Lessons Learned, Challenges Ahead

With the formation of the interim government along with the CPN (Maoist), a new era has just begun. It has spiked up people's aspirations for peace, stability and democracy once again.

However, from the current location of Nepali politics, there are two roads ahead with two different end points. The first one leads us to a stable, prosperous, and thriving democracy, whereas the second one leads us to chaotic, lawless and illiberal democracy. Where we will end up depends upon how sincerely the political parties in power act in the coming days. Furthermore, it also depends upon whether or not the new faces inducted in the interim cabinet are honest, competent and visionary.

The future of the major political parties and many politicians are at stake. As the country's political landscape has tremendously changed, none can tell for sure if these men and women sworn in as ministers will be running the ministries ever again in their lifetimes. Thus, it is the time for these men and women to prove their worth and win the hearts of the people who hold the keys to their political future. If they fail do so, the people will seal their fate. People's votes in the changed political context may not be as easily available as they have been in the past.

The mainstream political parties that participated in the previous general elections and their cadres should stop themselves from looking back at how many seats they were able to pick in the previous general elections. This will only inflate their ego only to be deflated.

The political landscape is no longer what it used to be. Now, there are several players on the ground. Which party would better address the people's concerns is the gigantic shift in the people's perception.

Nepal's journey to successful, inclusive democracy is still thorny. The politics is not yet devoid of the threat from the regressive forces which still love to fish in the troubled waters. The monarch, who is politically very calculative, but dumb as a door knob when it comes to assessing people's love for freedom is, down but not out.

The king might not have given up his despotic aspirations. On the one hand, the newly formed Eight Party Alliance (EPA) government needs to checkmate the shrewd king, who might try to fulfill his autocratic aspirations as he did in the past. On the other hand, the EPA government needs to restore peace, maintain stability, and ensure the economic prosperity of the masses that have a hard time making ends meet. So, the challenges that lie ahead for the EPA government are of Himalayan proportions and political rhetoric will be of no use while solving the real life problems.

The current government should strive towards achieving the goals stipulated in the Common Minimum Program (CMP). Any failure to do so would be disastrous. It will further deepen the crisis to the extent that it will be extremely hard to deal with. The road, thereafter, will only lead to anarchy and none will have the legitimacy to control it.

For a few, who have already warmed ministerial chairs, but failed to deliver results in the past, it is time to reinvent themselves. For the newcomers, it is time to quickly learn the tricks of the game that suit the changed political climate and meet the people's expectations. The Nepali citizens, who had the power to bring down King Gyanendra's despotic regime, which had the backing of 90 thousand strong army men and thousands of Armed Police Force and Nepal Police personnel in uniform, may not stay silent for long, fearing the covertly stored weapons to administer political control, if the promised fruit of Jan Andolan II is not delivered.

As the political landscape of the country has been tremendously altered, no one at this point in time can foretell which political parties will be accepted or rejected by the voters in the upcoming elections. The mainstream political parties --- the Nepali Congress (NC) and the United Marxist Leninist (UML) which were succeeded in garnering the support of ethnic minorities --- may not enjoy the same support this time around.

There exists both crisis and opportunity. The big political parties, which prefer an individual, Krishna Prasad Sitaula, to the ethnic groups and undermine their demand for the resignation of the Home Minister, even when he fails, may run out of the required political fuel to bring back those who are currently warming the benches of the parliament to the parliament again. So, this may put a full stop on those who are now representing the major political parties.

NC may be the one that will be hit hard. Its traditional vote bank in terai has been thoroughly stirred. The Madhesis, who once predominantly associated with NC, are now attracted towards the Madhesi People's Right Forum (MPRF) and other political outfits. The future of NC seems to be in peril if the current insensitivity towards minorities' legitimate rights and genuine demands is not corrected by the NC leaders.

When it comes to UML, first it was the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), and now the ethnic forums that have started attracting its cadres. Instead of pushing for the Sitaula's ouster, which would have consoled its Madhesi cadres, UML silently joined its competitor, the CPN (Maoist) in its covert operation to keep Sitaula in the home minister's chair. That was a tactical blunder. Instead of acting smartly in order to keep its dwindling support base among ethnic groups intact, UML's silence on the issue of Sitaula's resignation and subsequent induction in the interim cabinet as a home minister again have further alienated the UML's Madhesi cadres prompting them to join ethnic groups and radical Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morchas (JTMM).

