NEPAL: Peace, government and constitution
The only way to give an optimistic spin to the stalemate in government formation in Nepal is to consider it as part of the peace process. Otherwise, it is a very distressing matter that there have been five failed rounds of elections between the two candidates – Pushpa Kamal Dahal, chairman of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and Ram Chandra Poudel, head of the parliamentary party of the Nepali Congress. The process of voting for a new government began when Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal resigned from his office on 30 June, when he decided to become caretaker rather than face a possible floor-crossing within his own Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) during the budget session. It was ironic that he had to do so, after a full dozen months of facing down Maoist attempts to bring down his government through parliamentary boycott, street action and an 'indefinite national closure' in early May 2010.
Prime Minister Nepal's departure was predicated upon a three-point understanding reached between the three largest parties – the Maoists, CPN (UML) and the Nepali Congress. This held that the term of the Constituent Assembly would be extended beyond its deadline of 28 May, based on a commitment to complete the peace process and to work on the constitution-writing. Yet the Constituent Assembly has not met even once since its term extension two months ago, and only another ten months remain before its renewed term expires. The constitution-drafting hangs fire due to the polarisation of politics over who is to become prime minister. Part of the problem lies in the fact that, against some sage advice that suggested a bifurcation of responsibilities, the Constituent Assembly serves also as a parliament. (The formal term is 'Legislature-Parliament', to address the fact that the Maoists do not believe, entirely, in parliamentary democracy, against which they began the 'people's war' in 1996.)
But the critical difficulty is that, according to the parliamentary parties in the Legislature-Parliament, the new constitution cannot be written in good conscience when the largest political party retains its own combatant force, currently sequestered in seven main and 21 satellite UN-supervised cantonments. In this sense, there is a direct connection between government-formation and constitution-writing, because the CPN (UML), the Nepali Congress, the Madhesi parties and other smaller units insist that the Maoists cannot lead the government when there is no show of movement on the commitments related to the peace process.
Amidst this deadlock, the UCPN (Maoist) leadership claims that it is pressure from New Delhi that has kept the other political parties from supporting a Maoist-led government. When juxtaposed with the continuing deadlock in the prime-ministerial elections, a recent visit by India's former foreign secretary and former ambassador to Nepal, Shyam Saran, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's special envoy, would seem to lend credence to this contention. On the other hand, the other political parties point to their own positioning as decisive, and that to see India's hand in the elections is not to believe in the independence and 'agency' of the Nepali polity. In the meantime, the election of a new prime minister is stymied because the Madhesi parties, as well as the CPN (UML), have decided to remain neutral on the choice between Dahal and Poudel.
Beyond polemic
If the non-Maoist political parties are to be believed, the core issue right now relates to public written commitments made by the UCPN (Maoist) to complete the peace process. These include the disbandment of the 'barrack system' of the Young Communist League, return of the conflict displaced, restoration of seized property, and – the most important – the 'management' of the Maoist ex-combatants. This last refers to the handover of cantonment management from Maoist command to a special committee (with Maoist participation) that has been set up for the purpose. In fact, as prime minster, Dahal had already announced the transfer of management, but failed to have his party act on it. Once such a handover is done, there would have to be agreement on the number of ex-combatants to be integrated into the national security forces, and rehabilitation of the rest back into society.
One must live in the expectation that Nepal will get a new prime minister before long to replace the current caretaker set-up, and that will also mean that the knot in the peace process has been released. What that would indicate is that the three-point agreement of 28 May is in the process of being implemented. Importantly, this would imply the disbandment of the cantonments, which would ipso facto give the various political players the confidence to move towards the writing of a democratic constitution. A level playing field, in which all political parties are without fighting forces of their own, would thus make way for reasoned debate in the Constituent Assembly, in the place of polemic.
To move from rhetoric to debate and the drafting of the new basic law of Nepal, the Constituent Assembly first has to meet. For this to happen, the peace process must move ahead. The election of a new prime minister in Nepal will carry that implication, and that is why the three factors are today inextricably linked. The failure of the political parties to deliver a new prime minister through parliamentary process can only mean one of two options – either Madhav Kumar Nepal proposes the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and announces elections, or he asks President Ram Baran Yadav to take charge until the disagreements between the political parties are ironed out. The main political players all profess to be against both of these options, so it is up to them to allow the parliamentary process to elect a new prime minister. A national unity government is what all the players say they want, but the necessary trust has just not been built. It is time for the 'neutrals' to take a stand and help in the formation of a government, which is bound to be a majority government.