Constituent assembly: beyond slogan mongering

Govinda Neupane

Recent developments in Nepal are interesting. The ever non-interfering Chinese are equipping the royal Nepal army with the supply of arms. Perhaps, the Chinese want the palace stronger not only to deal with the Maoists but also to look out the Indians. The Americans with all their tough-talking are busy bridging the gap between the palace and the parties. The Americans want to see the king and parties together to defeat the Maoists. The Indians want to keep the political situation fluid so as to maximize their gains particularly in areas of boundary disputes, water resource, security and trade. It is not clear, how the Indians intend to deal with the Maoists – peacefully or militarily; directly or through their Nepali alliance partners. They may wait to clarify such confusion. Sometimes, confusion plays as the best strategy particularly when the time has not come to expose the unjust or unpopular policy. The recent visit of the Indian foreign secretary and his expression of giving the benefit of doubt to the palace have provided the evidence of such strategy. It would be a big joke to believe that India or any other international power favors democracy in Nepal. Their bed-fellows - 'Their Majesties' in Arabia and other Gulf countries and many more 'Presidents' and 'Prime Ministers' around the world simply expose this myth. Any internal political player who dances according to external instructions certainly shall harm the interest of the Nepalese people. With this remark, it would be better to concentrate on the internal political dynamics.

The internal political players are busy adjusting with emerging realities. But, some of them are too rigid to adjust with. The palace either is totally isolated or it has reached to the point to surrendering to China internationally. No major powers other than the Chinese (Russians and Pakistanis to a lesser extent, perhaps. India may jump in its favor in future to counter the Chinese influence) are supporting the palace. The internal support base is also eroding due to its own policy of creating multiple battle fronts – basically against the media and the civil society. The parties are popular among major international powers other than China and probably Russia, but they do not command any sizable support inside the country. On the other, the Maoists command mass support to a large extent inside, whereas they are unpopular among the major international powers. In this situation, perhaps, they also have to retreat a bit and start the strategy of creating confusion as a tactical policy.

The political situation is confusing not only for the general public but also for the political analysts and some of the political players themselves. Where they are heading to? The palace has been intending to consolidate its power by bringing its supportive political institutions in the 'parliament' through the process of 'general election'. The seven-party-alliance wants the power back by restoring the dissolved parliament. The Maoists want to establish a people's democracy by bringing the non-monarchial or anti-monarchial forces together to attain the first-phase goal of establishing a democratic republic. Every political player has differing goals. The strategies and policies to attain the goals and the process also vary.

The election of the constituent assembly could be one of the best unifying political process but as the political environment is heading for check-met, it is difficult to accept that the forces will not try to subvert or create escape routes for them in the process of implementation. If any force sees that its victory in the election of the assembly is not sure or if it reaches to the conclusion that its defeat is imminent, certainly that force either will try to subvert the process or will find out an escape route. Presently, the palace is opposing the election of the assembly and the other two forces are favoring it, but in the inception or implementation stages any force may walk out. There are mainly four escape routes. The first could be the disagreement in the formation of a neutral interim government. The second could be the modalities to organize the election that includes the status, role and position of the election commission. The third factor could be that they may bring the issue of suspicion on the role of the bureaucracy or army or police or Maoist army. The forth could be the allegations of rigging of the election itself. Therefore, just reaching to certain agreement primarily in principle to agree on the election of the constituent assembly as a common relying program of action may not result in the resolution of the conflict. Moreover, until and unless the issues of broad social transformation and the management of the arms have been addressed, the process could not move forward.

It is natural and only a good strategy of the Maoists to utilize the opportunity provided by the agitation and pass through stages. But, if the Maoists will depart from their stated line of workers' democracy (a new form of multiparty system that overtly favors working class, oppressed nationalities, communities and groups and provides special constitutional protection and political, economic and cultural rights to them), they may face revolt in their own ranks and will split or will degenerate as in the case of the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist). The seven-party-alliance too will utilize the courtesy of the Maoists till the Maoists will cooperate particularly in the area of mass mobilization to restore the parliament by agitation, court order or election. The palace which is isolated and cornered nationally and internationally would depend more and more on the army but may not give up power. Therefore, the solution of the conflict or the civil war in Nepal is not as simple as the armchair intellectuals, civil society barons and political opportunists believe or propagate.

In brief, there are four issues to address - a) agreement in the transformational socio-political agenda, b) management of arms and armed forces by agreeing to keep them staying there where they are now, c) agreeing on the structure, process and methods to hold election, and d) accepting the sovereign right of the people and their General Will expressed through the election and empower the assembly to design the structure, decide philosophical and ideological foundation of the state, insert values and visions and finalize the system. Without broadly agreeing on these critical issues, the election of the assembly would be a farce and the players will start the blame-game once again and walk out through the escape routes. For this reason, there should be a roundtable conference represented by the main political institutions, major political parties and federations of nationalities as well as oppressed sections such as women, Dalits and backward regional groups. The conference may discuss and short out the major differences and would clear the sky. The second step could be the formation of an independent election commission and an interim government. Is all this possible by consensus? This is where the problem crops up. Hence, this political course may not force the political players to participate in this process to its logical end unless one or some of them are in a position of imminent defeat. Here comes the importance of mass agitation. Even after all this, the process may not guarantee the resolution of the conflict but at least this could be an honest try. Otherwise, the solution would emerge through military means or militant agitation in the form of victory for some and defeat for others.

The Telegraph weekly, June, 16, 2004