President and PM are on a path of confrontation

JUN 25 -

Shyam Shrestha was the editor of the leftist Mulyankan Monthly for fifteen years, roughly between the first and second Jana Andolan. Originally a member of Nepal Communist  Party (Unity Centre), Shrestha left the party when it adopted a strategy of ‘People’s War’ under the leadership of Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’. The Post’s Gyanu Adhikari met with Shrestha to discuss the current stalemate and the failure of the parties to insitutionalise progressive changes through the Constituent Assembly. Excerpts:

Why couldn’t the CA deliver a constitution?

One major reason is because of NC and UML, who didn’t consider the things the CA gave—republicanism, federalism and secularism—as their own agenda. They considered it Maoist agenda, even though the 12-point agreement and the second Jana Andolan meant it was a common agenda. The NC and UML weren’t honest on federalism either—they said they agree to it but didn’t internalise the changes it implied. Access to state, representation for the excluded and identity are the central elements of federalism everywhere. But UML and NC defined identity as single-ethnicity state, that’s how they advertised it to the people, thereby creating fear and confusing them.

 

The agenda in the CA are on hold right now. What happens if this continues indefinitely?

Well, the armed Maoist insurgency before the second Jana Andolan was based on this agenda. If the causes of the conflict aren’t addressed, it’ll surface again. That means another civil war.

So the new Maoist party will start another war?

I can’t say who will start it, but it’s inevitable if the agenda isn’t addressed. It could as well be Madhesi or Janajati. If Nepal goes on the old path without a progressive constitution, it’s back to square zero for most people. We’ll enter a territory that existed before the 12-point agreement. These Maoists who split, the dogmatists, want to start a Chinese-style revolution in Nepal. I don’t think that’s possible.

The changes that were happening, how do you evaluate their importance?

A revolution was taking place, an epoch-making revolution. The end of 2000-year-old monarchy system, the rise of republicanism and the end of 240-year-old unitary state, federalism, secularism, gender equality, a welfare state that considered education, employment, health and social security as fundamental rights—these are all revolutions. The only thing left was to institutionalise the changes through the CA. The political revolution had already occurred. With addition of social-economic revolution, the transformation would’ve been complete. But the status quo got scared and became organised because they thought their days were over.

What did the organisation of the status quo do?

Their organisation worked in many ways. There was an Andolan against ‘single-ethnicity’ states that lasted a month. It happened despite the fact that federalism wouldn’t have created ethnic states, and single-ethnicity states aren’t even possible. So why was there an Andolan against a perceived single-ethnicity state? The Andolan, in its essence, opposed federalism. It was also an opposition to republicanism in essence since it included a lot of royalists. People like Kamal Thapa worked hard to turn the CA into a failure. Even Madhav Nepal went around saying publicly that federalism isn’t their agenda. Let’s not even talk about what Khadga Oli said. Besides, there were a thousand ways to save the CA on May 27. A meeting could’ve been held and continued for 15-20 days until a solution was found. But the 12 leaders hijacked the CA and started bargaining outside of it. There was a class who was never happy with the existence of the CA. This is the class that wants to abort the changes happening in Nepal.

Moving on, in what ways can the changes be institutionalised?

There’re two options: one is to insitutionalise the changes, and the other is to leave the state in the hands of regressive forces. Not institutionalising changes will eventually create a dictator, whether in the form of Gyanendra or in some other form. Returning to yesterday’s staus quo will create ethnic and regional conflict. The solution is to stop this movement for ministers’ chairs. Let the NC and UML start a movement to revive the CA instead.

In practical terms, what should the parties do?

The next step is either conducting the election or reviving the CA. Election is a legal and democratic path shown by the court. Another path is to revive the CA, which too requires political consensus. It’s important to note that the Election Commission says elections aren’t possible without amending the constitution. So even if it is just to amend the constitution, the CA needs to be revived. That’ll open a way out. A revived CA, in its parliamentary role, can amend the constitution for new election, or it can promulgate the constitution in its CA role. In all of these, there’s no alternative for consensus. In the meantime, the parties should start a national dialogue on a viable model federalism that addressses the quest for identity. 

Suppose the parties don’t form a consensus and get stuck on a quarrel over PM Bhattarai’s resignation, where will such deadlock take us?

It’ll lead to a regression, a counterrevolution. There’s a counterrevolutionary force that doesn’t even accept the CA. If all political process leading to change

gets aborted, there’ll be ethnic and regional conflict, and it’ll be

harsher than the previous conflict.  Those fishing in that muddy water will include few foreigners and counterrevolutionaries mostly represented by the old royal palace.

Do you see new political realignments developing in the coming days?

The split in Maoists party isn’t new; there’s always been a pragmatic current and an extreme-left current in that party. If the CA had succeeded or the peace process finished in a dignified manner, these two currents would’ve moved forward together. But the peace process wasn’t dignified in the eyes of those who revolted. In fact, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML did not realise the importance of making the peace process dignified—they thought their victory lay in humiliating the Maoists as much as possible. If the integration was dignified and the CA had given a new, progressive constitution, the disgruntled feeling would’ve subsided.

Do you see Jajajati forces uniting to become a new political force?

They’re becoming united, and it’s not clear if their parties will be able to accommodate them. Neither UML nor NC has been able to satisfy the Janajati leaders.  They either have to come as a new force or have to go with the Maoists. That’s one place where realig-nment can take place. If the old parties are unable to address the demands of Janajati, Madhesi and the people, it’s certain that power will realign.

What are the prospects of Janajatis and Madhesis forming a party together?

It’s possible. The scenario in the CA showed that they were coming together. As soon as the Janajatis and Madhesis came together, the status quo became frightened.

Given the people’s feeling with current political class, do you see a new political force rising in Nepal?

The doctrine of necessity means yes. The failure of the CA means a failure of old political power. It proved they were not qualified to lead the country. There’s a possibility that new, younger leadership will rise out of the parties themselves. But looking at the parties here, the younger generation is not in a point to overthrow the old leadership. The people want a new force. One way that force can rise is through elections. If there’re elections, it’s possible that a lot of the old faces will lose, because people are sick and tired of them.

The other way is through the street, through Andolan.

To come back to the present, do you see the current stalemate creating a damaging tussle between the President and the Prime Minister?

The President should not make the mistake of sacking this government. The same ground that produced the President also produced the current government. If the government becomes illegitimate, it also means the President becomes illegitimate. If the President sacks the PM, the country will go on a fierce conflict where there’ll be an Andolan to dismiss the President. It would be a difficult and highly unpredictable conflict. Thus, the only way the government can be changed is through consensus. This also applies for elections and reviving the CA. There’s no other way. The only thing the President can do is to facilitate that consensus. At the end, the norm of the parliamentary democracy is that if the parliament is dissolved, the prime minister continues until the next election is held. Steps by the President to sack the PM will also prove the failure of parliamentary democracy in Nepal.

Finally, what role is the judiciary going to play in coming days?

The judiciary, traditionally, has played a conservative role. It tends to give judgements that make things knottier, and it’s also usually been a rubber stamp for President’s decisions. Even the new CA election declared was the judiciary’s idea—the Interim Consti-tution didn’t envision a second CA election. Nevertheless, the path shown by the judiciary hasn’t been acceptable to the parties. The situation today is very complex. To add another layer of complexity to this and finish off a legally elected government will not be terrible. The way things are moving, I see the possibility of fierce conflict in the future.


Source: http://www.ekantipur.com/2012/06/25/oped/president-and-pm-are-on-a-path-of-confrontation/356122/