Stuck in a quagmire

Baburam Bhattarai’s promise for a “forward-looking” constitution witnessed a tragic death with the demise of the Constituent Assembly. His promise for good governance is running out of gas with his signature populist “Hello Sarkar” programme turning into a black hole where public grievances are sucked in and vanish. His failure to take action against his Cabinet colleagues: Bhim Prasad Gautam and Mahendra for irregularities reveal his advocacy and conviction towards good governance. And what an absolute farce his promise for social justice has turned out to be! People, whose property were seized by the revolutionaries that he and his progressive colleagues trained to bring about socioeconomic transformation, are still waiting for the transfer of ownership. 

His claims that the bloody insurgency he and his fellow comrades waged was needed to wipe out nepotism and strengthen national sovereignty, too, have been proven false. The recent appointment of Chirak Shova Tuladhar, Bhattarai’s sister-in-law, as the Tribhuvan University’s dean of the Faculty of Science reveals his conviction towards eradicating nepotism and understanding his own ability to withstand external pressure. Given the fact that the Promised Land is nowhere in the sight, perpetual optimists who believed in Bhatarai’s honesty all along may want to ponder whether Bhatarai’s surrender to violence to get where he is now was an act of heroism or a shrewd political move to further his ambition. 

Was Bhattarai bound to fail? Absolutely. His playbook to remain in power is not very different from the one used by ideologues in the former Soviet Union and the one that is being currently used in Cuba and North Korea. Bhattarai believes in expanding the size and scope of the government so that people have a false sense of security. He is least concerned about the poor delivery of services. It may be hard for well-informed citizens to understand why he does not realise the fact that it is virtually impossible to run a welfare state when a big chunk of your budget comes from foreign aid and the bureaucracy responsible for running the welfare state is ill-trained and politically divided.  But here is what he is trying to achieve through his big government—a platform that allows construction of counterfactual propositions and arguments. Had I been given the required time and freedom to pursue all my well-intentioned and thought-out plans, the country would have been free from the shackles of poverty, dependency, and underdevelopment. The country would be in a different league altogether, where bargaining for equal bilateral treaties would be much easier. Can you see the brilliance behind the ballooning of the size and scope of the government? 

While Bhattarai exhibits unmatched political shrewdness, the opposition is utterly incompetent and delusional. The NC and UML leadership have no agenda whatsoever than to shamelessly pursue the struggle for power. The new boss of the NC, Sushil Koirala, has surrounded himself with a herd of Girija Prasad Koirala protégés, who are not only dishonest and corrupt, but also lack the imagination needed to outsmart the establishment that very well understands and manipulates the sensibilities of the general public. Koirala himself does not seem to realise the fact that his own claims and actions are at odds. He claims that the party stands for democracy but denounces the conviction of Khum Bahadur Khadka, who is regarded as one of the most corrupt politicians of the post-1990 era. It is quite understandable that seeing a protégé of your mentor be convicted for corruption is painful, but the kid-glove treatment to corruption and misrule eventually derails democracy. Your claim as a saviour of democracy becomes indefensible the very minute you try defending people convicted by the Supreme Court, whose approval rating is way higher than your party. 

The NC leadership’s incompetence becomes even more glaring, when leaders such as Sher Bahadur Deuba, come out in support for the reinstatement of the expired CA. This shows the lack of understanding of the importance of rule of law in democratic consolidation, which Deuba claims to have worked for all his adult life. Dishonesty runs even deeper. Leaders shamelessly flip-flop on their position and records. Recently, a former finance minister in Girija Prasak Koirala’s government after the Jana Andolan of 2006 that oversaw the transfer of funds accused the Maoists of being involved in corruption in the name of more than 6,000 “fake” Maoist combatants. It is not the Maoists, but him, who should be blamed and held accountable for the failure to carry out due diligence and plundering the state coffer. This claim of corruption at this juncture sounds like a well-calculated move to climb the ladder. With the former super stars of the NC already behind bars or on their way to the big house, there’s room for upward mobility. Who says Nepali politicians lack vision? 

Political tribalism, incompetence, and dishonesty run deep within political parties. Some argue that the Supreme Court derailed the constitution-making process by forcing the politicians to adhere to a deadline. But in reality, it was political tribalism at its best that derailed the process, which was supposed to be participatory and transparent. In order to further political ambitions, a handful of leaders acted like tribal chiefs that benefit from a mix of loyalties, earned respect, and well-wielded power. As a result, the democratic deliberation process of constitution-making was turned into something so hostile and filled with anger and rage that the CA members were doing little more than screaming at each other. The country would not have been better off on an endless journey of constitution-making. 

If Nepal is to get back on track and evolve as a modern society, judicial activism alone is not enough. There is another institution, which needs to follow the path taken by the judiciary, and that is the media. Increased media scrutiny of politicians’ actions and the support for rule of law is needed. Consensus is great, but in this day and age, whereby a household cannot be run on consensus indefinitely, it is useless to keep on harping on the idea. At present, representative politics is completely disconnected from people, which has tremendously increased the risk of a legitimacy crisis as well as a crisis of policy implementation. Unless the media takes a greater responsibility and forces politics to connect with people, which is not something that bosses of major political parties are interested in, consolidation of democracy is virtually impossible. As long as the current herd of politicians have the opportunity and power to decide on contentious issues, prospects of having a viable constitution will remain bleak. The media should push for a referendum under the leadership of a neutral figure to settle contentious issues of the new statute. Let people decide what they want.
 

 

Way out

Finally, the politicians are acknowledging that constitution will not be drafted by May 28. However, they are yet to acknowledge their personal responsibility in the failure. Everyone has their scapegoat ready. If you are someone with a radical bent, by now you must be convinced that it is the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML’s fault. For the NC and CPN-UML sympathizers, it is all because of the Maoists lack of interest in drafting the constitution. Finger pointing and the blame game will continue for a while.

With the chances of promulgating the constitution by May 28 getting slimmer with each passing day, some politicians and pundits have already started floating the idea of extending the deadline. The deadline should not be extended for two reasons. First, rewarding incompetence is a horrible idea. It would set a wrong precedence. The absence of an adequate mechanism to reward the competent and, as a corollary, weed out the incompetent, is perhaps the most important factor that discourages talented youngsters from joining politics. Second, the politicians have promised heaven and earth to the people. In order to garner support, the Maoists and mushrooming ethnic parties have promised rights and resources to every ethnic group that they found would benefit them. They genuinely think that pursuing ethnic agenda will politically profit them down the road. Given the fact that the Maoists and ethnic parties are not going to budge on ethnic agenda, the NC, UML, and other smaller parties of yesteryears, frankly do not see room for negotiations. Giving in to the Maoist and ethnic parties’ demands means constricting their own base. So it is not the lack of time but refusing to rise above petty party interests that has stalled the drafting of constitution.

For a viable constitution to be drafted, there has to be a minimum understanding between the major political parties. In the current adversarial environment, reaching any kind of consensus looks almost impossible. Therefore, instead of pushing for an extension of the deadline, what is needed now is a real sincere push toward the creation of an environment, whereby a constitution that is acceptable to the majority of the population can be drafted. It is not enough that we have a constitution. There has to be a consensus on the need to honor the one that we will eventually end up having. Or else, the very people engaged in drafting it will start running away from it as fast as their legs can carry them.

It is important to lessen the hostilities and create an environment suitable for consensus. In order to create that environment, we need to have a national unity government. But before the national unity government is put in place, there should be an all-party agreement on contentious issues that derailed the possibility of having the constitution on time in the first place. With the rise of the possibility of getting into the government, politicians will be more willing to make compromises. As a regional power, and more than that, as the one that orchestrated and solemnized the marriage between the democratic forces and the radical communists, which was sure to end up in a nasty divorce not due to the ideological differences but due to the equal greed for power, India has the biggest role to play in bailing Nepal out of the current mess. It is not just because cleaning one’s mess is a moral imperative, but also because a rogue neighbor can be a pain in the neck. With Pakistan to its west and Bangladesh to its east, the last thing India wishes for is a rogue neighbor to its north.

The problem that India has when it comes to dealing with Nepal’s perpetual mess, which is partly of its own making, is that its script is often like a B-grade Bollywood movie. It appears promising in the beginning but soon falls apart. What is needed is a tight script and professional directorial venture that very well takes into consideration the dubious nature of the characters. First and foremost, it is important to understand where these characters come from, where they stand, and what they want to achieve at the end of the day. If one is to look closely, it becomes very evident that all of them want the same thing, ie, power.

