Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

The North American Nepali diaspora played a symbolic yet sincere role in the successful restoration of democracy in Nepal in 1990. The diaspora?s involvement in the movement arose from a conviction that 30 years of absolute monarchy had to make way for a pluralistic democracy with constitutional monarchy and sovereignty vested in the Nepali people. When the Constitution of 1991 was formally adopted, Nepalis in North America, like Nepalis everywhere, were filled with pride and hope. We sensed that a new Nepal was in the offing, and we were not wrong.

With the reinstatement of democracy, an open and participatory culture began to quickly take root in Nepal as citizens, at all levels, became the new and proper stakeholders in the destiny of the nation. Centuries of exclusion and oppression not withstanding, Nepalis even in the farthest hinterlands, were participating under democratic institutions now within their reach. From bold and independent Supreme Court decisions to unfettered growth and dynamism in the private sector (media/communications, education, airlines, to name a few), there was mounting evidence that Nepalis were both contributing to and benefiting from the new democratic order. In a very short period, Nepalis also showed themselves to be astute and mature voters, consistently voting on the basis of party ideology and not for limited parochial causes. Democracy was maturing and the results, gauged by any standard, were encouraging.

Despite the enthusiastic support and participation of the Nepali people, institutional weaknesses inherited by post-1990 Nepal began to take their toll on the emerging yet fragile polity. This took many forms: inexperience and incompetence of principal political actors, bad governance and corruption, peoples? skyrocketing expectations fuelled by the promises of exuberant, if na?ve, elected leaders and, rise of Maoist rebellion and an increasingly assertive monarchy. The situation got worse towards the later half of the 1990s.

In 1996 the ultra-leftists of Nepal grouped under the banner of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), declared an armed rebellion against the democratically elected government of the country. The rebellion was premised on the conviction that post-1990 democracy could not benefit the ? people? and that only the Maoists truly represented the interest of the Nepali masses. Unfortunately, the CPN (M) never seriously considered testing that assumption at the ballot boxes on a sustained basis like other parties have been willing to do. The rebellion, which aimed to create a communist republic in Nepal, undermined democratic practices systematically by obstructing fundamental democratic processes such as elections, grassroots-level organizations, and the presence and activities of political parties in the rural areas. To date, the rebellion has cost more than 11,000 Nepalese lives. Starting in 1996, a nascent democratic nation already strained to the limits to keep order and meet the multifarious demands of a super-mobilized polity, became progressively embroiled in a costly campaign to counter the determined and violent Maoist armed insurgency. Thus, to a large degree, political instability and crises seen in Nepal since 1996 are direct or indirect offshoots of the decision taken by the Maoists to collapse Nepal?s post-1990 political order through an armed insurgency.

Using the instability created by the Maoist rebellion as the pretext, on February 1, 2005, King Gyanendra dissolved a government he had appointed earlier, assumed all power and started to rule the country with absolute authority. Prior to this, the king had publicly expressed his disdain for political parties and declared his determination to assert an active role in the nation?s polity. Despite the verbal allegiance paid by the King to multiparty democracy in his February 1 speech, the King?s action that day served to validate the widespread perception among the educated general public as well as in the institutional memory of political parties that the monarchy and its associates have historically not been in favor of allowing democracy the space or opportunity to succeed in Nepal. How an extreme measure like alienating the political parties and dismantling the political middle ground helps in achieving the stated aims of combating Maoist extremism, remains completely unfathomable even to countries like India, UK, and the United States that have been at the forefront of supporting the state's counter insurgency operations for close to a decade.

The aberrations seen over the latter half of the 1990s in democratic practice undoubtedly demand correction. But, in fairness, such lapses are not uncommon experiences for nascent democracies. Pluralist democratic systems have shown an ability to self-correct over time without infringing on the fundamental rights of citizens. The truth is, in post-1990 Nepal there were a great many indications that democracy was being embraced by ever-larger circles of Nepalis as a valid and empowering political medium with ever growing potential for transforming socio-political structures and relationships unchanged for centuries. Unquestionably, democracy and political parties have a long way to go in Nepal. However, the Maoists are wrong to assume that liberal democracy in Nepal could never function in the interest of the general good. And no less wrong are the architects of the royal takeover of February 1, whose actions only seem to confirm the perception that they do not trust or desire political parties and the masses they represent to make democracy work. To kill the system itself due to governance-problems and incompetence of some of its leaders is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Nepali state today, and with it a hard won democracy, are endangered as never before.

