Can Parties Be Prepared To Make Sacrifice?

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Nepal is currently passing through a critical phase of history. This is critical in the sense that decisions and developments in the next few weeks or months will have great impact on fate and future of Nepal and the Nepalese people. Unlike, other previous cosmetic changes in the country’s political front; this political phenomenon will mark a clear systemic change, which perhaps is the second of its nature in Nepal modern political history since 1951.

The Jana Andolan II of 2005-06 with a decade-long Maoist insurgency in the background brought about a phenomenal change and marked a tectonic shift in Nepal’s political course and system. The 1951 political change had brought the Rana ‘clanocracy’ to an end, hence, heralding a new political era—the era of multi-party democracy. This was systemic change as it ended a dynastic rule of Rana clan in which a clan and dynasty had privileged and prerogative in power and perks whereas people were treated mere subjects to serve the despotic rulers. In other words, Ranas claimed to be the masters whereas they treated people as slaves and servants. The 1950-51 revolution changed this system of servitude rule and paved the ways for a competitive politics wherein ordinary citizens, too, can compete and attain the highest political position of the country.

With systemic political change brought about by the 1951 revolution, Nepalese people got the first taste of freedom, openness and democracy, which is its greatest significance. The country entered into a new era of democracy and people enjoyed freedom, civil and political rights. However, this lived short as another despot emerged in the political scene taking advantage of chaotic situation and instability due mainly to sectarian and self-centered attitude and behavior of Nepalese leaders. Although external factor and conspiracy of the palace (king) had their own role behind the deteriorating situation in the post-1951 political change, the lack of capability of leaders to manage the political dissent and keep their houses in order were more fundamentally responsible for setting the stage for the king to take over.  The root cause was the inherent mistake that revolutionary leaders mainly BP Koirala failed to foresee when the power-sharing deal was brokered in New Delhi to settle the political crisis in Nepal following the heightened revolution.  In the deal, it was agreed to give continuity to the Rana Prime Minister in which Nepali Congress was to join the cabinet under the Prime Minister against whom it had led the revolution. This situation was unfortunate not only for the Nepali Congress but also for entire country. Even if this tripartite (Rana-King Tribhuvan-Nepali Congress) deal had not been agreed upon, the Rana clan rule was sure to crumble as revolution as picking in a swift and effective manner. After the overthrow the Rana rule, Nepali Congress could have formed its own revolutionary government but this opportunity was scuttled in the name of tripartite agreement. As a result, the Nepali Congress had to wait and struggle eight more years to gain power, that too, only after the election. On the contrary, some other less significant parties and leaders went to power between 1951 and 1959 just because of unnecessary meddling of the king.

 It was a blunder on the part of the Nepali Congress not to visualize this scenario. The 1951 revolution and political arrangement made thereafter restored King Tribhuvan, who had virtually abdicated and fled to India, was restored to the throne, which ultimately proved counterproductive to Nepal’s democratic development. Although, in principle, the 1951 political change was a democratic transformation, in practice, it paved the way for transferring power from one dynasty to another—from Rana to Shah. This was yet another blunder as the country’s politics and power revolved around the palace for another six decades until monarchy was overthrown and republican democracy established following the Jana Andolan II.

In Nepal’s modern political history, the 1951 revolution and Jana Andolan II have left their indelible marks as these two events marked systemic change. Other political arrangements were just cosmetic changes, which were mere power sharing arrangement. But both these systemic changes were not properly managed. The failure to institutionalize the 1951 change ultimately led to king’s autocracy. Similarly, the agents of change of 2005-6 Jana Andolan II have also not been able to institutionalize and settle the political arrangement and achievements gained through people’s struggle.

We have now reached a decisive phase of ongoing political process that began after signing of the 12-point agreements  between an alliance of seven parliamentary parties of Nepal ( Nepali Congress, Nepali Congress- Democratic,  CPN-UML, Nepal Sadbhabana Party, Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, United Left Front and National People's Front )  and the insurgent CPN-Maoist ( now UCPN-Maoist) on November 22, 2006. Since then much water has flown down in Bagmati. We have been witness to many tumultuous events in Nepal's political spectrum over the last eight years. The journey of peace that had been expected to be completed in four years seems to be heading nowhere even in more than eight years. The transition has prolonged in such a way that it does not appear to come to an end in anytime soon unless our key political actors do not change their behavior and correct their course of confrontation and intrigue. Even more than eight years since the Jana Andolan II, the country is still unable to conclude the political process through the promulgation of a democratic and inclusive constitution. If this settled was not settled early through mutual consensus and cooperation, the country will continue to suffer more instability which may ultimately led to the situation wherein the historic achievements may slip out of our hands.

Constitution and its promulgation have been the catch phrases in the contemporary politics of Nepal. But the possibility of consensus does not appear in the horizon anytime soon. It appears as though these catch phrases are being pronounced by our distinguished leaders only to hoodwink the people, voters and the international community. Parties and leaders are either ignorant of the reality or are simply and deliberately trying to dilute the issues and prolong the present political arrangement as they find it more convenient for their personal and partisan interest. No political party seems to be serious and pragmatic enough to settle the core issues and ways to address them in practical manner.

Parties have their own agenda and calculations and want to reap their personal and partisan benefit out of the present chaotic situation. There are limited choices for the leaders but they are stuck to their own partisan arrogance and they are not prepared to come out of this complex gridlock.  As the constitution is the fundamental concern and priority, parties, too, have their own strategies and calculations to drive the vehicle of the present political course into the direction they desire. Given the circumstantial complexities of the present political scenario and objective reality, the political course does not appear to go along with a particular party’s whim. Moreover, no party is the absolute winner in the Constituent Assembly and does not have strength to deliver the constitution in a way it wants to. This situation and equation in the Constituent Assembly demands cooperation, collaboration, compromise and co-existence in order to steer the nation out of the present political malfunction. All need to understand the fact that compromise means one has to sacrifice some of its agenda and stance. But no political party is prepared to do so. The parties and leaders are of the belief that compromise and sacrifice on agenda and stance will mean defeat in their political jingoism.  But that is not the reality as compromise is the beauty of democracy and fundamental basis for democratic governance. The parties are, therefore, required to realize the present power equation, people’s desire and national necessity and accordingly agree to compromise certain agendas and stance to navigate the country into a safe, peaceful and democratic destination. It is now a huge question whether parties are prepared to make sacrifice for the country?