New scenario emerging in politics

Lately, politics in Nepal seems to be slowly limping back to normalcy. New political polarization is in the offing with UCPN-Maoist adopting different approach to let the constitution writing process going, while the ruling parties especially the Nepali Congress also appears to be little more flexible and accommodative to opposition’ demands and concerns. If these positive developments keep going for another couple of weeks, political parties are expected to hammer out a new formula for delivering the new constitution upon which the fate of the country and its thirty million people is directly linked. However, it is not yet certain that parties will really strike a compromise because of their dwindling credibility. In fact, parties’ credibility has declined so badly that people do not easily believe that our leaders will really make compromise for the country and the people.

The new situation has installed optimism among the people as the opposition parties led by the UCPN-Maoist withdrew the three-day nationwide general strike. In response, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have been flexible to defer the majority process in the Constituent Assembly for some time. Given the tone and tenor of the parties and their leaders, they appear to be tired and exhausted and do not have enough energy to advance their own stance and arrogance further. But they are still not in a mood to easily give up and accept the defeat. The present situation is something like the state of ceasefire, which have two equally strong possibilities. It may yield positive results in Nepalese politics by creating conducive atmosphere for consensus-based constitution and there is equal chance that this optimism may live short and lead to another round of conflict. In other words, it can also be described as a lull before the storm given their moods and arrogance. But let us hope that positive scenario emerges and country enters into a new era of peace and prosperity.

The crux of the problem in constitution writing and its promulgation appears to be federalism. However, this is not the only issue behind the deadlock and crisis. There is something else, which even our leaders may not have visualized clearly. The key to unlock the present political gridlock is not in the hands of Nepalese leaders but it is somewhere else, which is the fundamental factor behind the present crisis. The external forces are using our political actors to suit their own interests while our leaders and parties are unfortunately dancing to the tune of the external forces which do not want stability and peace in Nepal.

Nepal is currently in the process of social, political, economical and cultural transformation, which was the agenda of the Jana Andolan II. The popular April movement of 2006 had clearly spelled out some fundamental issues in Nepalese politics. They were inclusive democracy, secularism and republican set up. Although the Maoists were the ones to raise federalism in Nepal, it came to the fore strongly and prominently only after the Madhes movement.

Nepal needs to be restructured administratively and from the point of view of governance because development has not reached the villages and grassroots level.  Plans for the development projects are made in the capital without assessing the real needs of the local people and accordingly imposed from the center, which did not cater to the genuine needs of the local people.  But federalism may not be the solution of all the problems that the country has suffered. What is needed at present is the genuine devolution of power and governance at the door step of the people. Nepal is a small country and can be easily managed. If the concept of local self governance, the idea once mooted, is genuinely and honestly implemented, there is no need of federalism. But the people who hold power in the center are not willing to delegate power to the local levels in true spirit of decentralization and local self-governance. This is the fundamental problem, which failed the concept of local self governance in Nepal. This is why the necessity of federalism arose.

But federalism is not the prescription of all ills Nepal is faced with. The concept of federalism was accepted and incorporated in the Interim Constitution without sufficient debate. Thus, people do not exactly know what federalism is all about and whether Nepal really needed it. Had national debate been launched on this issue, people would have been better informed and better educated on this subject and they could have given their verdict accordingly. Now federalism is being defined by different individuals differently. Supporters of federalism think that federalism will cure all problems and diseases, whereas anti-federalists take it in such a way that federalism may ultimately lead to Balkanization of our country. But federalism is neither the prescription of all ills nor it is as bad as claimed by its critics. One thing is true that the way federalism is being propagated, it will lead us nowhere. Now federalism is being mooted in a way that leaders and parties are trying to create more unitary provinces out of one unitary state. That is the fundamental flaw in the present concept of federalism. If federal states are created in a genuine motive of empowering people at the local level, federalism does not disintegrate the country but it rather unites and strengthens our national unity.

Nepal is a small country which can be governed well, provided our rulers and political actors possess good intention and quality of governance.  Now they are trying to block the delegation of power to the local level and empower local people in the name of unnecessary debate of federalism. Federalism has been constitutionally accepted and we cannot go back from this. But federalism has to be made manageable so that it may not complicate problems in future. What is needed at present is the end of the present political transition and establishment of durable peace in the country. Durable peace and end of transition can be achieved only through the promulgation of the new constitution possibly on the basis of consensus and agreement among major political process. If consensus is not possible, the disputes need to be settled through other constitutional and democratic methods. Consensus is good to settle the disputes and deliver the constitution because consensus-based constitution ensures ownership of all sections and sectors of the country. But the country cannot always be made hostage of indecision in the name of consensus.

Political parties have now slowly started realizing this and they are expected to come up with a new formula to resolve the present political crisis in the country. Both the ruling and opposition parties appear to be flexible to compromise and give an amicable outlet to the ongoing deadlock in the constitution-making process. Further delay in the constitution writing is not in the interest of the country. It will only prolong transition that will be in the interest of the elements that are willing to reap benefit out of the chaos and instability. Thus, political parties are required to set aside their partisan agenda and come up with a common and acceptable proposition in unlocking the present political gridlock and delivering the new constitution ensuring federal democratic republic of Nepal.