In their quest for power, the Maoists want to subvert the rule of the majority through mass mobilization. They basically want to paralyze the government through their urban-centric uprising. While the Maoists want to inculcate a sense of fear among the people and paralyze the government, which they think will eventually pave their path to power, the non-Maoist parties, especially the bigger ones, want to portray the Maoists’ urban-centric uprising as a prelude to government takeover. The Maoists are not that stupid to take over power forcibly like some NC and UML politicians seem to suggest. They know it very well that it is not feasible to capture the state and run it in a fragmented political landscape like the one we are presently in. NC and UML leaders have their own interests in portraying the Maoists as dictators in making, which does have some truth to it though. They want to use it as a basis to justify their right to remain in power indefinitely.

It is almost impossible that political parties will find a solution to the existing political stagnation on their own. The deficit of trust is so wide that no side is willing to blink. It is sad but true that without Indian intervention, the current mess is not going to get sorted out. India needs to act immediately. If the current political system that relies on India’s “stabilizing” role breaks down, there will be an undeclared civil war in the country. The best way to salvage the current situation is by cutting a deal with Pushpa Kamal Dahal. And, this is the best time to do that. Get the most out from his unquenchable thirst for power. Dangle the prime ministerial lollypop in front of him and make him agree to things like dissolution of the infamous Young Communist League, and return of seized property. If he does not agree to that, bargain for inclusion of the smallest possible number of Maoist combatants in the security forces. Given the power-hungry nature of Dahal, this is the best time to get concessions on many important issues, which if not resolved soon, pose greater threat to peace, stability and democracy.

Expedite the process and get it done within a couple of months. In the meantime, someone else can head the government to satisfy Dahal’s narcissistic ego. Once the weapons are firmly under the government’s control, PLA integration issue is amicably settled and the YCL is disbanded, Dahal can head the national unity government where all parties in then expired constituent assembly will be incorporated based on their respective strengths. It may be a tall order but worth pursuing. Establishing a national unity government by making Dahal first deliver on pertinent issues is the only safest way to get out of this current mess.

They just don't get it!

There is plenty of room to suspect the motives of the trio -- Koirala, Sitaula and Mahat

The constitution drafting process has not begun even after the six months of the Constituent Assembly (CA) election. While Puspa Kamal Dahal and his men are busy enjoying the power, for the likes of Bam Dev Gautam, it is business as usual. The Madheshi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) does not appear very much interested in pushing Madheshi issues, which it cashed in successfully during the CA election forward. For now, Upendra Yadav is happy to be, where he is. As long as he is in power, Madheshi issues will remain on the back burner.

While the parties that are in power are enjoying the limelight and the power, the Nepali Congress (NC) that ruled the country for the last one and a half decades appears bewildered, bitter, and directionless. The party leaders seem to have run out of fresh ideas. All they do these days is -- regurgitate how big of a threat the Maoists are to democracy in Nepal. Are the Maoists really a threat to democracy? Absolutely yes! I, for one, never believed that the Maoists were for multiparty democracy. It is not just me; the Maoists themselves have time and again reiterated that their ultimate goal is to establish a communist state. The misinterpretation of the Maoists' strategic intent always came from the very people that are now charging the Maoists for being threat to democracy.

While in the corridor of power, it never occurred to Girija Prasad Koirala, Krishna Prasad Sitaula, and Ram Sharan Mahat that the Maoists were a threat to democracy. While we were questioning the Maoists' strategic end goal, these were the very people telling the Nepali people that the CPN (Maoist) was a reformed force that wanted a safe landing and were in the process of getting mainstreamed.

As long as they were in power, they didn't utter a word about the Maoist intentions. Then Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula looked the other way when the Maoists committed heinous crimes (the murderers of Jitendra Shah and the Young Communist League thugs that thrashed Dr Gyanendra Giri never got punished) and former finance minister Ram Sharan Mahat exhibited his sense of entitlement on national coffer by disbursing 330 million to the ex-members of the legislature-parliament. He never told the public, whose money he was handing over to the Maoists, that he had records of whether or not their hard-earned money were being put to good use by the Maoists.

All of a sudden now, these very people who put our freedom into the clutches of the Maoists, are trying to convince us that they are the ones, who understand the threat to democracy from the Maoists and are actually capable of getting us out. Isn't that ludicrous? Why would anyone want to go to a doctor, who misdiagnosed the problem in the first place?

There is plenty of room to suspect the motives of the trio -- Koirala, Sitaula and Mahat. Are they really for democracy or simply playing the 'democracy' card to bounce back to the power? After getting wedded in a submissive relationship for three years, these people are opening up their mouth now. Should the Nepalis believe them when they say they understand that radical communism poses a threat to democracy and are actually capable of defending people's freedom?

What did Koirala and his henchmen in the cabinet do to ensure the victory of democratic forces in the CA election? Actions speak louder than words. You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

In a nation where a third of people live on less than a dollar, a mere use of a "noun," a "verb," and the word democracy in political speeches won't convince people. And, if you were one of the happy campers that allowed the Maoists reduce the peace process to appease process, forget about it. For these poor, there was no democracy to begin with. They never got a chance to enjoy the dividends of democracy or else they would not be such a massive support for the Maoists amongst the poor and the downtrodden. For another 40 percent or so, it is all about jobs, good education for their children, and better access to health care. If anyone can assure them of that, they will readily side with that person or the party and that is what is precisely happening in Nepal. The poor are happy dreaming about the prosperity that the Maoists have promised them. By the time the younger generation that is rallying behind Dahal actually understands what communism is capable of delivering; there will be no Puspa Kamal Dahal, Baburam Bhattarai, and the likes. The Maoists henchmen will have played their innings by then.

What percentage do educated and economically well off people that value democracy and freedom make up in Nepal? Ten percent would be a generous estimate. Do the people in this ultra minority actually believe that Koirala, Sitaula and Mahat really stand for liberal democracy and freedom that educated class cherishes for? Had the answer been in affirmative, people like Professor Krishna Khanal would not be deserting the NC. When people like him jump off a ship, it is time to know that either the ship has a hole on it or the sailors are a bunch of drunkards, who have no clue about where they are sailing the ship to.

Is the game over? Not yet, but it has definitely gotten increasingly difficult. Personally, I don't have confidence on the very people who lacked the judgment on what the Maoists stood for and what they were actually up to. If they knew it, then they were not being honest about it. In any case, they are not the kind of leaders Nepal needs to consolidate democracy.

We need new faces to confront new challenges that we are facing. There still exists an opening.
Freedom and democracy can still be snatched from the clutches of the Maoists. But for that to actually happen, we need young politicians that believe in democracy to come out and take political centre stage. The mainstream media is still up for democracy in Nepal. So, with media on your side, you can obscure the Maoists' propaganda with clear and concise message. But all this has to come from someone clean and credible, not from phonies, who pose as democrats. Not from someone who got us into the Maoists' lap, and are now posing as saviors.

The sheer regurgitation of the phrase "democracy in peril" will not be sufficient to defeat the Maoists, who want to destroy people's right to choose whether they want to send their kids to a private or public school and which hospital they want to visit and which doctor they want to see, when ill. If the Maoists have their ways, like in Cuba, specialised diagnostic studies (e.g., CT scans, endoscopies, ultrasound, etc.) and treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, etc.) will have to be approved by bureaucrats. Ask general Nepalis if that is what they want.

The Maoists have been clamouring that they would transform the country in the coming decades by attracting foreign investments. Who would invest in a country where union militancy is promoted by the party that runs the government and where the largest faction of the coalition government has a brigade or brigands that can take laws into their hand and operate without impunity? Who will invest in a country whose finance minister openly threatens private sector ordering that private school and hospital owners should look for investment alternatives? Ask these questions to the Maoists that are selling dreams without being challenged.

It is important for people to understand that, what the democrats in Nepal have to offer is, far better than what the Maoists are promising. The sheer regurgitation of "democracy in peril" will not do the trick. The more you regurgitate it, the more you will look stupid and out of touch with reality.

Stop rationalizing defeat

Those who call themselves diehard democrats but remain enamored by the Maoist win in Nepal need to return to reality urgently. For if they do not, this “surprise” Maoist victory will turn into a lengthy series of astonishing feats.

The humiliating defeat of Nepal’s democratic forces is a consequence of the convergence between the following elements: A failure of collective intellect, dedicated effort, and imagination. In aggregate, these individual deficiencies amounted to a gross underestimation of Maoist capacity - much of which was allegedly based upon the application of dubious methods. Where collective intellect and effort are concerned, the debate is bound to rage on. But where failure in imagination goes, it becomes necessary to put oneself inside the Maoist mind and see things as they see them, to understand their beliefs, strategy, and supporting tactics.

