|
Was February 1 Royal Move necessary, or were there alternatives? Are the political parties or the Maoist rebels also responsible for February 1? What is the nikas (way-out)? Can curtailing of civil liberties and freedom be justified on the grounds of national security needs?
Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat, former Finance Minister, Member, Nepali Congress
Mr. Pradip Nepal, Spokesman, Communist Party of Nepal (UML)
Mr. Pashupati Shamsher Rana, President, Rastriya Prajatantra Party
Dr. Minendra Rijal, Spokesman, Nepali Congress (Democratic)
Mr. Pari Thapa, Vice Chairman, National People's Front
Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat: The royal move has given de jure character to the earlier de facto rule of the King. Revival of the House of Representative will be an immediate nikas to the current situation. The common men who spoke against the Maoists are now keeping silent.
It was simply not necessary. It has further complicated the already grave situation. We knew that the proxy Royal rule, through hand-picked Prime Ministers, since October 4, 2002 could not continue. But instead of resorting to democratic options, the King chose an authoritarian method. The latest action has given de jure character as well to the earlier de facto rule. No doubt, political parties have made mistakes in the past; but that does not justify the direct rule. Democracy is a self-correcting system. It takes time to gain maturity and perfection. At the same time, the twelve years of democracy has brought about visible changes in the lives of people, not only in their political lives, but also socio-economic.
The Maoist politics of violence and terror has taken a heavy toll in our national life, obstructed democratic process and functioning, and given the King the reason for his action. On the other hand, the October 4 action and subsequent developments have given validity to the Maoist theory that the "people-based sovereignty" enshrined in the present constitution is just an illusion, and that the ultimate power remains with the King as long as the army is under his effective control. The Maoists have justified their movement on this ground. Therefore, I have been saying that the insurgency and regression have re-enforced each other for different reasons.
The nikas lies in a democratic solution, both for the revival of the constitutional process, and in bringing an end to the insurgency. The country must be prepared for a radical political solution including election for a constitutional assembly as demanded by the Maoists, if that can make them renounce violence and lay down arms.
But the modality and method for such a solution must be democratic and constitutional. We have demanded the revival of the House of Representative until a new election can be held. The conventional wisdom is that until you have a new mandate, the previous mandate remains valid. The revival will reactivate the constitutional process, which has now been derailed. It will keep the democratic institutions functioning and will revive the constitutional politics. Political parties will fight in the parliament rather than on the streets as at present. That will fill the present political vacuum and enable them to confront the Maoists politically.
The curtailing of the civil liberties and freedom is not justified at all. You cannot create security by curtailing civil liberties and political freedom. In fact, the security situation could deteriorate with this. This seems to be the case at present. Just because no incident has happened in Kathmandu, does not mean that the situation has improved elsewhere. The incidents of prison raid, ambushes, highway blockades and other incidents are happening. There are reports that, because of the perceived threats, the frequency of security patrolling has reduced now. Because of the press censorship all events are not reported. One reason why there may be less violence against civilians is because the Maoists have deliberately stopped harming the cadres of the political parties in an attempt to entice them to their side. They have openly appealed to other political parties to jointly work with them against the monarchy to establish 'true democracy'. Common men who spoke against the Maoists are now keeping silent. Political party cadres who are already under the mercy of the Maoist guns in the countryside are now questioning the leaders why cannot we now join hands with them to restore democracy? The curtailing of press and other freedom is creating other distortions. People are now listening to Maoists- run FM radios for news not reported by the censored media.
Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat is the former Finance Minister and an influential second generation leader within the Nepali Congress, the largest political party in Nepal, which won 111 seats and 36 per cent of the total votes in the 1999 general election.
Mr. Pradip Nepal: The political parties need not take responsibility for February 1.
The royal move of February 1 was not necessary. There were no reasons for exploration of alternatives to democracy. Hence, the political parties need not take responsibility for the February 1 move. The Maoists who refused to talk with the government issues a statement that they would rather talk with the King, which is responsible to a certain extent in emboldening the King for the royal move.
The nikas lies in reestablishment of democratic system and the peace talks with the Maoist rebels. A coalition government must be formed, enveloping all parties represented in the dissolved parliament. Only such a government can have a meaningful dialogue with the rebels and bring the Maoists down to a peaceful path.
Under no pretext should citizens? freedom and rights should be curtailed. For the same reasons, the royal move of February 1 is wrong. The long term remedy of February 1 is to engage the nation in the process of full democracy.
Mr. Pradip Nepal is the Spokesman for the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) which secured 71 seats and 31 per cent of the total votes in the 1991 general election.
Mr. Pasupati Shamsher Rana:
The alternative was to change the Prime Minister or to try another multi-party coalition.
We failed to come to a consensus between the parties in parliament to resolve the crisis. The party cabinet could not rise to the occasion. There was a failure of cabinet leadership.
The insurgency caused the vast security build-up that made February 1 feasible.
The constitution visualises an emergency under multi-party norms, not without those norms. It has changed all equations. If a compromise is not brought about, the consequences are inconceivable.
