamsal
The High-level Political Mechanism (HLPM) has come into being with the agreement reached among the top leaders of the three major political parties, namely, the UCPN-Maoist, Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. However, its effectiveness is in doubt as the high-profile body has fallen into controversy even as it was announced.
CPA is the spirit
The concept of the mechanism is based on the spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to govern the country on the basis of consensus among the major political forces in the country and take the peace process forward. But this did not materialise in the past due to differences of the parties’ position on various issues.
When the interim government, headed by Congress strongman Girija Prasad Koirala, was formed by incorporating the Maoists into it, the need of such a high-level political mechanism had been raised by some parties, mostly the smaller ones. However, this voice went unheard as the major political parties were in the government, and they did not feel its necessity. The demand for a political mechanism at that time was raised by the fringe parties and was guided by the motive to have an equal and effective say in the interim coalition government and check the three major parties’ arbitrary style of decision-making.
After the formation of the Maoist-led coalition government headed by Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, a mechanism was formed that comprised representatives of the parties in power. The Nepali Congress, which is the second largest party in Parliament, opted to remain out of the government and did not participate in the political mechanism. It was a mechanism of the three main parties that were in the government namely - the Unified CPN-Maoist, the CPN-UML and Madhesi Janadhikar Forum. Since the main opposition Nepali Congress was not in the mechanism, it soon became defunct. Moreover, the mechanism was created just to oversee the affairs of the government.
Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda resigned from the post in the wake of a row in the decision concerning the army chief issue. The prime minister took an abrupt decision to sack the chief of the army staff four months earlier than his regular retirement period and appointed the second in command as the new army chief. But the president blocked the termination of the army chief on request from 18 parties in Parliament. Thus, the prime minister chose to resign instead of clinging onto power. This was a positive aspect of the Maoist party.
The situation was definitely complex as two schools of thought clearly emerged with equally strong and plausible arguments regarding the president’s move to block the decision to sack the army chief. A school of thought claimed that the president had a moral obligation to stay the decision on sacking the army chief because the 18 political parties, whose combined force constituted a majority in the parliament, had submitted a written request to nullify the prime minister’s decision.
According to those who supported the president move, the president, who is also the supreme commander-in-chief, needs to know in advance when a decision is made to sack and appoint the chief of the army. Moreover, they are of the view that the president is not obliged to accept the decision made by the prime minister who had already lost a majority.
But the other school of thought is equally strong and logical. The argument behind this logic is that the prime minister had enjoyed a majority when he took the decision. Even after taking the decision to sack the army chief, other coalition parties were still in the government. The Prachanda-led government did not collapse, but the prime minister resigned on his own volition. So the argument that the Prachanda-led government had lost the majority’s support on the issue of the army chief was not based on objective analysis. Technically, the decision on the army chief had been made by the government that was still commanding a majority.
Politically, of course, the government’s decision was not appropriate and correct. In the first place, it was the prime minister’s failure to take the other parties into confidence on such a vital issue. Secondly, the Maoists could have waited for another three months when the then army chief would have retired normally. This would have been wiser and a more appropriate political move, and the Maoists would have been in power even today. Thus, the Maoists made a calculative mistake - they could neither take the coalition partners along with them nor could they properly visualise the situation that would arise after Prachanda resigned.
Now the Maoists are once again trying to go to power, for which they have resorted to multiple tactics. It is true that the Maoists have the legitimate right to lead the government as the largest political party in the country. The mandate of the people expressed during the Constituent Assembly is to give the Maoists the lead role in the constitution-writing and peace process. For this, the Maoists need to lead the government. However, they lost the opportunity as they chose to remain out of power.
The Maoists made another calculative and strategic mistake when they chose to quit the government. The Maoists thought that the other parties, mainly the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, would not be able to garner the required majority in Parliament to form a government. Their belief was based on the position of the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum that had decided not to join the non-Maoist government. Without the support of Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, a non-Maoist government could never be formed.
Should the other parties fail to form a government, the Maoists, as the largest party in Parliament, would automatically be asked to lead the government. Based on this strategy, the Maoists quit the government. But their strategy failed as the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML engineered a split in the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and got the support of a splinter faction to form a majority.
Now the country is in a crucial phase in its history. The constitution-writing process is underway. The constitution is the key part of the entire peace process. If the constitution is not written in time, the peace process may be delayed, if not derailed. Given the slow progress in writing the constitution, it is uncertain if the constitution can be written, especially by marginalising the largest political force of the country.
Moreover, the Constituent Assembly, new constitution, republic and inclusive democracy are the agenda of the Maoists. If any attempts are made to ignore the largest party, it would be a big political disaster.
The non-Maoist coalition was created not for bringing about a solution to the country’s problems but for teaching a lesson to the Maoists and also sending a message that a government can be formed and the country can be governed even without Maoist support. This purpose has been served, and the Maoists, too, have realised this.
As the country has certain priorities, the politics based on partisan gains and losses must be over. If the ongoing political and peace process is to be concluded in time, the Maoists must be made a part of the government and the entire political process. The formation of the High-Level Political Mechanism with the representation of the Maoists is a positive step towards this end. This is the beginning of the process to create an atmosphere of trust among the political parties.
Disgruntlement
There are voices of disgruntlement about the High-Level Political Mechanism. But such attempt to fail this new move would mean that they are aiming at failing the entire political process. If there are any shortcomings, they can be corrected. But the High-Level Political Mechanism must be made successful to create a new situation of trust, confidence and cooperation in the country’s political landscape, which would pave the way for successfully concluding the peace process and ensuring stability and prosperity in the country.