Bridging the intellectual chasm that divides the Maoist worldview from the democratic worldview is not a simple task. It takes tremendous patience, conviction and moral rectitude to recognize elements that differentiate one’s political outlook from those of one’s rivals. Had either the Nepali Congress (NC) or United Marxist Leninist (UML) leadership taken time to dispassionately evaluate the Maoist machine, they would have understood long ago that the Maoists are in this to win - not to compromise, or become mainstreamed or to play by anyone else’s rules but their own.

For the Maoists, the game that began with projecting feudalism as the root of all evil will logically end with the realization of their strategic intent. The Maoists’ goal of using different combinations of bullets and ballots (and whatever other mechanisms and individuals that happen to be available) will culminate only when all marginal threats to their expanding power base have been eliminated. Whether this process of elimination occurs figuratively or literally, whether through perversions of democratic process or through decrees, are all secondary to the question of what remains the Maoists’ strategic end-goal?

The best way to have this question answered is to ask it: “Do the Maoists intend to exercise a system of vibrant multiparty democracy as defined by Western standards or do they intend to implement their own vision of democracy in Nepal?” The relevance of this targeted question remains the contradictory manner in which Maoists within their party have traditionally responded, and unfortunately, the manner in which Nepal’s rent-seeking civil society pundits have interpreted available Maoist responses.

In effect, allegations that the Maoists used undemocratic methods to subvert their competition during constituent assembly elections simply cannot be written off using rationale which suggests that the NC and the UML did the same, a decade ago. By extension of this line of reasoning, is the hypothetical implementation of a one-party communist republic justified based on the fact that Mahendra implemented a one-party Panchayat system a half-century ago? Barring differences based on political extremities, the logic is identical - and equally flawed.

While it is hardly surprising that the Maoists will continue to leverage ethnic appeal to fulfill their remaining agendas, it is completely shocking to read staunch democrats justify the Maoist victory on grounds of political goodwill generated through the Maoist insurgency. Is goodwill borne of political cleansing and then capitalized on through the absence of choice, a new democratic standard for Nepalese to look forward to?

Understanding a problem is the first half of the path to solving it. The democratic forces in Nepal should learn a lesson from how the Maoists have done “business” to date. The Maoist method of power consolidation amounts to restrictions over choice, populism over substance, and the use and abuse of any and all elements that elevate the Maoists’ chances of consolidating their powerbase.

The next step in the Maoist game plan is to garner international legitimacy through a power-sharing arrangement with the NC and UML. Ironically, Maoist strongman Pushpa Kamal Dahal is guilt-tripping the NC and UML into remaining within the Maoist government by citing the need to live up to past agreements. As for unprincipled individuals like Bam Dev Gautam, he isn’t far behind on the list of “useful idiots” and may be written off as an aspiring Maoist.

The point here is that the utility of the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) is not quite over for the Maoists. The Maoists still need the UML and the NC to maintain international cover, while the Maoists mould a constitution of their choice. They understand that if the constitution-making process is delayed and that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) returns to the power in India, the Maoists’ days of smooth sailing will be over. So, until the constitution of their liking is drafted and the Maoists are positioned to sweep the next round of local and parliamentary elections, they will continue to extend olive branches to the NC and the UML.

The urge to cling to a false sense of short-term power at the detriment of a vibrant, long-term democracy is something that both the NC and UML should carefully consider. As far as past agreements are concerned, elected NC and UML members to the constituent assembly are already positioned to fulfill their parties’ commitments. At this time, it may be more appropriate for the NC and UML to engage in some long overdue introspection, soul-searching and re-invention so their parties do not re-perform the recent acts of humiliation when the time for parliamentary elections arrives. There’s nothing wrong with these parties for some “time off” from the daily grind of governance to get their own houses in order.

For the Maoists, the game is almost over. They have substantially weakened the UML and are in the process of accommodating the Royalists. By suggesting the provision of social, economic, and cultural rights to the king they have indirectly tested the public’s appetite for a ceremonial monarchy using different terms (“monarchy with certain cultural rights”). By hinting at providing space to the Nepal’s King, the Maoists have once again attempted to define the direction of the Nepali’s political debate. In essence, they are experimenting BP Koirala’s notion of national reconciliation but once more, by using different terms. The Maoists are systematically recreating their own public image while eroding the defining characteristics of their political opponents.

Under such a radically transformed environment, the mainstream political parties of yesteryears can only survive by positioning themselves in the center and forming an alliance to protect multiparty democracy. The NC and UML need to spearhead efforts to align moderates from all walks on political life in Nepal. This act, in essence, must address the urgent need to guarantee the sustenance of multiparty democratic politics in Nepal and have nothing to do with opposing the Maoists. If the Maoists construe the formation of such an alliance as unacceptable to their agenda, people must understand that there’s a fundamental problem with the Maoist agenda, not the proposed multiparty alliance. If it serves to assuage the Maoists’ fragile sensibilities, they (along with their leftist alliance partners) may be invited as observers to the alliance of multiparty democrats. Who knows? The Maoists might even learn a thing or two?

Democracy and ethnic dissent

The predicted future of the so-called "New Nepal", in terms of peace, stability, democracy, and political liberalization, has been far from realized. The current political mess raises fundamental questions about the role and the ability of the current generation of politicians at the helm of affairs to provide the structures and institutions which are required for sustaining the drive for much needed social, economic, political reform and democratic consolidation.

In Nepal, where meaningful employment and professional development opportunities are scarce, politics has become a very useful means of conversion of political power and position into economic wealth for the benefit of the few at the expense of many. The politics has degraded to such a level that, it is all about regime survival rather than addressing the broader needs of the nation. Nepal's malaise, thus, is a reflection of endemic political problems.

What the current generation of politicians fails to understand is that democracy is simply the means, it is not an end in itself. The presence of democracy (debatable in the case of Nepal) neither guarantees peace, stability, nor prosperity. Political sincerity and selfless desire to serve the nation is needed to ensure peace, stability, and prosperity. Mere lip-service of democracy is not worth a penny.

With the passing of each day, the situation is getting even more complicated. Exit of Mahantha Thakur and other members of parliament representing constituencies in the tarai will harden the lines of ethnic division and further alter the already bitterly fragmented political landscape in the future. However, it is both a crisis and an opportunity.

One may question the timing of their quitting the party. Obviously, there is a political space available in the tarai, which they know, is up for a grab. There is nothing wrong with that. Politics is all about competition. As long as politicians follow the rules of engagement and remain loyal to the constituents and the nation, formation of new political parties will not hamper democratic consolidation. It will rather enhance the process.

Mahanta Thakur and others that reigned from the parliament to start a new party have done what most politicians shy away from doing. This is not the first time politicians have deserted their party with a perception of better political future. But the purpose of deserting the parental party is quite different this time around. Unlike Sher Bahadur Deuba and Bam Dev Gautam, who led the dissident factions of the NC and the UML solely for the purpose of remaining in the corridor of the power, Mahantha Thakur has taken a plunge to empower fellow Madhesis from the tarai. He says so and there is no evidence at this point in time to discredit his intentions as a flat lie. Politicians within the NC may choose to disagree, but there are not enough grounds to question his integrity, at least not for now. Although he did not do a good job at explaining the vision and long-term goals of his yet to be named party in his recent interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the recent interview alone does not provide sufficient grounds for political pundits to write his political obituary and brand him a traitor.

Thakur did not have tons of cash at his disposal like Deuba and Gautam, which they used for horse-trading in the parliament. If Thakur had money like them when they broke away from the NC and the UML respectively, there would be at least a dozen more parliamentarians from the tarai behind him. What is exemplary here is, unlike Deuba and Gautam, who masterminded virtual split of their parental party for the sole purpose of remaining in the corridor of power, Thakur has deserted his parental party, which is already in power to start a new party, for which, it may take years to come to the power. He could have remained in the NC and enjoyed power, but he has chosen not to do so. Actually, he is a rare species among the Nepali politicians.

The tendency among the politicians is to raise their voice when they are out of the power. But by dissenting when in power and quitting ministry and the parliament, he has to some extent proved that he has set a positive precedence. The days ahead will prove whether he did so to vent anger against his Pahadi masters within the NC or to empower fellow Madhesis.

