Class interests keep politics hostage

Yuba Nath Lamsal

The political process began five years ago with the objective of establishing durable peace in the country. The process is progressing but at a snail’s pace. The 12-point agreement between the insurgent Maoists and the alliance of the seven parliamentary parties was the basis for the joint struggle against the monarchy. The united front of the Maoists and the seven-party alliance spearheaded the 2006 movement, Jana Andolan II, which was able to reinstate the dissolved parliament and form a government comprising democratic and progressive forces.

The immediate objective of 12-point agreement was achieved with the restoration of the parliament and formation of a multi-party government.

But the long-term goal of the 12-point government was to establish sustainable peace in the country by ending the decade-long insurgency. The goal of the Maoists and their people’s war was to establish a ‘people’s republican democracy’ with power in the hands of the proletariat.

Given the power equation and objective situation of the country, the Maoists calculated that total victory was not possible, and they thought of attacking one principal enemy with tactical collaboration with the lesser harmful enemies. Feudalism and its patron monarchy were what the Maoists saw as the principal enemy. In the famous Chunbang (Rolpa) meeting, the Maoist changed tactics to achieve their strategy of establishing ‘people’s republican democracy’ for which they decided to collaborate with the parliamentary parties.

The 12-point agreement had three principal agendas, which included election to a Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution, abolition of the monarchy and establishment of multi-party democracy. The Constituent Assembly election and republican set up were Maoist agendas whereas the multi-party system was the agenda of the Nepali Congress. In other words, the 12-point agreement was a ‘give and take’ compromise mainly between the Maoists and the Nepali Congress while the other parties had no choice but to rally behind these two principal political forces of the country.

The 12-point agreement was further developed and concretised in the form of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which outlined the details of the activities and their timeline to conclude the already initiated political process.

The hitch and hiccups surfaced immediately after the first agenda of the 12-point agreement was accomplished, i.e., reinstatement of the parliament. Once it was reinstated and an all-party government formed, headed by Congress leader late GP Koirala, the seven parliamentary parties seemed a little bit reluctant to pursue the other two agendas and speed up the already started political and peace process.

This was because the Nepali Congress and other parliamentary parties thought that their agenda was accomplished and dubbed the republican set up and CA election as Maoist agenda.

The Nepali Congress had always believed that constitutional monarchy and multi-party system were the two fundamental pillars of democracy in Nepal. The Congress was not much enthusiastic about the abolition of the monarchy. But the Congress agreed to the republican set up under pressure from the Maoists. Other parliamentary parties, too, shared the views of the Congress. The CPN-UML was once a republican party, but it changed its stance in 1990 and accepted constitutional monarchy.

Although they do not accept this in public, all parliamentary parties including the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML did not want the abolition of the monarchy in the beginning. But time had changed, and so had the people’s thinking and demand. The very agenda of Jana Andolan II was the abolition of the monarchy, for which the people overwhelmingly went to the streets. Despite a slight hitch and delay, the republican set up was finally implemented, but it was left to be decided by the Constituent Assembly. This shows the parties’ hesitation to implement the republican agenda. Had the Maoists not emerged as the largest force in the Constituent Assembly, this agenda might not have been implemented.

The election to the Constituent Assembly was the third agenda of the parties that was agreed upon both in the 12-point agreement as well as in the CPA. There were hitches in the implementation of this agenda as well. As a result, the date of the Constituent Assembly election was rescheduled thrice. The Nepali Congress was behind the first postponement of the CA election while the Maoists were responsible for the second deferral.

The CA election was postponed twice because the parties did not find the situation favourable for them. Despite the delay, the election was finally held, in which the Maoists emerged as the single largest force while the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML trailed a distant second and third respectively. The election results came as a shock to all the parties and more to the Congress and the CPN-UML.

Even the Maoists had not expected such favourable results. The election result showed overwhelming popular support for the agenda of the Jana Andolan II, especially for the republican set up.

The republican agenda was finally implemented by the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly. But the very purpose for which the CA election was held has not been achieved even in more than four years. The one and only objective of the Constituent Assembly is to write a new constitution which would institutionalise the agendas and achievements of Jana Andolan II. But the parties are at loggerheads, delaying the constitution-writing process.

The delay in writing the constitution is not a mere coincidence, but a deliberate attempt of the parties. Different parties have different views on different issues, and they are not in any mood to make compromises on certain issues. In the first place, the parties are less likely to give the country a new constitution in the next five months because they are not willing to accept any provision that may be contradictory to their basic political and ideological principles. Even if the parties arrive at a certain compromise and conclusion, which is very unlikely, it is even more unlikely that all the people would accept it.

The ethnic communities have their own agenda - that of ethnicity-based federal states. The Madhesis are demanding a single Madhes state with the guarantee of the right to self-determination. Brahmins, Kshetris and dalits, who together constitute 43 per cent of Nepal’s population (Brahmins 13 %, Kshetris 17 % and dalits 13%), are against ethnicity-based federal states. The Maithili speaking population is pushing for a separate Mithila state on the basis of language basis.

The parties are aware of this situation and want to avoid public resentment. They also know that the constitution is not likely to guarantee the agendas of all the parties. Thus they are more likely to shelve the constitution-writing process even further.

They have already opened up the Pandora’s Box in the name of federalism. Now it has become difficult for the parties to manage this issue. They did not visualise this situation in the beginning and promised everything to everyone. The parties have aroused the people’s expectations high, but these aspirations can in no way be met.

The constitution is not a solution to all the problems but a codified document of the basic principles for governance. Thus, the constitution is not likely to address the concerns of all the people, which may create further tension in the future. The parties, thus, want to prolong the transition.

The other fundamental factor behind this hitch is the class interest of the parties and politicians. In Nepal, many changes have taken place since the Himalayan Republic became a nation state. Some changes are big and epoch-making while many are minor and cosmetic. All changes have had their own impact and consequences in Nepal’s political and other spheres. But one thing is true that despite the changes, the behaviour and style of those in power have never changed.

In all the regimes and systems, only one class of people remained in power, namely, the Brahmins and Kshetris. All these rulers belong to the same class and have similar political and cultural orientation, although they have association with different political groups and pursue different ideologies. This is one but the most important factor that has had a great impact on Nepal’s politics.

Despite some systemic changes, there has not been real change in the life of the people. The ongoing political process, too, is not likely to break the monopoly of a particular class on political power. Unless power is shifted from the hands of the feudal and petty bourgeoisies to the people, Nepal’s problem cannot be resolved and conflict is likely to afflict the society.