Pashupati Shamsher Rana is the former Minister of the Water Resources and the Chairman of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party which won 11 seats and 10 per cent of the votes in the 1999 election before a faction, Janashakti Party, split away.
Dr. Minendra Rijal: The Nikas lies in a three-step strategy: An inter-party common minimum program; negotiations with the King to end direct rule; and formation of a new government to draw the roadmap to a peaceful resolution to the Maoist problem.
No, February 1 was not necessary. It has further aggravated the chances for lasting peace in Nepal. Unless, the King stays within the boundary of the constitutional monarchy and the universally accepted principles of democracy and people?s sovereignty, he will only add disincentives to the Maoist to enter into the peace negotiation process.
The Maoist?s resorting to violence has weakened the roots of democracy and has created a space for the King?s ambition to rule the country directly.
The way out from the current situation is as follows:
First, the parliamentary political parties should agree upon the common minimum program for the restoration of democracy and restore peace.
Second, the political parties can, based on their common minimum program, enter into negotiation with the King to end his direct rule and establish interim government with full executive and legislative authority.
Then, the new government can propose a roadmap of the political and social transformation for the peaceful resolution of the Maoist conflict.
The Royal proclamation of February 1 has deeply shattered the basic elements of the 1991 Constitution and reinforced the political parties? lingering doubt on the King?s willingness to respect the outcome of the glorious 1990 people?s revolution.
Dr. Minendra Rijal is the Party Spokesman of Nepali Congress (Democratic), a faction of the largest political party in Nepal, led by Former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba.
Mr. Pari Thapa: Political parties should accept responsibilities for their rigid adherence to few procedural phraseologies ignoring the weights of the multi-cultural identities within the country. National Peoples? Front takes a pro-republican stance, but emphasizes on a common minimum ground for a general consensus within the major political forces.
The Royal February 1 move was not only totally unnecessary but also futile. There were other democratic options, including a meaningful and results-oriented consultation among the mainstream political parties represented in the dissolved House of Representatives in order to reach a unanimous consensus at least adequate to find a way out to drive the country forward.
The mainstream political parties have some responsibilities in the February 1 incident. The unhealthy competition and meaningless animosity among them resulted in power-seekerism. Specifically, the two largest parties, Nepali Congress and CPN (UML), played a vital role in creating such circumstances. In their rivalry to win the King?s support to stick to the power politics, they remained negligent and reluctant in institutional as well as structural strengthening of democracy. They enjoyed chanting and reciting of a few cardinal and procedural phraseologies with respect to multi-party system, e.g. periodic elections, government of majority, opposition of minority, pluralistic open society etc. They had no idea of the special circumstances in our country with multi-cultural identities, where any model of democracy had to be socially inclusive and participatory for its values to be concrete reality. The same goes for the electoral system (representative vis-?-vis proportionate). Moreover, they overlooked the necessity of restructuring of the State and its bureaucratic structure. These provided grounds for the February 1 crisis, which attained the climax of regression. They called themselves democratic but their acts were not democratic.
With regard to the Maoists, they were in favor of the dissolution of the parliament, nullification of the 1991 Constitution, and eventually to the collapse of the multi-party democratic system. This makes them opposed to the normal operation of a democratic system. Further more, they maintained pressure on the mainstream political parties to the extent that they were in the verge of non-existence. These served the dark interests of the King and other regressive elements. These two interests came together to assemble a nexus, which turned out to be a fatal one to the democratic system in Nepal.
Regarding the issue of nikas, opinions may vary as per the individual or the party?s positions. We are, for example, in favor of a republican state through the election of constituent assembly (fulfilling all prerequisites for that) as a popular and duly democratic means. However, what is important is not the individual standpoint of a party but the political power constellation of the country. There should be a minimum common consensus amongst the mainstream political parties, other forces and the stakeholders. Such a minimum consensus would be on issues like ending autocracy, establishing full-fledged democracy, vesting the sovereign power in the hands of people, and visualizing a forward-looking political exit. To be precise, a genuine constitutional monarchy and multi-party democratic political system may lay down a common minimum ground for a general consensus, for which peace and democracy must be the essential elements. Frankly speaking, such an approach will merely be a compromise settlement.
Democracy, liberty and freedom go side by side, so curtailing liberties and freedom in a democratic country will not at any rate be ever justifiable. We cannot even think of any forms of liberty and freedom without democracy. If democracy is a skeleton, then liberty and freedom are its flesh and blood. As far as the issue of the greater good of the country like national security is concerned, firstly, we can't deem the greater good of the country merely from the security point of view, because without having a democratic system the nation itself can lead to a fragile situation. Secondly, the concerns for national security are not the business of a handful of people or the ruling elites. These elements alone cannot save the nation and provide security; this is the concern of all peace and justice-loving masses of people.
Mr. Pari Thapa is the Vice Chairman of the National Peoples? Front (Rastriya Janamorcha) which won 1 seat and 1.3 per cent of the votes in the general election of 1999.
[Post/view comments on this topic]
| 
Feedback Board