When the major political parties are on decline, ethnic politicking moves from the margins of political arena to fight for center stage. This is what happened in India and this is what is happening in Nepal as well. Regional parties got stronger with decline of Congress Party in India. To some extent, it is a natural process. With time, ethnic groups get educated and become aware of their rights. Unlike in India, where it took nearly half a decade for ethnic forces to understand their rights and solidify their bases to challenge the monopoly of the Congress Party, in Nepal, it was rather quick. One of the main factors that propelled the rapid surge in demand for ethnic rights was the division of nation state along the ethnic lines by the Maoists. Needless to say, they had done it to buy unequivocal and everlasting support of ethnic groups. The recent dissolution of the sister organizations formed on ethnic and regional basis proves that the Maoists are getting increasingly nervous about the increasing dominance of ethnic politics in Nepal.

What does the exit of Mahantha Thakur and other MPs from their respective parties mean for the functioning of Nepali democracy? If viewed from the standpoint of ethnic interest, the exodus of MPs from major political parties should be seen as a healthy development. Of late, it has become clear that getting ahead in Nepal depends to a large extent on obtaining at least a partial stake in the state for your own ethnic group. It has given ethnic groups a form of psychic emancipation that NC, UML, RPP, and RJP, were not capable of conferring.

Although the line of difference between the major political parties and genuine ethnic political outfits such as MJF in the tarai is getting hardened, the political necessity of alliance building in future will prevent the hardening of identity from being translated into conflict. As the tarai also has big percentage of people that have migrated from hills, the moderating constrains exerted by ethnically heterogeneous constituencies will make it impossible for one narrow ethnic party to win elections without the help of another.

Although the new political party floated by Thakur will result in renegotiation of power relations, it can help resolve the problems in the tarai. The major political parties instead of snubbing and discrediting Thakur and his colleagues should try to reach out to them and forge an alliance to stabilize the tarai. They are the best bet available. As most of them are staunch believer (at least were so till a while ago) of liberal parliamentary democracy, they can negate the secessionist effects exerted by the groups led by Jay Krishna Goit and Nagendra Paswan. Thus, the new party floated by Thakur should be seen as an opportunity rather than a crisis. It can act as a buffer between the state and the secessionists and help pacify the dissent.

The future steps taken by the government with regard to addressing the legitimate demands of the people of the tarai will determine whether the government is for national consolidation or disintegration. The current Seven Party Alliance government should stop viewing the problem in the tarai from the Maoists' lenses and immediately start negotiating with this new front. The need of the hour is a unified state with unified economy. By denying the rights of people, forget about building a "New Nepal," the current political leadership will not be able to maintain even the status quo.

Maoists’ errant experiment

Last week, the Time magazine ran a piece, “What Makes us Good/Evil?” by Jeffrey Kluger. On the front cover, it had pictures of Gandhi and Hitler. The title of the piece and the pictures of the two men that represent two extremes forced me to think. I wanted to make an educated guess before I started reading the piece. But frankly, I had no definitive answer.

What is it that makes us moral? I tried my best to answer this question. My educated guess ferried around culture, upbringing, education, and rule of law. Jeff's simple question had caught me off-guard. In my quest to find an answer, I started flipping pages for more clues. In addition to Gandhi and Hitler, the writer had talked about Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr, the Dalai Lama, Joseph Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, Osama Bin Laden, and Pol Pot. Although Jeff had missed some, his list definitely included individuals that have inspired our awe, for either their goodness or their malevolence.

Why do some people that belong to certain groups hate others that differ from them and abuse their dignity? I wondered why Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala and Mana Mohan Adhikari were more appreciated than Puspa Kamal Dahal, Nagendra Paswan and Jay Krishna Goit. Why are the later finding it hard to sell their nationalist credentials than the former lot who had spent a good time of their lives in India?

Some might have problem seeing Puspa Kamal Dahal compared with Nagendra Paswan and Jay Krishna Goit. But there is hardly any difference. Just carrying a “red book” doesn't make one pious nor does it justify the killings of innocent civilians. If you ask Paswan and Goit, they too will claim that, they are fighting against oppression, subjugation and economic marginalization of masses. The only thing they lack by choice or ignorance is a “red book” with the photograph of a Chinese- Mao-or two dead Europeans- Karl Marx and Lenin-with them to justify their killings in the name of struggle. Besides that, who can guarantee that the achievement of Puspa Kamal Dahal is impossible for others?

Now, let us consider the question and answer session with Puspa Kamal Dahal organized by British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). During the program, Puspa Kamal Dahal denied all the charges against his party, and in particular, against the YCL. Listeners could easily surmise that people asking the questions were really frustrated with the Maoists' duplicity and atrocities. It was also evident that Puspa Kamal Dahal had chosen not to answer the truth. He seriously lacks the guts to take responsibilities for the crimes committed by his men. Denial of charges does not prove innocence.

The good thing about the program is that, people made Puspa Kamal Dahal realize that, free and open discussions are the greatest threat to his arrogation of intellectual infallibility. I salute people's guts to ask questions despite knowing that Dahal's militia could intimidate, abduct, and kill them without impunity.

Interestingly, the following week BBC aired views of Mukti Pradhan, so-called intellectual among the brainwashed and often illogical rank-and-files of the Maoist party. He shamelessly made clear what Puspa Kamal and Babu Ram have in mind: a political set-up whereby they would decide who gets in and who gets out. Pradhan's revelation has made it quite clear that the stage is being set for this great nation to descend into self inflicted madness goaded by Puspa Kamal Dahal and his fellow radicals.

Without mincing words, Pradhan said that the Maoists would resort to periodic purges of incorrect elements whose incorrect status shall be determined by the Maoists themselves. Needless to say, political correctness vouched by the Maoists denies objective truth. Political correctness as something that is “used ironically against the mainstream democratic parties as a critique of moralism and preachiness” shows a lack of imagination and understanding among the cadres of the Maoists party.

In very calculated sentences Pradhan tried doing what ideologues of left-populist political trajectories in Latin America do-fault neo-liberal economic policies for slow growth, no improvement in poverty rates, and sparse investment in human capital through health and education. Brainwashed Youth Communist Leaguers might not know the limits and potential of dictatorship of the proletariat. But educated people who have read what happened during Mao's rule in China do know about it. We all know what happened during the Cultural Revolution in China. Mao's “supercollectivism” of 1958 to 1960, the so-called Great Leap Forward, produced a famine during which 25 to 30 million perished in China. The famine that resulted from Mao's short-sighted policies is far greater than African famine or the number of people killed by hunger during the entire post-independence in India. Mao's famine is considered as the most murderous in human history.

Puspa Kamal Dahal, unlike BP Koirala and Mana Mohan Adhikari, does not have the grace and guts to accept the truth, which is required to command respect. No doubt, he is a shrewd operator. He has done what his mentor Nirmal Lama could not do in his lifetime. But the question is: Is it worth killing thirteen thousand innocent people just to become a reverend of 10 percent of the population? Would Nirmal Lama do the same if he were alive and given the same opportunity?

How far is it justifiable to doom the collective destiny of millions of people to fulfill political aspirations of a few radicals who think power comes from the barrel of a gun? Will a sane man with good moral standing and conscience be ready to do it and go down in the history?

Pol Pot, the leader of Khmer Rouge too considered himself as a great leader. Like Dahal, he too appeared confident and said, “My conscience is clear”. He too had follower in Combodia like Puspa Kamal does in Nepal today. But the history has judged him as a murderous dictator for the heinous crimes he committed during his hey days. Puspa Kamal Dahal might choose to wage a war for another 40 years to come, the choice is his. But how he will be perceived in the days to come by the fellow citizens and how history will judge him is beyond his manipulation.

Puspa Kamal Dahal still has a chance to make a difference in people's lives by letting them live in peace and achieve their potential. Whether he wants to be remembered as a statesman like BP Koirala and Mana Mohan Adhikari or go down in the history as an insensitive notorious rebel rests on him.

Days do not remain same forever. Nuon Chea, 82, the second in command after the Pol Pot, was recently arrested for his crimes against humanity and is now confined to a prison cell in Cambodia.

In this changing world, nothing remains constant. Nobody knows what future has in store. What is yours today might be of someone else's tomorrow. All you will have then is regrets, like King Gyanendra has now, by default.

Radical political adventurism is just not worth it!

Betrayed Beyond Belief

With the suspension of the scheduled Constituent Assembly (CA) elections, political blame game is at its best. While the country is facing the worst form of chaos since its existence as a sovereign nation, the hunt for "scapegoat" is on. As usual, no politician or the political party wants to share the blame for dashing away people's desire to have CA elections.