The High-level Political Mechanism (HLPM) has come into being with the agreement reached among the top leaders of the three major political parties, namely, the UCPN-Maoist, Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. However, its effectiveness is in doubt as the high-profile body has fallen into controversy even as it was announced.
CPA is the spirit
The concept of the mechanism is based on the spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to govern the country on the basis of consensus among the major political forces in the country and take the peace process forward. But this did not materialise in the past due to differences of the parties’ position on various issues.
When the interim government, headed by Congress strongman Girija Prasad Koirala, was formed by incorporating the Maoists into it, the need of such a high-level political mechanism had been raised by some parties, mostly the smaller ones. However, this voice went unheard as the major political parties were in the government, and they did not feel its necessity. The demand for a political mechanism at that time was raised by the fringe parties and was guided by the motive to have an equal and effective say in the interim coalition government and check the three major parties’ arbitrary style of decision-making.
After the formation of the Maoist-led coalition government headed by Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, a mechanism was formed that comprised representatives of the parties in power. The Nepali Congress, which is the second largest party in Parliament, opted to remain out of the government and did not participate in the political mechanism. It was a mechanism of the three main parties that were in the government namely - the Unified CPN-Maoist, the CPN-UML and Madhesi Janadhikar Forum. Since the main opposition Nepali Congress was not in the mechanism, it soon became defunct. Moreover, the mechanism was created just to oversee the affairs of the government.
Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda resigned from the post in the wake of a row in the decision concerning the army chief issue. The prime minister took an abrupt decision to sack the chief of the army staff four months earlier than his regular retirement period and appointed the second in command as the new army chief. But the president blocked the termination of the army chief on request from 18 parties in Parliament. Thus, the prime minister chose to resign instead of clinging onto power. This was a positive aspect of the Maoist party.
The situation was definitely complex as two schools of thought clearly emerged with equally strong and plausible arguments regarding the president’s move to block the decision to sack the army chief. A school of thought claimed that the president had a moral obligation to stay the decision on sacking the army chief because the 18 political parties, whose combined force constituted a majority in the parliament, had submitted a written request to nullify the prime minister’s decision.
According to those who supported the president move, the president, who is also the supreme commander-in-chief, needs to know in advance when a decision is made to sack and appoint the chief of the army. Moreover, they are of the view that the president is not obliged to accept the decision made by the prime minister who had already lost a majority.
But the other school of thought is equally strong and logical. The argument behind this logic is that the prime minister had enjoyed a majority when he took the decision. Even after taking the decision to sack the army chief, other coalition parties were still in the government. The Prachanda-led government did not collapse, but the prime minister resigned on his own volition. So the argument that the Prachanda-led government had lost the majority’s support on the issue of the army chief was not based on objective analysis. Technically, the decision on the army chief had been made by the government that was still commanding a majority.
Politically, of course, the government’s decision was not appropriate and correct. In the first place, it was the prime minister’s failure to take the other parties into confidence on such a vital issue. Secondly, the Maoists could have waited for another three months when the then army chief would have retired normally. This would have been wiser and a more appropriate political move, and the Maoists would have been in power even today. Thus, the Maoists made a calculative mistake - they could neither take the coalition partners along with them nor could they properly visualise the situation that would arise after Prachanda resigned.
Now the Maoists are once again trying to go to power, for which they have resorted to multiple tactics. It is true that the Maoists have the legitimate right to lead the government as the largest political party in the country. The mandate of the people expressed during the Constituent Assembly is to give the Maoists the lead role in the constitution-writing and peace process. For this, the Maoists need to lead the government. However, they lost the opportunity as they chose to remain out of power.
The Maoists made another calculative and strategic mistake when they chose to quit the government. The Maoists thought that the other parties, mainly the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, would not be able to garner the required majority in Parliament to form a government. Their belief was based on the position of the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum that had decided not to join the non-Maoist government. Without the support of Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, a non-Maoist government could never be formed.
Should the other parties fail to form a government, the Maoists, as the largest party in Parliament, would automatically be asked to lead the government. Based on this strategy, the Maoists quit the government. But their strategy failed as the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML engineered a split in the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and got the support of a splinter faction to form a majority.
Now the country is in a crucial phase in its history. The constitution-writing process is underway. The constitution is the key part of the entire peace process. If the constitution is not written in time, the peace process may be delayed, if not derailed. Given the slow progress in writing the constitution, it is uncertain if the constitution can be written, especially by marginalising the largest political force of the country.
Moreover, the Constituent Assembly, new constitution, republic and inclusive democracy are the agenda of the Maoists. If any attempts are made to ignore the largest party, it would be a big political disaster.
The non-Maoist coalition was created not for bringing about a solution to the country’s problems but for teaching a lesson to the Maoists and also sending a message that a government can be formed and the country can be governed even without Maoist support. This purpose has been served, and the Maoists, too, have realised this.
As the country has certain priorities, the politics based on partisan gains and losses must be over. If the ongoing political and peace process is to be concluded in time, the Maoists must be made a part of the government and the entire political process. The formation of the High-Level Political Mechanism with the representation of the Maoists is a positive step towards this end. This is the beginning of the process to create an atmosphere of trust among the political parties.
Disgruntlement
There are voices of disgruntlement about the High-Level Political Mechanism. But such attempt to fail this new move would mean that they are aiming at failing the entire political process. If there are any shortcomings, they can be corrected. But the High-Level Political Mechanism must be made successful to create a new situation of trust, confidence and cooperation in the country’s political landscape, which would pave the way for successfully concluding the peace process and ensuring stability and prosperity in the country.
Comments
Post a Comment