Ceasefire and dialogue: What next?

Govinda neupane

In Nepal, the role and influencing capacity of different political forces have changed in the recent months. Although, there are still the three major political blocks (the rightist traditional forces, the centrist parliamentary forces and the leftist new democratic forces) as they were in the past, but their role-value and the weight-factors have changed tremendously.

At this moment, the rightist traditional forces are in a commanding position. Although, some other small political formations such as Rastriya Prajatantra Party form part of the combination, primarily the palace represents this block. They not only control the army, but also run the administration. They have a 'cabinet' to show the outsiders and have obtained overt or covert support from the dominant powers such as America. They are trying to improve relation with India. In the present world political make-up, where only one superpower is roaming around as a Spanish bull, it is natural that the American and Indian interests in Nepal can be addressed together.

The centrist parliamentary block combines old and new social democrats represented by Nepali Congress, the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) and a few other 'communist' and non-communist groups. After the people's movement of 1990, the rightists and the centrist forces shared power. The rightists maintained supremacy over the army and the centrist established effective control over the civil bureaucracy. In the name of democracy, the centrist leaders accumulated wealth through unfair means and grabbed every opportunity available for their own benefit. The nation and the society experienced a phase of extreme frustration. In this process they loose the popular support and the traditional forces got opportunity to sideline them.

The leftists, primarily represented by the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) took a highly confrontational path of armed social transformation. In February 13, 1996, they initiated armed struggle. They developed their political and military base rapidly and started to run a de-facto government in the large part of the rural areas. The government based in Kathmandu has been absent there and the Maoists have established there the system of effective governance.

Today, not only the balance of power has changed, but also there has been a polarization of political forces. The centrists are still there very much present as a political ideology and non-functional organizational structures, but they have no effective voice in any political developments as they neither control the bureaucracy nor the army nor they command popular support. They have become a marginal force. But still, they can play some role if they join one or the other pole. Hence, in the present context, the rightist traditional forces and the leftist forces (primarily the Maoists) form the two poles and are standing against each other face to face.

Therefore, any objective analysis starts from the acceptance of the polarization in the Nepalese political stage. The power balance today, between the two poles has determined the course of political actions, maneuverings, game plans and change of immediate objectives of all political forces. The two power blocks are setting the course and the remnants of the centrist forces are lining up in a queue to have either a "darshan" (audience with) or a "Bhetghat" (meeting) with the traditional and the leftist forces respectively. Although, no one should completely overlook the centrist forces, but in any power analysis they do not occupy the prime space. Hence, the political and military polarization between the traditional forces and the leftists becomes an issue of paramount importance.

After a year of consorted effort, the traditional forces formed their united front by including the palace, rightist political formations and the intellectual-turn-coats. On an opportune moment, they established effective control over the civil bureaucracy by overthrowing a weak caretaker government of a faction of the centrists. The rightists enchased the popular sentiments partly as they effectively overthrew the infamous centrist block from the government. They had the army under their control already. So, within a short span of time they became the most powerful force. In this course, they tried to quell the Maoist rebellion by military means. But, they were unsuccessful. Therefore, they need time to reorganize themselves or to reexamine their strategy or to add more sophisticated weapons in their arsenal.

On the other hand, the Maoists had been engaged in armed conflict for quite a long time. The September 11 incident in America created a fertile ground for any repressive government to declare any legitimate struggles lunched by the people or a nation as act of terrorism. By utilizing this opportunity, the Nepalese state forces declared the Maoists as terrorists. This declaration helped the state to enlist Maoist leaders as terrorist with the Interpol, which issued 'Red Corner Notice' for their arrest. Therefore, the Maoists were looking for a window to escape from the unpleasant label of "terrorists". Similarly, they had won the battle against the police as well as the paramilitary force and also they successfully prevented the defeat from the army. Instead, the army sounded tired and powerless. The Maoists also had established effective control in a large part of the rural areas and they were in need of an interval when they can consolidate the gains.

The opposite poles could not meet if the case has its relation with the concrete science, but in social science that is not only possible, sometimes, it becomes the most viable option. Therefore, the ceasefire in the country and a process of dialogue has become the talk of the town. The two poles are there participating in the same process with entirely different motives, objectives and design.

Now, the million-dollar question is: what next? There are only two options available – 1) assimilation of the Maoist force in the new political environment acceptable for not only both the political poles but also for the people, or 2) go back to the battlefield and decide the future course by military means. The second option is very much understandable and clear. But, the first option is complicated and needs a deeper look. For the realization of the first option either the traditional rightist forces have to hand over the power to the leftists or the leftists have to agree to accept a ceremonial role in the rightist dominated system of governance. Both these propositions are nearly impossible in regard to their operational worth. So, they have to find out an option, which could be acceptable for both of them and the people. In such situation, organizing an election of a constituent assembly could provide a common ground. The election should be conducted by an impartial election commission with the support of an interim government participated by all major political forces and social sections. And, the assembly should have no limitations strings attached to other than framing a constitution on the best interest of the people and the Nepalese nation.

In final analysis, either there will be the election of the all-powerful constituent assembly or the guns will start roaring once again. If the Maoists will agree something less than all-powerful constituent assembly, that may be seen as betrayal by the people in general and their own cadres in particular. For the traditional forces also, the exit option, if offered by the people, could be more acceptable. This will be an inclusive process for the marginal centrist forces too, and should be acceptable. The people shall welcome the election of the assembly as this action alone can insure their sovereign status.

The Telegraph weekly, Kathamandu, April 9-15, 2003