Stop coddling despots

Recently, during a training program for party cadres in Chitwan district, in a threat-laden statement, Prachanda assured his brainwashed cadres that the “State” after the Constituent Assembly (CA) election will come to the Maoist fold at any cost. He made it pretty clear to his cadre that if the Maoists failed to capture power through the CA poll, it would be done through a coup.

While the Maoists are tirelessly trumpeting the possibility of a "democratic coup" backed by the army like the one in Bangladesh, they have their own model --"nationalist coup" ready. Two years after the landmark victory against the despotic monarch, the Nepalis are once again nervous about the possibility of another despotic regime.

The revival of the Maoists' parallel administration across the country clearly shows how committed they are towards the forty plus agreement that they have signed with the government. While the mainstream political parties are having a hard time reaching their constituents -- Dilendra Badu's episode says it all -- the Maoists have kept both the option of bullets and ballots open.

Was it expected? Absolutely yes. The Maoists never gave up the idea of capturing the state altogether. It was political parties who thought that the moderation of the Maoists would take place after they come to power. However, what the leaders of the major political parties failed to realize is that providing political power only begets the desires of the radicals to perpetuate and aggrandize power and does not contribute towards “moderation.” Bringing the radicals to the helms of affairs has never resulted in moderation. It simply does not work. After coming to power, radicals like Hitler, Mussolini, Khomeini, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Mullah Mohammad Omar, got even more “strong headed” and rhetorical. And, yes, our own Prachanda is not getting any softer.

The only way to soften the radicals is to militarily weaken them first. Negotiation with them should happen only after their dream of capturing the state is completely aborted. Unless you abort their dreams of possible military victory over the state, they will never abide by the rules of the game.

Furthermore, when you join hands with radicals whose views are completely opposite to your's, you are bound to get betrayed. From the never-ending episode of the Maoists' betrayal, if nothing, the politicians of the mainstream political parties must have learnt one lesson -- ideological dilution never pays off. The mainstream political parties could have defeated King Gyanendra without the help of the Maoists. Despots like King Gyanendra cannot remain in power for long. Sooner or later people succeed in unseating them. It might have taken a little longer but it was certainly a doable job.

Musharaff's military regime in Pakistan would have been toppled long ago had Benazir and Nawaz Sharif joined hands with the armed radicals in Pakistan. But Benazir never tried to reach out to the radical Islamofascists. She must have known the cost associated with coddling the radicals.

For an alliance to work, it must have the involvement of like-minded parties. When you forge an alliance with a party that believes power comes from the barrel of guns rather than ballots, you run the risk of getting robbed at a gun point. This is what is precisely happening in Nepal. The Maoists are robbing off the political parties at gun point. The sheer threat of violence brings the major political parties to their knees and forces them to fulfill the Maoists' demands.

When we look back, it becomes quite evident that our politicians have once again failed to live up to the nation's expectation. The last two years were the years of wasted opportunities. We had never been so close to realizing the dreams of being a peaceful and democratic nation. Had the Maoists been committed to the peace process and the government sincere towards fulfilling the genuine demands raised by ethnic minorities, the country would have been pretty peaceful and stable by now. The nation would have taken a giant leap towards peace and democracy.

Nearly two years have passed by, but the people are yet to witness the dividends of democracy. The state has been unable to fulfill its basic duties towards citizens. Safety and security of civilians is still a major concern. Inflation has skyrocketed and smooth delivery of goods and services are far from being normal.

The April revolution of 2006 had provided a perfect platform for securing peace and democracy. Two years down the road and here we are again muddling through. What is it that brought us to this level of chaos, conflict, disunity, intrigue, and erosion of a sense of nationhood?

After the victory against King Gyanendra, what our politicians failed to understand is that, in order to establish a durable peace and stability, the violence and lawlessness that has existed thus far must give way to the security of citizens and the rule of law; social and political exclusion must give way to participatory institutions; animosity between the Maoists and the internally displaced persons (IDPs) must give way to national reconciliation and the economy that has been ravaged by the decade-long violent insurgency must be transformed into a well-functioning market economy. Reconciliation and reconstruction never took off.