The nation is so bitterly divided that the cadres of every political party see other parties as the culprit behind the current political fiasco forgetting its own party's role in the current mess. The NC rank and files shamelessly blame the Maoists for the suspension of the CA elections even though the current government is headed by non other than its own party president. As usual, the UML once again nodded to the Maoist demands but wanted to play safe by writing a "Note of Dissent." What an excellent way to fool Nepali citizens. Kudos to Madhav Kumar Nepal and other flip-floppers out there in the UML.

Everyone seems to blaming the Maoists for the current fiasco. Why are we surprised at the Maoists' ways and means now? Those that are now blaming the Maoists for derailing the CA elections should first educate themselves on ways that radical communists pursue to capture power. They must educate themselves on how radical communists ruled other nations in the past and what they are doing now to consolidate power in the different parts of the globe.
First, read what Mao did in China, Castro did in Cuba and what Kim Jong-il and Hugo Chavez are doing in North Korea and Venezuela before expecting the Maoists in Nepal to act responsibly and democratically. All those wishful thinkers out there will then realize that in radical communists' red book, seeking people's mandate through free and fair democratic elections is a big No No. Threat and discouragement are the two main weapons that radical communists use to diminish the hold of their political rivals in the society and capture power.
Blaming the Maoists for insincerity is nothing but foolishness. When they have never been sincere and abided by the agreement they signed, why are we upset when they pulled out of the government and forced suspension of the CA elections? It is us, who chose to overlook Maoists' insincerity and kept silent when they flouted the agreements.

So, blaming the Maoists for not being sincere is ridiculous. They were never sincere towards securing peace and consolidation of democracy to begin with. All the Maoists wanted was to enjoy the privileges of being in the parliament and the cabinet. They never ever wanted to share the blame for failures.

This has been the Maoist strategy from the very beginning. They wanted to be in the cabinet in order to use all of the resources of the nation so that they could embolden their political footings, buy political legitimacy and seek support of the international community, and familiarize their guerillas with urban settings to wage urban centered revolution. The Maoists had made clear that their ultimate goal is to establish a proletarian communist state.

Under the current circumstances, the Maoists know it very well that they can neither win elections, nor capture the power by force. So, the only way for them to remain dominant in national politics, is through subversion of the democratic process by threatening and discouraging the Seven Party Alliance. They know it very well that the SPA does not have the required guts to challenge the Maoists' fiefdom and will go any length to appease them.
So, it is not the Maoists that are to be blamed but the spine-less politicians of the major political parties that do not have guts to energize the democratic base and challenge the Maoists' fiefdom and anti-democratic behavior. It is not the Maoists that have weakened democracy (they were never for it to begin with), but the SPA that joined hands with the radical Maoists that unlike them, believe power comes from the barrel of a gun not ballots.

In a mad rush for power, what the so-called politicians of the SPA foolishly ignored is that "radical communism," which the Maoists vouch for, and the freedom and democracy that Nepali citizens long for, are two significantly different and titanic ideas, two ways of life, and two totally irreconcilable beliefs.

The April revolution of 2006 had provided an excellent platform to secure peace and stability and consolidate democracy. It had paved the way for a new generation of pragmatists, highly invigorated, responsible, talented and energetic politicians to assume leadership, which unfortunately did not happen. Democracy has stalled in Nepal because the inept, diffident and inert politicians lack vision and a clear sense of direction. Even when the poor rise up against the despotic Monarch; granting opportunistic politicians a chance to make a difference, they squander it.

Trapped by the war lords such as Jay Krishna Goit and Narendra Paswan and betrayed the politicians of the SPA and the radical Maoists, Nepalis, here we are again at another critical juncture. We have had almost two years of opportunity to secure peace and consolidate democracy but the results are laughable: renewed autocracy, political violence, lawlessness and warlordism, and the usual blame games. Sadly, those with access and power have to a large extent enriched themselves and bled the nation out of its last vestiges of survival.
Seeing politicians undermine their constituents, it becomes evident that, politics means a money-making game in an impoverished Nepal. Serving the nation with politics proves to be a sham and pretension. All acts of political disloyalty and political betrayal have just one motivation: Honest illusions of genuine betrayal.

The tragedy is that most national political pugilists and players tend to pose themselves as the chosen savior of democracy and people's freedom. Whatever they do, no matter how myopically selfish, they see it as a vision of messianic responsibility. What they sell as democratic struggle can more accurately be described as perpetuation of feudal rule within an encompassing patron-client system.

In the present degenerative political culture, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for someone with vision and leadership potential to emerge and navigate the nation towards peace, stability, and prosperity.

However, the only way to get out of this mess is through another revolution. A new revolution is needed that will wipe out radical elements that are shrewdly trying to trap freedom loving Nepali citizens into the "yoke of communism" along with those pseudo-democrats out there that act more like Maoist operatives than people's representatives.

Prachanda and his henchmen will come to their sense only when people will rise and pull the carpet beneath their feet like they did to King Gyanendra. When King Gyanendra with hundred thousand strong trained professional forces could be brought to his senses, bringing Prachanda to his senses is not an unachievable act. It is certainly doable.

As a matter of fact, that is the only viable option left to bring these radicals to their senses. Even if some of us were to die, it is better to be liberated by death than trapped by radicals. If trapped, we would be forced to witness painful death of life, liberty and prosperity like helpless citizens of Cuba, North Korean and Venezuela are doing now.

Democracy in disarray

By Dr. Hari Bansha Dulal & Stefano Foa

While India marks two and a half years since the orderly transfer of power from BJP to a Congress-led alliance, elsewhere in the subcontinent democracy is in disarray. In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf is resorting to reckless political adventurism to save his quasi-dictatorial regime, and, according to newspaper reports, which began to surface in August, making tacit power-sharing deals with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. In Bangladesh, the military retains indefinite leave to supervise the political process, following years of insurmountable polarization between the centre-right Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the centre-left Awami League (AWL). Meanwhile in Nepal, constituent assembly elections, scheduled for late November, are now threatened by a 22-point list of demands from the Maoists and criminal activities of groups such as Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha -Jwala Singh and Goit factions and Madhesi Mukti Tigers (MMT). Pahadis in the Tarai are repeatedly intimidated, extorted, and are pushed to a position whereby they have no options but to leave the Tarai.

So how has India managed to maintain the steady plod toward democratic consolidation, while regional neighbors have stumbled into anarchy and arbitrary rule? While a number of factors differentiate India from nearby countries, a key indicator of the health of democracy in India today is the emergence of a new civic culture, with a new wave of participation in voluntary associations, public debate, and social activism. Indeed, commentators such as Yogendra Yadav, co-director of the Programme for Comparative Democracy in New Delhi, have gone as far as to describe this as a 'second democratic upsurge'. Electoral participation in India, for example, now hovers at around 60 per cent, from only 45.7 per cent during the first elections in 1952. Second, participation in other forms of civic activism has also remained robust, with studies such as the World Values Surveys, conducted in the region since 1990, showing a consistent majority of Indians affirming their willingness to sign a petition or attend a peaceful demonstration for an issue about which they hold an opinion. Third, citizens in India are increasingly attuned to public affairs, as evinced from the fact that the number of radios per capita in India is roughly double the level in Bangladesh, Pakistan, or Nepal. Per capita newspaper circulation, meanwhile, stands at three times the rate of Sri Lanka - a country with a substantially higher literacy rate. Fourth, attitudes to democracy are also more favorable in India. According to a 2004 poll conducted by Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, a majority of Indians express satisfaction with the 'way democracy works', compared to less than a third of Nepalis or Pakistanis. Indians also attach far greater loyalty to their democratic institutions, with less than a third expressing a preference for 'a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament or elections', in contrast to a majority of Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, and Nepalis.

How has this broader, more participatory form of political life emerged from the wreckage of the Congress system? Academics such as Ashutosh Varshney, of the University of Michigan, attribute the reworking of India's civic fabric to the rise of caste-based politics among the 76.6 per cent of India's population estimated by the Mandal Commission to be members of the scheduled castes, tribes, and other backward classes. The first upshot of this new political development, for example, is that it has prevented religion from becoming the primary basis of electoral mobilization, with the popular appeal of the BJP restricted to predominantly middle-class groups from the North, who share their distaste for caste empowerment. India has therefore avoided the worst forms of the 'resacralization' of the public sphere that have occurred in neighboring states, where state religions have been declared in Pakistan in 1973, Bangladesh in 1988, and is still being debated in Sri Lanka. Due to its inability to cut across the caste divide, the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) has reached a ceiling at 20-25 per cent of the popular vote, which prevents it from achieving a parliamentary majority, and thereby replicating the bygone hegemony of the Indian National Congress. Meanwhile, by forcing Congress into a social coalition with the caste parties, Indian politics has been realigned along cross-cutting socioeconomic issues, rather than a strictly secular-religious dichotomy.

