Conflict of interest in Nepali politics

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Nepal’s politics seems to have entered into a new phase—much worse phase than everyone had expected. It looks as though political process in Nepal has backpedaled rather than moving forward. As a result, the state of Nepali politics has gone back to the state of the 1951-60 decade, which marked the height of uncertainty accompanied by fast and frequent change of governments with parties accusing one another of being pro-this and pro-that country or power.

Much had been expected earlier from both the old and new political forces especially after the Jana Andolan II. In the Jana Andolan II, there were a mix of forces—both old and new ones. Old ones were the seven parliamentary forces including the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML while the new one was the UCPN-Maoist that had just entered into peaceful politics following the 12-point understanding reached in New Delhi. The 12-point agreement was a basis for Jana Andolan II with the mix of agenda of both the old and new forces. The agenda of the old forces were bringing back the power seized by the king to the hand of the people once again and restoring parliamentary democracy. The new force pushed for newer agendas that included abolition of monarchy, republican democracy with inclusive nature, secularism, constitution to be written by the people’s elected representatives, federalism with ethnic, lingual, regional and total restructuring of the old unitary and feudal state. The Jana Andolan II was thus a fusion of old and new agenda or status-quoist and progressive agendas. On the basis of these agenda, the Jana Andolan was spearheaded by the two forces which was immediately and overwhelmingly responded by the people, which succeeded in forcing the king to bow down in just 19 days.

But hitches and hiccups suddenly surfaced after the success of Jana Andolan II. The Jana Andolan II was partly a continuation of the old system. But its end results turned out to be a rupture that marked a total break from the old system in many ways. The Jana Andolan II was different from the older movements and revolutions. All other previous movements sought continuation of the older system with slight and cosmetic changes and a space for the agitating forces in the older system.

The 1951 revolution was for a total political transformation. But it ended with compromise followed by an agreement to give continuity to the same old system. When the movement was heading towards its peak, a Delhi-agreement was reached among three forces—Ranas, the monarchy and the Nepali Congress— to abort the movement. The crux of the Delhi agreement was to give continuity to the control of Ranas over the state power of Nepal, to which the Nepali Congress also agreed. Under the Delhi agreement, it was agreed that the Rana Prime Minister Mohan Sumsher would continue in power in which the Nepali Congress will have some space. It was a blunder on the part of the Nepali Congress to accept this agreement because it was in no way in line with the spirit of the popular movement and it was also against the pledges and promises made to the people by the Nepali Congress. 

When Delhi Agreement was signed, there was much resentment in the revolutionary mass of Nepal and also the rank and file of the Liberation Army ( Mukti Sena), an armed group created by the Nepali Congress to fight with the state armed force. The resentment of the Liberation Army was evident in the participation of a section of the Mukti Sena in the revolt led by Dr K I Singh.  As the 1951 change was incomplete, this ultimately led to the king to take over imposing a new form of dictatorship with complete denial of rights to the people.

The 1990 political change, too, was incomplete and cosmetic. It, too, gave continuity to the old system and practices as the popular movement ended in compromise with the king agreeing to reduce the role of monarchy and give some space to parties in state power. The agitating forces of that time namely the Nepali Congress and the United Left or ULF (a coalition of seven leftist parties) agreed to end the movement as they were given space in the old system. Their demand was the multi-party system under the old monarchical state structure and share in the state power. But the demand of the people was structural change in the country which the Nepali Congress and the ULF either failed to comprehend or simply ignored the popular sentiment.

As a result, all the political movements prior to 2006 were aborted by the leadership and ended in compromise with the rulers of the old system. The external factors also played role, to some extent, as the external powers did not want structural and radical change in Nepal, perhaps with the fear of its spillover effect across Nepal’s border. As a result, Nepal’s political change always remained incomplete, which benefited only the regressive and status quoist section but disheartened the people who wanted a systemic and structural change. The unfinished revolution always left the room for newer revolution with the desire for radical change, which came in the form of Maoist armed insurgency. This armed insurgency, which the Maoist call as the ‘People’s War’ was fought in guerilla warfare tactics in the same fashion of Chinese Revolution of 1949. The Maoist armed insurgency had reached in the state of equilibrium as both the insurgents and the state troops were not in a position to overrun the other completely. This situation had demanded a new move and turn in Nepali politics. The Maoists were then quick to seize the opportunity by inking a deal with the parliamentary party to isolate the monarchy in the name of 12-point agreement, which provided the basis for Jana Andolan II.

The Jana Andolan II was, therefore, a fusion of Maoist insurgency and peaceful popular movement that ushered in a new era in Nepal’s political history. The Jana Andolan II prepared a ground for a complete rupture in Nepal’s politics that ultimately brought about systemic change in Nepal. It abolished monarchical system and institutionalized republican set up with inclusive democracy, secularism and federal nature of the state. These are definitely epoch-making changes in Nepal. But this revolution is still unfinished as the changes brought about by Jana Andolan II are yet to be formally institutionalized. These epoch-making changes and political achievements can be formally institutionalized only when a new constitution is written by the Constituent Assembly. But the Constituent Assembly failed to write and promulgate a new constitution mainly because of the positional differences of political parties on some key issues.

The failure to deliver the constitution failed the entire political process that had started almost six years ago. The failure of the Constituent Assembly to come with a new constitution was due to the conflict of political and strategic interests of between status quoist and progressive forces. Although there are many political parties, they belong to these two broad categories. The former wants to maintain status quo in political, social and cultural fronts so that they can continue to have their hold on power. Once the existing superstructure of the state and social and cultural makeup of the country were changed, they would lose their supremacy in power. Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and other fringe parties fall under the status quoist category. The UCPN-Maoist represent and leads the radical and progressive force that wants total and structural change in all spheres of society including political, social, cultural and economic structure and nature.  This fundamental conflict created hitch in the process of writing the new constitution and concluding the peace process. As a result, the country continues to face political uncertainty, instability and crisis.

But parties are still talking of consensus to settle many unresolved issues and complete the ongoing political process. National consensus is easier said than done on all issues. But common ground can be sought in which both the status quoist as well as the progressive forces can have some face saving devices. Given the diverse ideologies and orientation of the existing political parties, narrowing down political differences and bringing the parties into a common ground is definitely a Herculean task, for which neutral facilitators are needed. But, unfortunately, it is hard to find any neutral party or individual who can be acceptable to all. Civil society members are supposed to be neutral, which are often called in to facilitate negotiation between the parties in conflict in the world. But our civil society, too, is divided and partisan.

Against this background, there is no option other than trusting the political parties. Parties are the principal actors in multi-party system and seeking solution without the participation of parties in the decision making process would lead to political authoritarianism, which would be unfortunate for the country and the people. Thus, parties must find an amicable solution to the present crisis and complete this unfinished political process at the earliest.