While the Maoists always remained glued to their glib idea of capturing the state, the major political parties had no strategies whatsoever. They did not even bother to punish the culprits of King Gyanendra's regime. When the state fails to punish the culprits and reward honest citizens, thugs have no reason to stop thuggery.

The chances of holding CA election on April 10 are very slim. Every politician knows that in the current situation free and fair election cannot be conducted. It is just that they don't dare to cruise against the tide of populist politics and be the bearer of the unpleasant news. Instead of window-dressing, the political parties should be truthful about it.

What next? The prime minister should be tasked with forming a national unity government after consultation with the civil society organizations, religious leaders, and all political parties, even those that are outside the Seven Party Alliance (SPA). The new government should then hold CA election after fulfilling the legitimate demands of the regional parties. It is better to have legitimate election later than have forced election now. Only such practical steps can save Nepal from falling into the hands of power hungry despots like Prachanda and King Gyanendra who want to crush democratic rights of the people.

The road ahead

Last week, in British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC) program “Sajha Sawal”, the stalwarts of the Seven Part Alliance (SPA); Dr Ram Sharan Mahat, Jhala Nath Khanal, and Hishila Yami; were caught off guard. Sushil Sharma's simple question -- will you all retire from politics if you fail to conduct twice postponed Constituent Assembly (CA) election this time around, made them pause. It made them stop blowing their horns, even if it was for a few seconds, and forced them to reflect in their real ability to get things done.

Despite all assurances and promises to flock together this time around to fulfill people's desire to have a CA election, not a single politician that participated in the program had enough guts to say; yes, as a senior member of my party I will take the responsibility for repeated failure in not being able to meet people's desire, and thus, will retire.

Although repeated failure is an example of incompetence, none sounded like the ones who had flunked thrice in the same mission. Like his boss Madhav Kumar Nepal, Jhala Nath Khanal was at his best in fence-sitting politics.

In a typical Madhav Nepal style, Khanal blamed Yami and Dr Mahat's party for the debacle and tried to project his party as the only viable alternative that can wipe-out all ills confronting Nepal. Yami appeared more aggressive than needed. Like a cornered animal, she spent most of her time hounding fellow participants, especially Dr Mahat, left and right. In a typical leftist style, with help of jargons such as progression, regression, inclusion, she tried her best to justify her party's run away from the CA election in November of 2007.

Yami repeatedly mentioned people as a wise lot, but did not refrain from trying to fool the very same people by justifying the CPN (Maoist)'s run away from the CA election scheduled for last November. Are we that stupid not to know why the Maoists ran away from CA election in November? Madam, give us a break.

Dr Mahat at times came down heavily on the Maoists' duplicity and dubious character but had nothing new to say. Later on during the program, he joined the chorus to assure the seriousness of the SPA in conducting the CA election this time around.

Last week's program clearly revealed two things: (1) the confidence of the ruling coalition in its ability to conduct CA election (2) honesty of the stalwarts of the ruling coalition. Like in the past, the ruling coalition wants to assure the people that they will pull it off. But there are very few buyers this time around. How can people be assured that the CA election will not be postponed this time around when the politicians that are supposed to conduct election are not themselves confident enough in their ability to it? What is even more troubling is their lack of honesty and sincerity towards the people, who deserve truthful assessment about the prospects of CA election, if nothing.

Is it practically feasible to conduct a free and fair election in less than three months in the current situation whereby the presence of the state is confined to the Kathmandu valley? Populist politics is at its best in Nepal. Strange but true, no politician wants to be the bearer of any unpleasant news. So, instead of banking on politicians' assurances, why don't we do our own analysis?

There are two major hurdles in the path of successful completion of CA election: (1) the ethnic dissent in the tarai (2) Insincerity of the Maoists. The security situation in the tarai is deteriorating at an unprecedented pace. Civil servants in various tarai districts are being extorted, abducted and killed. Many government officials in the tarai are devoid of civil servants. In a context whereby the polling officers to conduct the election in the tarai have publicly said that they would not abide by the government's instructions and have threatened to resign, how is the government going to conduct the election?

The spiraling security dilemma will become particularly intense and at some point, it is likely to move to outright conflict if the condition is not improved. Unless the tarai issue is addressed amicably and the participation of credible political forces such as the Madhesi People's Right Forum and Tarai-Madhes Lokantrik Party is ensured, there are very slim chances of conducting the election in the tarai.