Avoiding the breakdown of secularism that has swept across South Asia in recent decades, India has averted the sectarian disorder of Bangladesh, the renewed insurgency of Sri Lanka, or putatively secular military interference, as in Pakistan. Incidents such as the 1984 Golden Temple invasion, or the Gujarat Violence of 2002 may have been destabilizing, but are less likely to funnel up into the political process once religion has become only one dimension of political competition, alongside caste and class.

The emergence of caste politics also offers a rationale for understanding why India's civic life has managed to flourish despite widespread poverty, illiteracy, and malnutrition. For as caste movements began to splinter away from Congress juggernaut, they have appealed to a new strata of economically mobile individuals among the scheduled castes and Other Backward Castes (OBCs), who in turn have benefited from stricter quota policies. The upward movement by members of these hitherto marginalized groups has generated a greater general sense of social mobility, and in turn the citizen interest in politics, electoral participation, and strengthened legitimacy of the political system. As economist Deepak Nayar remarks, in India those "who are excluded by the economics of markets are included by the politics of democracy". As a result, contemporary India is characterized by the curiosity of being one of the few democracies in which the poor vote in larger proportions than the rich, the less educated more than graduates, and the villages more than the cities.

Can India's democratic consolidation have lessons for other South Asian countries? Perhaps. The first would be that once political mobilization takes place along vertical lines - that is, between the elites and masses of one religion or ethnicity and against those of another - the potential for organized violence and civic disruption are greatly amplified. Measures to inhibit sectarian competition, such as the decision last year by the Nepali Parliament to rescind Hinduism as the country's state religion, are necessary steps in this direction. The second lesson would be that caste politics need not be a disruptive force in South Asian politics: a distinction must be made between the mobilization of the lower castes into political life (whose unsettling manifestations may include participation of OBCs or Dalits in anti-Muslim violence), and the emergence of caste-based politics and ideology, which may instead moderate the tendency of these groups toward sectarian identities. Third, and perhaps most importantly, India's remarkably civic transformation shows that it is possible for a pro-democratic, civic culture to develop in South Asia before the arrival of a broad urban middle class - so long as groups are mobilized into politics for the sake of issues of distribution and empowerment, rather than identity or culture. This finding has consequences well beyond the South Asia region, and can likewise inform political developments in fledgling new democracies such as South Africa, Kenya or Peru, where democratic competition also revolves around the struggle by socially excluded groups for representation and recognition.

After sixty years of democratic practice, and twenty years of contentious affirmative action policies, Indian democracy has survived in the face of guerrilla insurgencies, religious riots, and simmering international tensions, and in the process developed a deeper civic culture. The strangely enduring quality of India's political institutions has been summarized by leading historian Ramachandra Guha, who remarks that India's founding fathers 'planted a sapling of democracy that has grown into a tree', such that while 'later people who came after them can disturb the tree, can lop of a branch here and there' nonetheless 'the tree stays intact.' In other South Asian countries, on the other hand, this same seedling of democracy has been repeatedly uprooted by the military, trampled down by rioters, or scorched by the flames of guerrilla insurgency. Yet the Indian example shows that the sap can grow tall, even if planted in the soils of poverty and illiteracy, so long as it is hedged in by policies that promote the alignment of political competition around the distribution of goods, rather than priority of gods.

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.

Social capital, Law and Democracy

By Dr Hari Bansha Dulal and Stefano Foa

Violence breeds violence. In Nepal, the seeds of violence were sown in February 1996 when CPN (Maoist) carried out simultaneous raids on government offices, police posts, and private businesses. Since then, such violent behavior has become ingrained in the Nepali society. What was started by the Maoist insurgents has now sprouted across several groups, some with separatist agendas, and others simply taking advantage of the breakdown in the rule of law to make a fast buck.

Like leaders in many developing countries, the Nepali political elite has spent this time selling dreams of imminent prosperity to a largely illiterate Nepali populace, while ignoring the mounting security dilemma.

While lawlessness continues, politicians talk as if a peaceful democratic transition can be taken for granted. But it cannot. The fact is that most countries fail during their first attempt to establish democracy. This is just as true in Europe - where fledgling democracies collapsed in France, Italy, Germany and Spain - as it has been, since the 1950s, in wave after wave of decolonized nations in Africa and the Middle East. The few developing nations, such as India or Botswana, that have maintained some degree of democratic continuity from the start, are the exceptions and not the rule.

Why do some regimes undergo successful transition, while others collapse into anarchy and despotism - and what lessons can this yield for Nepal?

During periods of democratic transition, politicians tend to overstate their positive impact in the short-term, while underestimating or ignoring the longer-term negative consequences that their actions - or inactions - can have.

First among these is the effect that the failure to combat lawlessness and instability has in undermining a country's stock of 'social' capital - that is, the relations of inter-group solidarity and cohesion which allow negotiation, compromise, and agreement between opposing factions. In Nepal, the consequence of the failure to stem the vortex of violence and lawlessness is that the country is fragmenting into an archipelago of competing power factions, and unless these centrifugal forces are contained, the country will drift further and further from a social compact.
Second, violence and insecurity also erode other forms of social capital which are essential for making democracy work. Chief among these is the maintenance of a healthy civil society, in the form of the newspapers, professional associations, women's groups, and community forums. Such associations are essential in enabling citizens are able to formulate their interests, debate policy, and place pressure on local representatives to deliver better services and more accountable governance.

Robert Putnam's classic 1993 study on civic involvement in Italy showed that such networks are critical in ensuring effective local governance and economic development, and more recently, further studies by Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have confirmed this view. Across the world, they find that countries which in the early 1990s began their democratization process with a civic culture of independence and citizen activism have had a greater success in maintaining effective and accountable institutions.

On the other hand, where civil society has been passive or cowed, the potential for regression toward despotic and unaccountable rule is strong. In Nepal, widespread violence and intimidation are producing exactly this result, as citizens retreat behind closed doors and the possibility of a public space is being eroded.

Unfortunately, the Maoists do not want a healthy civil society, as they know that independent groups based upon horizontal association would be a threat to the kind of authoritarian regime they envisage. Were farmers, minorities, tradesmen, and professionals able independently to articulate their interests and engage through the democratic process, the chances of garnering support for a universal proletarian state would become slim.

Yet, the longer the lawlessness persists, the more difficult will it become to restore a culture of fairness and respect for the law. Not long ago, Nepal was known as a peaceful land, widely touted as Switzerland of Asia. Today, this no longer rings true. According to data from the World Health Organization, by 2002 the homicide rate in Nepal had already reached 15 per 100,000 - twice the rate in Bangladesh, three times the rate in India, and five times that of China. If deaths from conflict were also included, the figure would rise to almost 20 per 100,000. This not only makes Nepal among the most violent societies in Asia, but among the most dangerous in the entire world.

Were order restored now, the country could return somewhat to the safety and security of bygone years, but the longer the anarchy continues, the more difficult will such a recovery become. An alarming precedent in this regard has already been set by Cambodia, a country whose social fabric has since the 1970s been torn asunder by insurgency and political stagnation. Their conflict has left families estranged, villages uprooted, and orphans on the streets. In Cambodia today, the Maoists may be gone and a veneer of political stability may have been restored. Yet violence and criminality have become engrained within the culture. Weapons and explosives are widely available, and at 17 per 100,000 this once peaceful land has among the highest homicide rates in Asia.

Nepal is a country once rich in bonds of trust, solidarity, and mutual support. These are now being eroded. If the land is to achieve both development and democracy, it cannot wait for solutions to arrive. Just like economic capital, 'social capital' is a resource that takes centuries to accumulate, but only a decade to destroy. The loss can be stopped now, but critical toward doing so is the restoration of the rule of law. Once protection is provided to all groups in society, demands for separatism will wane. Once violations of life and liberty are reprimanded, the culture of impunity will disappear. Once citizens are able to associate freely and without fear of intimidation, the prospect of a healthy civic life will be restored. But action must be taken now. The longer the social fabric is worn away, the more difficult will it be to sew together again.

Lessons from Uttar Pradesh

Last week, the voters of Uttar Pradesh (UP) finally got rid of the chaos of Hindutva and dynasty based politics. The verdict is in, and the national parties such as Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) and the Congress Party have been shown the door. Neither the slogan of "Hindu nationalism" of BJP, nor the Congress Party's "secularism" promoted by none other than the heir of the Congress party — Rahul Gandhi — could cut any ice with the highly discerning voters of Uttar Pradesh.