The two biggest political parties that garnered the most votes in the past elections appear to be the losers. However, at this point in time, it is hard to tell how big of a loss they will end up incurring. What the established political parties should quickly learn is that the mere showcasing of a few leaders from ethnic minority to prove that NC and UML are pro-ethnic parties may not work in the changed political context. The only way to win hearts and minds of ethnic minorities and keep them associated with NC and UML is to refrain from actions that disappoint the ethnic groups and meet their genuine demands. If a party can save itself from the future trouble by just not putting a politician in a particular ministerial chair, it should do so. It is politically a smart thing to do and will save the political career of many seating parliamentarians from the terai regions who got elected on NC and UML's tickets.

The parties that have chances of fairing well in the changed political landscape are the CPN (Maoist) and other smaller political parties. However, in order to take advantage of the changed political context, the Maoists have to first prove that they believe in peace, stability, and democracy. They have to ensure that they are not a threat to people's lives and liberty. For the Maoists, the road from mines to ministries might have been comparatively a quicker one, but where will the Maoists end up in the future largely depends upon how they project themselves now onwards.

In other words, the future of political parties will largely depend upon their actions and how they will position themselves on the issues detrimental to the peace and prosperity of the nation. For the big political parties, the challenge is to reinvent themselves, whereas for the CPN (Maoist), it is time it reformed.

As far as the parties of the former royalists such as Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) and Rastriya Jansakti Party (RJP) are concerned, their preference to enjoy King Gyanendra's despotic adventurism as bystanders have seriously eroded their credibility as a democratic party. Instead of grouching too much, the lesson they need to learn is that people look for actions that favor democracy, not lip service. They too will have space in “New Nepal”, if the notion ever materializes, but they will have to earn it.

Bumpy road ahead

The midnight accord was a big deal. Certainly, it marked an end of the aspiration of experimenting with radical communism in Nepal, cherished by the Maoist insurgents. Girija Prasad Koirala, who in the past had been consistently labeled as having a hawkish personality and was often blamed for propagating nepotism and corruption, has finally been able to achieve people's aspirations of peace. His sheer determination to restore peace and stability has paid off at the end.

Prachanda has done a big favor to himself. By signing the peace accord, he has saved himself from going down in history as a notorious and stubborn insurgent leader. Time will tell if he has a vision to establish himself as a true statesman or if he simply succeeded in reaching where he is now because of the failure of politicians in the past.

Everyone, except for King Gyanendra and his cronies, has tremendously benefited from the midnight accord. The biggest winners are the Nepali people who have been longing for a durable peace and democracy for quite some time.

That King Gyanendra's failed bid to establish an autocratic regime proved to be a boon for the people. The people suffered for a couple of months, but this provided a platform for them to unite for a republic Nepal. Had King Gyanendra not been blinded by his autocratic aspirations, pushing freedom-loving people to the wall, it might have taken longer for us to convince the Maoists to join the mainstream politics.

The midnight accord has given the political parties that committed numerous mistakes and mismanaged national priorities an opportunity for a fresh start. Politicians have a golden opportunity to whitewash their previous records of corruption, nepotism, and incompetence now by lending an ear to the grievances of their constituents and fulfilling their aspirations.

The cloud of uncertainty and insecurity looming over the Nepali sky has finally cleared. Hopefully, all of the smoking guns will fall silent for good. After several tumultuous years marred by violence and political instability, the people can now breathe a sigh of relief. However, the days ahead are not filled with beds of roses. The real challenge begins with this new dawn. This is mainly because the stability of a conflict-ridden country largely depends on the success of reconciliation and reconstruction measures.

The countries in transition from a time of war to a time of peace are often confronted with a significant chance of sliding back into warfare. Thus, the mere signing of a peace agreement is not a guarantee of stability and peace.

The transitional phase is always a difficult and bumpy time because of constant uncertainty and insecurity. The leaders of all political parties, including the Maoists, should be careful because mistakes and mismanagement of problems during the transition phase can cause the country to slide back into warfare.