Election is not an end in itself. Its results without the participation of the ethnic parties, at best, can be called as partial mandate. The issue of credibility will continue to haunt the SPA like it did King Gyanendra if the political participation of those outside the ruling alliance is not ensured. And, the reverence of the constitution will always remain in question if crafted without the participation of the certain segment of the society. It will not be able to survive as the supreme law of the land for long. Sooner or later, it will have to be scrapped or amended substantially.

Another major hurdle in the path of CA election is Maoists' insincerity. Despite signing forty plus agreements with the mainstream political parties, understandings in the paper have not turned into reality. Based on the Maoists' track record of adherence to the peace process, it cannot be ruled out that the Maoists will again abort the prospects of CA election.

The fear of defeat in the CA poll forced the Maoists to make U-turn from their earlier commitments and scuttle it. Since then, things have not changed much in the favor of the CPN (Maoist). The very minute the Maoists realize that they will not emerge as a major political force, they will scuttle the process. As a matter of fact, they may do that even before. There is a big probability that the Maoists will make integration of their combatants into the NA and walk out of the government once they pocket around 2.15 billion rupees as salary/arrears for their guerillas. They may put forward kicking King Gyanendra out of the palace as the new precondition for election, and leave the government. Based on the Maoists' track record, which is full of duplicity and dubiousness, these scenarios cannot be ignored altogether.

Furthermore, Prachanda's recent revelation about his admiration and reverence for Lenin raises more questions than it answers. Like his reverend leader Lenin, who grabbed the power after dispensing his opponents and dismissed the constituent assembly, Prachanda too might be toying with the idea of scuttling the CA poll and annihilating the political rivals within the SPA.

For radicals, things appear in black and white, grey areas do not exist. They can only visualize the birth of Lord Buddha or Junga Bahadur Rana. Non-violent Gandhi that freed millions of Indians crushed by the British Empire does not impress them. As Buddha is not the right person to tame the people that are posing a serious threat to the existence of his brainwashed cadres and militias, he might try to justify the need of Junga Bahadur Rana and prove his relevance.

The road to successful CA election is a thorny one. The ability of the mainstream political parties to force the Maoists adhere to the agreements and ensure the participation of the political parties outside the ruling alliance will determine whether or not the CA election will be held this time around. Failure to do so will plunge the nation into a political and constitutional crisis.

In order to save Nepal both from the dictatorship of the proletariat and the 'guardian coup', whereby the military steps in with the goal of restoring public order, reducing corruption, or fighting insurgents, civilian power must be wielded legitimately. For that to happen, the April CA election must take place, and they must produce credible results. Should this election be postponed/cancelled or the poll lacks credibility due to the lack of participation of parties outside the SPA coalition, then the transition risks derailing and no further possibility can be ruled out.

When clubs become trumps

By Dr Hari Bansha Dulal & Stefano Foa

Simmering ethnic dissent, the erratic and disruptive activities of Youth Communist League, and increasing uncertainty about the constituent assembly elections, are raising justified fears for the future of Nepal. Should November elections be postponed again, both the current government and the interim parliament will face a dangerous legitimacy crisis. The coalition may be able to muddle through for a while. After that, nothing should be excluded.

One scenario that is already being discussed is a resumption of the Maoist insurgency, led by dissident factions in the party leadership. The mandate of the 2006 April revolution was to establish peace through elections, by encouraging warring parties to lay down their arms, replace the exchange of bullets for ballots, and join their forces under a unified military command. Once the Maoist cadres realize the vote is cancelled for the second time, their dreams of joining the Nepali Army will be shattered. Several of their factions are ready to resume the fight.

A further possibility is that of direct military stewardship over the political process. Until now, the Nepali military has largely limited itself to its 'praetorian' role - that is, as protector of the monarch - but now the king is a mere ceremonial accessory. This makes the army itself the government of last resort. In this respect Nepal could very easily follow the example of modern Pakistan, Bangladesh and Thailand, where sporadic military guardianship has become the norm, and their experience suggests that once the army is politically engaged, it tends to retain an indefinite presence.

So under what circumstances do military interventions take place, and is Nepal a candidate?