Former schoolteacher Mayawati's Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) won 206 constituencies out of 402 total seats in the state assembly. Although she has a narrow majority, she has achieved what Bhim Rao Ambedkar and her mentor Kanshi Ram could not in their lifetimes. She has made millions of Dalits who have been marginalized and powerless for decades, in Uttar Pradesh (and throughout India) hopeful for better days ahead.

Furthermore, she has brought an end to the politics of manipulation and maneuverings, fulfilling the electorates' desire for political stability. No party in UP had been able to secure a majority since BJP won 221 seats in the 1991 Assembly polls when the notion of "Hindu nationalism" was at its peak.

Maywati has crumbled established citadels and has upset all electoral calculations. Her victory has surprised both her rivals and exit-pollsters. She has emerged triumphant in the face of innumerable odds. She did not have a poster boy like the Congress did. Nor did she have hoards of actors and actresses — Amitabh Bachhan, Jaya Bachhan, Jaya Prada — campaigning for her party like Mulayam Singh's Samajwadi Party (SP) did. Out of many things, the recent election in UP also has proved that the likes of Amitabh Bachchan cannot sell everything.

Maywati has defied the notion that media can turn around elections. While other parties used actors, actresses, and business tycoons for campaigning, Maywati focused on the basics of politics —- go to people and seek their support. She asked her cadres to visit every village and every house to mobilize their support.

Mayawati has proven that her experience as a former teacher gives her an understanding of not only child psychology, but also psychology of the voters and the strategy that needs to be pursued to secure power. She realized very early on in her political career what Bhim Rao Ambedkar and her mentor Kanshi Ram failed to understand: without cohabitation with the upper caste Brahmins and Thakurs and forging alliance with Muslims, Dalits' quest for power would remain an unachievable goal. Thus, Mayawati did everything under the sun to woo previously adversarial social groups. She carried out a series of Bhaichara (caste amity) campaigns.

When it comes to how she changed her political course, her slogans say it all. She made a complete U-turn from "tilak, taraju aur talwar, maro unko jhoote char" (beat up Brahmins, Vaishyas and Kshatriyas) to "Haathi nahin Ganesh hain, Brahma Vishnu Mahesh hain" (it is not elephant but Lord Ganesh, symbolizing all gods and communities). She changed her party's image from an upper caste bashing party to an upper caste accommodating party. To ensure upper castes' loyalty towards BSP, of the total of 139 upper caste candidates, BSP fielded 86 Brahmins. In addition to the necessity of Brahmins' vote, Mayawati knew it very well that the road to power could not be constructed without Muslim votes. She fielded as many as 61 Muslim candidates in the polls.

Mayawati, thus, exhibited political ingenuity and tore apart BJP's grip on upper caste voters and SP's grip on Muslim voters. Clearly, the politics of inclusion have paid off for Mayawati.

Mayawati outsmarted the BJP, Congress, Samajwadi Party, and other regional political parties through the process of social engineering. The spectacular victory of Mayawati's BSP has potential lessons for both the major political and various ethnic groups that have been pushing for their empowerment in Nepal. Learn from the mistakes of others, or end up becoming a loser in future.

The Nepali Congress (NC) cannot achieve anything without reinventing itself. Although India's Congress party used charming prince Rahul Gandhi to lure voters, he had nothing new to offer. Like India's Congress Party, Nepali Congress (NC) has nothing new to offer. Rather than cozying itself with the political left, it should get nearer to the ethnic groups that believe in inclusive democracy.

Although the NC preaches democracy and secularism, it is heavily dominated by the Koirala clan. This clan calls itself democratic and secular, but still promotes irrational practices. The likes of Sujata Koirala have gained prominence due to their relationship with Girija Prasad Koirala but lack leadership qualities and will end up meeting the fate of Ajit Singh, the son of former Prime Minister Chaudhary Charan Singh.

As a matter of fact, she might not even have the stature that Ajit Singh has in Indian politics. Unlike Ajit Singh, who does have backings of Jat community, Sujata is on her own. Sujata with her husband being a Christian and daughter married to a Muslim will not have any backing of the Brahmin community under which she falls by birth.

Thus, the days of the likes of Sujata Koirala in Nepali politics are numbered. With the demise of Girija Prasad Koirala, they too will become a history. The leaders of NC that have risen to prominence through hard work will soon have their heyday. For now, they should indulge themselves in introspection and work towards reinventing the party.

Slogans and rhetoric alone cannot win elections. Neither the campaign revolving around the idea of "India Shining," helped the BJP,

nor has UP mein dam hai kyon ki zulm yahan kam hai (UP has future because crime rate is low here) worked for Mulayam Singh's Samajwadi party. The voters are not foolish, they will no longer be mesmerized by slogans and rhetoric alone. They will now take a calculated look at the political leadership before casting their votes. So, the political left should shed its rhetorical politics and shy away from class-based politics. At the end of the day, like in UP, the party that is inclusive will have better prospects and will enjoy the support of the majority.

The former royalist party that functions like an elite's club will have no political future. The virtual wipe-out of Viswanath Pratap Singh, the descendent of former Maharaja of one of the many princely states in India, has clearly exhibited that money cannot buy votes; you will have to earn it. So, the parties like Rastriya Prajatantra Paty (RPP) and Rastriya Jansakti Party (RJP) have arduous road ahead. Do it right or perish.

Madhesi People's Rights Forum (MPRF) and NFIN should do what Mayawati did in UP. Instead of alienating the so-called upper castes Pahadis, get them onboard. It would definitely not hurt, it would help. The propagation of sectarian hatred will aid no one in the long run. The BJP strategy to raise the communal temperature did not augur well as planned by BJP in UP. Upper caste Hindus refused to swallow the bait this time around and rather sided with BSP.

The recent uprising in terai has clearly demonstrated that there exists a political space for a genuine political force to grow. There are millions of Pahadis residing in Madhes that do not have problem with Upendra Yadav becoming their democratically elected prime minister. So, Upendra Yadav, who also happens to be a former teacher like Mayawati, has a good prospect as an emerging leader that can address woes of ethnic communities that have been bypassed thus far and at the same time lead the nation. All he needs to do is ensure that the ongoing ethnic movement does not become narrowly focused and communal. The communal politics has no future. Learn it easy way just by seeing Mayawati's experience in UP. For Mayawati it took years to figure that out.

Nation on the brink

While the Eight Party Alliance's (EPA) government is trying hard to maintain its composure and portray things as normal, the situation in the country is obviously far from being normal. It has been more than a year since the despotic regime of King Gyanendra crumbled, but with each passing day the future of this largely hungry nation appears bleaker than ever.

People have started asking: What have we, as citizens, achieved since the fall of King Gyanendra's despotic regime?

The nation's democracy is becoming a casualty in the "crossfire" of partisanship. Peace, which the Nepali people longed for so dearly, appears no-where in sight. The outrages against the defenseless populations: the senseless robbing and murder continue unabated. Incidents of marauding raids are increasing at an unprecedented rate.

Our combined desire to have Constituent Assembly (CA) elections is in limbo due to the intra and inter-party power struggle amongst the political parties representing the EPA. Because of inability of the EPA government to secure peace, hold CA elections on time, and bring other positive changes that are long over due, people have started referring the past one year as a "lost year."

The Maoist leaders that once ran for life have become parliamentarians and ministers and are enjoying their heyday. While the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are forced to live under sub-human conditions away from their home, the Maoists that chased them away from their homes are riding imported cars — be it state owned or forcibly seized from private citizens.

The NC and UML stalwarts seem to have forgotten the promises made to ordinary Nepalis during the April uprising and are once again busy enjoying their field day in the corridor of Singha Durbar.

The Youth Communist League's (YCL) mayhem continues unchecked in the capital and elsewhere in the country. The two rival factions-the Maoists and the Madhesi People's Rights Forum — are locked in a deadly duel for power in terai. The society that once exemplified harmony is now inching towards anarchy.

To some extent, the ongoing political violence is influenced by opportunities arising from state's weakness to ensure inclusion of ethnic communities and control political nudity of the Maoists.

The government offices in terai have been shut down for months now. The Pahadis have started leaving terai, fearing their lives. The government's power and the administrative structures vital to securing the law and order are shrinking.

Clearly, the political order is being founded on and sustained by violence. In the present day Nepal, violence, not public virtue, seems to be the basis of authority. The ordinary citizens have started suspecting the ability of the government to secure peace, and the Maoist commitment towards democracy.

Unfortunately, they are forced to keep their heads down in the face of the guns that the Maoists have covertly stored and the absence of viable options.