In order to establish a durable peace and stability, the violence and lawlessness that has existed thus far must give way to the security of citizens and the rule of law; social and political exclusion must give way to participatory institutions; animosity between the Maoists and the internally displaced persons (IDPs) must give way to national reconciliation; and the economy that has been ravaged by the decade-long violent insurgency must be transformed into a well-functioning market economy. The challenges ahead could be overwhelming if not dealt with carefully.

The most difficult question confronting us is where to begin with the reconciliation and reconstruction process. The government can begin by establishing positive measures such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). It is extremely important because this has an ability to bring people on both sides of the conflict together to explore their mutual fear and anger and helps build bridges of trust between them.

Constructive reconciliation is extremely important for a meaningful transformation and democratization of our society. This is mainly because at the heart of any sustainable peace is the condition and process of reconciliation that helps restore a certain wholeness. It enhances the capacity of our society to let go of the hatred and hurt of the past and help warring sides to envision common future. It will instill a sense of friendship and nurture understanding between both the oppressors and victims.

Reconciliation is extremely important if peace is to be stabilized. Many peace agreements are orphaned in the absence of reconciliation. In the absence of reconciliation programs, the warring sides soon realize that it is impossible to co-exist and the conflict becomes renewed. One example of what can happen in the absence of reconciliation is the case of the second Intifada carried out by Palestine since 2000. Despite signing the Oslo accord and other numerous agreements, the warring sides (Israel and Palestine) have not been able to achieve a stable peace.

As reconciliation is a bottom-up process, the government should encourage people from both sides of the divide to come forward and forgive and reconcile with their one-time adversaries. Reconciliation is not easy because it forces each party to deal with human emotions and self-respect. It is hard for the victims of Maoist atrocities to forget their past grievances and forgive their oppressors. At the same time, it will be extremely difficult for the Maoist militiamen that committed crimes against humanity to admit their guilt and, with it, shed their arrogance.

Nepal has undergone a profound change, and the change poses new challenges for all of us. Citizens face the challenges of adapting to the changed social and political conditions; the government faces the challenges of directing the nation through the extremely painful process of reconciliation as well as the difficult process of reconstruction.

Like any other war-ravaged country, the decade-long insurgency has taken its toll on this country's overall economic development. Nepal today suffers from economic underdevelopment and damaged physical, economic, and social infrastructures. This armed conflict that has dragged on for a decade and a half has delayed the developmental process and eroded its developmental foundation. Bringing a highly polarized society together to rejuvenate a national economy that is capable of taking care of the basic needs of all citizens is not an easy task.

Rebuilding damaged physical and economic infrastructures is important, but the government should not get absorbed in the "mechanical-materialist approach" of reconstruction. This is mainly because reconstruction cannot be truly achieved in a society like ours without reforming social and political structures and the human relationships that are necessary to foster reconciliation and an idea of peaceful co-existence.

The government should reform economic policy and make development more inclusive, promote equity, and create special programs aimed at consolidating peace and stability. The economic policy of a new Nepal should thus focus not only on securing rapid economic growth, but also on equity, social inclusion, and stable peace. It should be aimed at fostering political and social adjustment vis-a-vis economic adjustment. Economic development alone cannot sustain peace if the underlying political and socioeconomic causes that sparked the Maoist conflict are not resolved.

Challenges for Civil Society in Nepal

More than dozens of innocent civilians have been killed by the Maoists after the revival of parliament in April. The Maoists hacked to death NC cadre Sushil Gyawali in broad daylight in Bardia. They attacked and injured over eighteen people, including lawyers, journalists and pedestrians while they were demonstrating against the Maoist atrocities in Bara. Raj Kumar Kusiyat was abducted from his house in Sunsari district.

These are some of the Maoist atrocities that surfaced in the media in the last couple of weeks. All these cases have one thing in common -- the perpetrators. The perpetrators in all these cases were the Maoists who believe in Mao Tse-tung's "power comes from the barrel of a gun".

While the Maoist atrocities continue unabated in post-April Nepal, the human right activists are nowhere to be seen as they were during King Gyanendra's heydays -- crisscrossing the globe attending talk programs and delivering lectures on human rights abuses taking place in Nepal.