Samuel Huntington, the Harvard political scientist, has distinguished between three types of military coup. The first is the 'breakthrough coup', when a revolutionary army displaces a traditional monarchy. This occurred in a number of decolonized countries during the 1950s, such as Egypt or Libya, but has since been comparatively rare.

The second kind is the 'veto coup', when the military takes power from a popular, democratically elected government. This has frequently been the case in Latin America - the most recent attempt being the failed putsch against Chavez in 2002 - but is less common in regions which lack a tradition of class politics, and unknown in South Asia.

Finally, there is the 'guardian coup', whereby the military steps in with the goal of restoring public order, reducing corruption, or fighting insurgents. This is by far the most common form of military intervention, and that familiar to the Indian subcontinent. And it is the prospect that faces Nepal, if the current transition process fails.

A number of factors expose Nepal to this possibility. First, whereas in veto coups the military steps in because citizens are 'excessively' involved in politics, guardian coups are preceded by civilian disillusionment and withdrawal from political life. In Pakistan, for example, the inter-party feuding, corruption, economic stagnation, and insecurity of Bhutto and Sharif years had already led to widespread political disengagement once Musharraf assumed power in 1999.

In 2001, according to data collected by the World Values Surveys, a global study of social attitudes and behavior, only 13 percent of Pakistanis said they had or would be willing to take part in a demonstration for a cause they believed in, compared to 52 percent of Indians.

In Bangladesh, the 'musical chair' politics of Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina Wajed have led to a similar sense of political disengagement, and most felt only weary fatigue when emergency law was declared earlier this year. After seventeen years of turmoil, the Nepalis too, are experiencing transition fatigue.

According to a survey conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, almost two-thirds of Nepalis said they would most prefer a strong leader who did not have to bother with parliament or elections. The civic foundations for democratic transition have worn dangerously thin.

Second, guardian coups are far more likely when ethnic fragmentation and violence have made consensus impossible between electoral blocs, and the parties they support.

In both Pakistan and Bangladesh, inter-group relations deteriorated steadily in the period preceding military intervention, as elected politicians swam the tide of ethnic and religious factionalism. As evidence of this steady drift, in Bangladesh, the proportion of those polled would refuse to have neighbors 'of another race' grew from 17 percent in 1996 to 28 percent in 2002, while the proportion refusing to have those 'of another religion' jumped from 13 to 34 percent.

Sectarian violence was one of the main factors that the Bangladeshi military used to justify their recent takeover. Alas, Nepal may be on much the same trajectory. 18 percent of Nepalis now claim they would not accept a neighbor of another race, and a fifth would refuse a neighbor of another religion, according to data collected recently on behalf of Civicus, the international civil society network.

This combination of group-mobilized violence and civic withdrawal justify and make possible the guardian coup. Pakistan and Bangladesh are cases in point, and Nepal is indeed at risk of joining them. The long-term consequences of this would be grave. It is unlikely the military would extract itself from politics for a generation or more.

So what is to be done to avoid this outcome?

First, our representatives must learn to hang together, if they are not to hang separately. In South Asia politicians frequently talk about the need for democracy when they are out of power, yet once back in office 'play to the gallery' by indulging in partisan politics, thereby neglecting the process of consensus building.

As the Nepalis have seen only too clearly, this not only deepens social cleavages, but it erodes the legitimacy of the democratic process. India managed to avoid this fate by achieving democratic consolidation under a single dominant party, but Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal have now lost that possibility. So our parties must learn to govern together, if they are to govern at all.

Second, the rule of law must be restored. Nobody wishes to be governed militarily, but they do wish to be governed. The most basic function of the state is the protection of life and land, and when civilian leaders cannot ensure due process, the army becomes the de facto government of last resort.

Third, civilian power must be wielded legitimately. Above all, that means having free and fair elections, capable of producing viable governing coalitions. For that to occur in Nepal, the November elections for the constituent assembly must take place, and they must produce credible results. Should these elections be cancelled, or the polls become marred by violence and intimidation, then the transition risks derailing and no further possibility can be ruled out.

That includes some form of military intervention. For as English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote many centuries ago, in the game of politics, when nothing else is turned up, clubs are trumps.