How do these symptoms of a dying political and social order play out? The signs of morbidity are very much evident in the present political, economic, and social life. With the ongoing decay of political and social order, politics is no longer the instrument through which contending interests are conciliated in a structured framework. Investors are shying away and moving towards greener and safer pastures and people have started suspecting those that do not belong to their own ethnic community.

The only things that will be born of this condition is a regime of rapine, despotism, poverty, and powerlessness. The current situation, if not corrected, would lead to an accelerating loss of state sovereignty, concomitant decay of state institutions, and worsen communal violence that is already reshaping social relations.

Furthermore, it will slow down the democratization process, which is essential for pulling Nepal out of poverty and placing it more firmly on the path of stability and sustainable development. It is necessary to stop political violence and lawlessness, because it impedes the necessary economic development. It does so by destroying human lives, economic assets, and through penalizing the accumulation of capital and wealth.

Every society that witnesses political upheaval confronts political violence and lawlessness for a while, but if not controlled, it can spread faster than wild fire and destabilize the essential democratic foundations in long term. Thus, political violence and lawlessness syndrome should be controlled effectively, because if allowed to persist, they could destroy people's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Organized criminal groups, having nexus with the corrupt officials and politicians, will start mushrooming. Organized crimes as a result of such nexus will be extremely hard to control. A country, if infested by the twin problems or crime and underdevelopment, would have little prospects of developing into a stable and prosperous democracy.

A country like Nepal which has weak institutions is an idle breeding ground for an organized crime and corruption. Crime and corruption thrive best in unstable situations, such as the one Nepal is facing. Thus, before organized crime syndicates and warlords root into our society, the current EPA government should contain political violence and lawlessness.

Nepal is already confronted with high incidence of poverty and backwardness, and therefore, it cannot afford to get locked in a double bind of political violence and poverty. There are no easy ways out of this vicious circle. Thus, political leaders should not commit the same mistakes that they committed during the 1990s. This time around, they should do it and do it right. The Nepalis, who fought hard for democracy, do not deserve anarchy, poverty, and powerlessness.

Establishing a state's authority both in and out of the capital is an essential condition for any political order, including democracy. Building a decentralized system, through devolution of power, may ultimately be the best deterrent against future guerrilla resurgence and sudden outburst of political violence. A well functioning democracy is in everyone's best interest. Hence, the EPA government should work towards strengthening the capacity of the state in traditionally "stateless" areas in order to rein in violence and create space for an unbiased civil society to take root. It is crucial for the consolidation of peace, stability, and democracy in Nepal.

Honest Illusion and Dishonest Betrayal

Recently, the Maoist cadres called for a transport strike in the Hetauda, Kalaiya and Nijgadh areas to affect the mass meeting organized by Nepali Congress in Birgunj. While the toprung Maoist leaders and other leftleaning politicians demand an immediatedeclaration of a republic and threaten taking to the streets if not done so, the second man in the present cabinet, Ram Chandra Poudel, gets “booed” and showered with filthy materials. A seniorjournalist, Kanak Mani Dixit, who led the April uprising from the front narrowly escaped from getting roughed up. Are these isolated incidents or is there a pattern that needs to be analyzedand understood?

Who are these people that don't think even for a second before attacking people that have spent their entire life fighting for democracy and the freedom of the Nepali citizens? Are these people average Nepali citizens that are working hard to make bothends meet, or are they brainwashed, radical leftists that are shrewdly being used against the people that do not share their radical leftist ideology? Is itan outburst of pent-up frustrations or a calculated move to silence the democratic forces by the radical left?

Nepal as a nation is passing through a tumultuous time of both honest illusion and dishonest betrayal.The Maoist radicals, who posed themselves as supporters of democracy and lured democratic forces to team up against the despotic monarch, are nowcovertly operating to silence democratic voices. Are we becoming the prisoners of our own mistakes (teaming up with the Maoists)?

Looking back, it begs for a question: Was it a good idea on part of democratic forces in Nepal to team up with the Maoists who are drastically different in thoughts, ideology, and aspirations, to overthrow the ruleof an utterly unpopular monarch with no popular backing? Was it a good idea to ignore that “radical communism,” which the Maoists vouch for, and thefreedom and democracy that Nepali citizens long for, were two significantly different and titanic ideas, two ways of life, and two totally irreconcilablebeliefs? Is it a case of “marry in haste and repent in leisure”?

In the aftermath of the derailment of the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections, the leftist political parties, in an effort to close in on social and liberal democrats, are forging an alliance, which according to them is needed stepto declare the state a republic. UML's general secretary, whose desperateness to become the Prime Minister has been evident for a long time, now wants to fulfill his long cherished dream by bringing all political shops run by the leftists under a single umbrella. Nepal's dubious character and hidden motives became clear when he said that there was now no utility of opening up small shops in the name of communist parties. If all the communist parties areunited, we can easily defeat the rightists, he said during the event organized by the Maoists to mark the anniversary of Lenin's birth coinciding with the57th anniversary of the establishment of Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), on April 22. His statement has made it crystal clear that the UML's previoustie-ups with the social and liberal democrats in Nepal were a mere compulsion and political compromise in the absence of the ability of the political left to defeat social and liberal democrats rather than a logical step tostrengthen democracy in Nepal.

Maoist leader Mohan Baidya, speaking at a press meet in Charikot, Dolakha, without mincing a word madeit ample clear that the Communist Party of Nepal-(Maoist) and CPN-UML had reached an accord to put forward a commitment paper and declare Nepal arepublic even if Nepali Congress was not ready. Furthermore, he exhibited a classic example of what is called dual character of the leftists by putting all the blame on the prime minister for not being able to conduct CA elections. Isn't the Maoists' insincerity towards the peace agreements to some extent responsible for the delay in CA elections?The Maoists want to enjoy all the privileges of being in the parliament and the Cabinet, but do not want to share the blame for failures. What a classic example of hypocrisy and double standard?

However, it is not surprising to see the Maoists not sharing the blames for failures. This has been the strategy of the Maoists from the very beginning.The Maoists wanted to be in the cabinet in order to use all of the resources of the nation so that they could embolden their political footings and buy political legitimacy and support of the international community. The need to paint centrist political forces as a “good for nothing” group by blaming them for not being able to conduct CA elections is their strategic ploy to achieve their longterm goal, the establishment of a proletariancommunist state. The leftists know very well that without downgrading and discrediting democratic forces in Nepal, the virtues of communism cannot be spoon-fed to the innocent and largely illiterate Nepali populace.But the sad part of the story is, while the political left is all set to forge an alliance and bring all leftist shops under a single umbrella and trap freedom-loving Nepali citizens under the "yoke of communism," the democratic forces in Nepal seem to be clueless about the strategies to secure its political space and freedom of Nepali people in modern day Nepal. Is it a case of tacticalblunder or an act of thoughtless minds?

If the “red menace” is not fought against both now and effectively, the democracy in Nepal will be in peril. It is time to fight back against sophisticated lies and leftist propagandas which, ifnot acted upon now, will poison coming decades of our national life. The days ahead appear bleak for the social and liberal democrats in the country.The political left will take maximum advantage of their majority in the parliament and the cabinet. In the days ahead, while the top rung leaders of thepolitical left will keep themselves busy unleashing politically charged propaganda against democratic forces, the brainwashed radicals who belong togroups such as the Youth Communist League (YCL) that lack logical reasoning and have zero tolerance towards others that do not share their view point of an idyllic communist utopia will be used to silence the voices of freedom-loving people in Nepal.

Time is running out for democratic forces in Nepal. They need to act now and act rapidly to forge an alliance amongst the democratic forces. If needed, seek help from the international community that better understands the “red menace” and is more knowledgeable about ways to defeat it.Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, during the recent South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), said that he gambled his sixdecade long political career to secure peace in Nepal and he is right about it. But the recent activities of the Maoists show that he betted on an “unreliable horse.” Despite his all good intentions,his partner for peace – the Maoists – are proving themselves untrustworthy. They are abusing his trust to achieve their goal.

In the current situation, whereby peace and stability seem to be a distantdream due to the Maoists' insincerity and the UML's dubious character, Koirala's lumping of all Male (then UML), Masale (radical leftist party)and Mandale (regressive elements) into the same category seems real than ever. History will judge if Koirala's instinct to join hands with the Maoiststo defeat a cornered despot--King Gyanendra--was a good thing or not. It will also judge if it was entirely impossible to defeat King Gyanendra withoutseeking any help from the Maoists, which many people think was not the case. It might have taken a little bit longer, but couple of months or years is not a long time when it comes to the history of a nation. The dilution of ideology has a price attached to it. Maybe we are destined to pay that price!