Game Of Possibilities In Nepali Politics

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Politics is the game of possibilities. In politics, all possible strategies, approaches and games are sought to find an amicable solution to the problems facing a country or society. This is the beauty of democratic polity.

Such an approach may not be possible in an authoritarian system in which the rulers impose their decision, and people have no choice other than to accept the decisions and diktats of the rulers quietly. It is only in a democratic system that people are provided with different choices and alternatives. This is why a democratic system is stable and sustainable.

People have the right to revolt if the regime or state does not listen to their voice and does not take the initiative to address the people’s woes and concerns. A revolt is the last resort of the people. Prior to resorting to a revolt, dialogue is held to find an amicable solution out of the many possibilities to address the people’s concerns. A similar process is being pursued in Nepal at present.

Political uncertainty

The country presently is mired in political uncertainties and crises. The people have trusted the parties to take appropriate measures to address the people’s woes. Peace, stability and security are the key concerns of the people. The parties have also been busy in this process for the last five years since the peace process began following the signing of the 12-point agreement as well as the Comprehensive Peace Accord, or CPA. However, the parties’ efforts appear to be mere perfunctory.

All the revolutions and political movements took place in the world when other peaceful means were exhausted. That was the case in Nepal in 1951, 1990 and 2005. The regimes and rulers refused to listen to the people’s concerns but applied force to suppress the people. The Nepalese people waited for more than a century for change, but the Rana oligarchy instead tried to crush the people’s movement with force. This compelled the people to join the armed revolution, which overthrew the century-old Rana rule, and establish multi-party democracy in 1951.

A similar approach was followed later when late King Mahendra took over power through a bloodless coup by dissolving the elected government and disbanding the political parties. The parties and the people first demanded the restoration of the multi-party system through peaceful means. The Nepalese people gave plenty of opportunity and time for the kings to return the power to the people. But the monarchy did not listen to the people and failed to understand the feelings of the people, which forced them to rise against the authoritarian Panchayat regime and re-establish the multi-party polity in 1990.

It seems the king had not learnt lessons and did not read the mood of the people. Soon after King Birendra and his entire family were eliminated in a massacre, the late king’s younger brother Gyanendra Shah rose to the throne of Nepal. Soon after being crowned the new king, Gyanendra engaged in the political misadventure of disbanding the multi-party polity and imposing absolute rule.

Even after this dictatorial move of Gyanendra Shah, people waited for some time and gave ample opportunity to correct his mistakes and restore the rights of the people. Despite the attention drawn by the political parties and warning issued by the people, Gyanendra Shah refused to budge but continued with his authoritarian rule, denying the people their basic democratic and human rights.

The people were not only infuriated by the attitude and behaviour of the king but also came to the conclusion that the monarchy was the enemy of democracy and the institution of monarchy, therefore, had to be abolished to institutionalise and sustain the democratic polity in Nepal.

At the same time, the Maoists had been waging a guerilla war to abolish the monarchy in Nepal, and the guerillas had virtually taken control over much of rural Nepal. The parliamentary parties that had earlier supported the constitutional monarchy also went for a republican programme. This was the basis for an agreement with the Maoists to launch a joint mass movement against the monarchy.

The republican set up, election to a Constituent Assembly for writing a new constitution, federalism, secularism and inclusive democracy were Maoist agendas to which the parliamentary parties, namely the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, agreed. In response, the Maoists accepted the multi-party political system which is the political agenda of the parliamentary parties, mainly the Nepali Congress. Based on these, a 12-point agreement was reached between the Maoists and an alliance of seven parliamentary parties led by the Nepali Congress, which paved the way for a joint movement called Jana Andolan II in 2005.

Jana Andolan II and the Constituent Assembly election institutionalised some of the agendas that had earlier been agreed upon between the Maoists and the seven-party alliance. The monarchy was abolished, a republican set-up declared, multi-party system restored and the peace process formally initiated.

However, the problem began after the Constituent Assembly election. Prior to the election, it was predicted that the CPN-UML and Nepali Congress would emerge as the first and second largest parties whereas the Maoists would trail a distant third in the Constituent Assembly. However, the election result was shocking to the arm chair analysts because the Maoist party turned out to be the largest party whereas the force that had been predicted to be the winner was reduced to a third position.

As all political calculations failed, the parties also adopted different strategies in the post CA election scenario, stalling the ongoing political process. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, which were the principal constituents of the seven-party alliance, had their own strategies and programmes to be implemented in the post-CA election scenario. The election results shattered their hopes and dreams, and they started a new game of delaying the political process, which is the beginning of the new political crisis in the country.

In the last four years since the CA election was held, the political process has been hostage to the parties’ diverse perceptions and partisan interests and calculation. As a result, no significant progress has been made in the constitution-writing and peace process. This is because the parties want to write the constitution and complete the peace process under their own terms and conditions. However, this is not possible given the present political equation in the Constituent Assembly.

Governance

On several issues, discussion and debate are being held on different possibilities and options, but the parties have not yet arrived at a conclusion. Federalism and the governance model are the two key issues in which the parties have sharp differences at the moment. But efforts are being made to find an amicable solution, for which various possibilities are being proposed.

Form of governance is not a major issue because this is a sub-system within the western multi-party capitalist system. Since all the parties have agreed on the multi-party capitalist political system, the debate on the model of governance does not have any significance. In fact, there should have been fierce and vigorous debate on the political system itself. The Maoist party that fought a decade-long guerilla war to change the political system should have sought an alternative to the present capitalist democracy. Thus, the debate on the forms of governance is meaningless, which is nothing but a prestige issue for the parties.