Shouldn't they be protesting against the Maoist atrocities and pressurizing them to denounce violence? However, it is not the silence of human rights groups that surprises me the most but the silence of the "official" civil society that vehemently opposed and helped bring down King Gyanendra's despotic rule.

Civil society can and has played a significant role in safeguarding human rights, peace building, and democratization in different parts of the globe.

In countries such as South Africa, Mozambique, Mali, the Philippines, Guatemala, Liberia, and Northern Ireland peace, reconciliation, and democratization became possible in part due to the relentless effort and neutral stance of civil societies.

During the April revolution, hundreds of thousand of citizens participated in mass rallies organized by the "official" civil society. Nepali citizens ignored and betrayed by politicians for decades had found a strong platform for citizen activism in the form of civil society.

However, the failure on part of "official" civil society to condemn the Maoist atrocities which is against the ceasefire code of conduct signed between the government and the Maoists has raised a question on the neutrality of the civil society.

The civil society of pre-April revolution era was the projection into the future of a vision that rested upon an emotional unity. However, the civil society of post-April revolution cannot and should not base itself on mere emotions. The leaders of civil society should strive hard on the building of carefully nurtured institutions, practical realization of ethical values, and involvement of the greatest possible numbers of people in public life.

The main task of civil society in post-April revolutionary era is to construct democratic mechanisms of stability that secure constitutional checks and balances, increase public awareness in the spirit of respect for law, and encourage citizen activism.

Civil society is a major component of democracy. It creates a much needed participatory space for the citizens. In Nepal where radical communist insurgency has taken a heavy toll, existence of an active and neutral civil society has an ideological function: as a component in a counter ideology to "authoritarianism".

The civil society has a greater responsibility towards safeguarding political freedom and legitimatization of a social space in which private property and economic institutions ought to develop independently without state's interference.

The obvious obstacle to democratization is the civil disorder, violation of human rights, and civil liberties. There has been an unprecedented upsurge in crimes, vandalism, and vigilantism in the last decade or so. Such social pathologies have tremendously eroded the levels of trust and social capital. The civil society now must work towards revival of the lost trust and societal capital that is necessary for democratic stability and societal well-being.

Both in the liberal and the socialist visions of civil society, the basic organizing principle is the same-human rights. The official civil society which once enjoyed tremendous public support and played an important role bringing down the autocratic regime may lose societal trust and support if it fails to voice concerns and protest against indiscriminate killings, tortures of innocent civilians, abductions, and extortions.

Indifference and passivity on part of citizens is the greatest threat to democracy. A democratic state cannot survive without active citizens.

Civil society does not act in opposition to the democratic state, but cooperates with it and helps achieve democratic stability. Instead of staying silent on the Maoist atrocities, the leaders of civil society should raise the concerns.

For the consolidation of democracy, we need a civil society whose members agree that we should all live together under a common system of rule making and enforcement. Human rights and democracy are inseparable and interdependent. Human rights standards underpin a meaningful conception of democracy and democracy offers the best hope for the promotion and protection of human rights and civil liberties.

The civil society should strive towards promoting truth, justice, and reconciliation. The parties involved in violation of human rights that took place in the last one and a half decades have not sought any kind of forgiveness. The victims of human rights abuses continue to suffer psychologically. These victims, most of which are internally displaced citizens do not even have a choice between either justice or peace because neither option explicitly or officially is offered to them yet.

Internally displaced citizens are still forced to live in subhuman living conditions. Their plight is still being undermined and ignored by both the government and the Maoists.

Like many post-revolutionary societies, political landscape in Nepal has evolved and changed tremendously in the past couple of months. Civil society should take a lead in promoting accountability and justice for past abuses.

It should assist in the long-term task of reconciliation. It would be extremely hard and in some case impossible for internally displaced people to forgive the Maoist cadres in their villages that forced them to flee their homes.

Nepal's future as a well functioning democratic state to a large extent rests on effectiveness of the civil society. The leaders of the civil society should not let public trust be eroded because when people are pessimistic and lose confidence, they withdraw from the effort to build a better life and community. Society begins to lose its talent and energy. The decade-long bloody insurgency has claimed thousands of innocent people and displaced millions of fellow citizens. We cannot and should not withdraw from the struggle of building our nation.