The Nepali diaspora in North America is deeply concerned with the worsening political, economic, and security situation in our home country. After February 1, members of the Diaspora spent two months in intense debate trying to understand the factors leading to the present crisis. The discussion attempted to identify and conceptualize the terrain where the contending political forces might meet, work, and together help to usher in a new era of democracy in Nepal. Nepali scholars from Kathmandu contributed significantly to the discussion. A central theme that emerged from this collective endeavor is that solution is possible only when the parties in conflict, monarch, Maoists and parliamentary parties, choose to move to the middle ground. This paper attempts to summarize the majority view that emerged out of our discussion. It also outlines various issues, which will need to be addressed immediately to regain the middle ground. The idea is to restore, strengthen and sustain democracy under a revitalized state structure and government that the majority of Nepalis will accept as representative and legitimate.

An overwhelming majority of the contributors to this debate believe:

• All the principal players (the Maoists, parliamentary parties, and the King) in the current conflict have inherent interest in finding a peaceful exit from the present quagmire.

• The present conflict cannot be resolved solely through the use of military means, it must be tackled politically as well.

• A solution to the present conflict cannot be found without reinstating full democracy, including the participation and leading role of parliamentary political parties in shaping the future of the country.

• The king must immediately create an environment where parliamentary parties are taken into confidence so that they can fulfill the leading role and responsibilities vested in them by the 1991 constitution.

• Presently, a vast majority of Nepali people do not support abolishing the monarchy and establishment of a republican state.

• King Gyanendra?s February 1 move has actually complicated and tarnished rather than protect the image and place of the monarchy in Nepal. Hence, for any other solutions to be viable, February 1 must be reversed immediately.

• Adopting violent means to achieve political ends is unacceptable by any party, including the state.

• A middle ground that considers the aspirations of all the conflicting political forces and guarantees restoration of peace and democracy.

• Peace and progress in Nepal can be achieved only through more democracy not less.

• Major structural changes in the nation's administrative system and devolution of political and economic power must be the building blocks of a sustainable democracy.

• The RNA must come under the command of the democratically elected government of Nepal and must be answerable to the national parliament.

• Legal provisions to punish corruption in public office must be proactive, transparent and applicable to all.

• A comprehensive affirmative action strategy must be implemented to correct the centuries-old problem of ethnic, regional, social and gender exclusion.

A clear consensus that emerged out of the debate was that there is no solution to Nepal?s conflict unless political forces agree to work from a common ground. It is evident that any move to the MG requires all contending political forces to shift slightly their presently held positions; however there appears to be no need for a major ideological shift. The concept of the MG is built on trust and good faith in the commitment for the betterment of Nepal and is therefore based on the assumption that all political forces want an exit from the present quagmire.

We take note that the King has repeatedly pronounced his commitment to multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy; the Maoists have announced their support to multiparty democracy as long as the constitution of the nation is framed by a duly elected constituent assembly; and the parliamentary parties are committed to democracy with a constitutional monarch. Based on the above, members of the diaspora propose that all political forces agree to a MG with the following conditions:

• The King's role in the future constitution is modeled after constitutional monarchy in European countries (satisfies the King's concerns about the future stability and assures continuity of the institution of monarchy) and the future constitution is framed by a constituent assembly elected for the purpose (satisfies Maoist demand for election of a constituent assembly)

• The current government be replaced by a government which enjoys the support of a wide section of the country's population and is composed of representatives of political parties (satisfies parliamentary parties and civil society demands)

• The leader of the new government is selected by the majority vote of an interim assembly deemed to represent the major political parties of the country.

• The mandate of the new government will be to immediately start peace negotiations with the Maoists and hold elections within six months after signing the truce agreement.

The construction of a middle ground must necessarily proceed through a series of steps. In the first instance it should be clear that without a full reversal of the regime shift signaled by February 1, all attempts to create middle ground will carry little meaning. Parties in Nepal represent the most moderate elements of the political spectrum, and without them Nepal drifts to the extremes. In a constitutional monarchy political parties make it possible for the monarchy to rein without ruling, thus shielding it from vagaries that inevitably come with direct rule. Therefore, it is imperative that the first step toward the middle ground comes in the form of a dignified and amicable rapprochement between Nepal?s two major constitutional bulwarks, the monarchy and the political parties. This could be followed by the constitution of the interim assembly.

It is not the intention of this paper to discuss in detail the composition of the interim assembly. However, the discussion group was in general agreement that an assembly comprising members of dissolved parliament with representation from the Maoists, if possible, will be the least controversial and most effective.

During the course of discussion, a series of comments were received on ways to improve democratic practice in the country. They were summarized in the last eight items in the section ?Views on Conflict Resolution,? presented above. A few of the general remedial principles that came up repeatedly in our discussions are summarized under Section ?A?. Section ?B? represents a highly compressed version of the diaspora?s specific recommendations regarding the need for a decentralized and devolutionary state structure in Nepal. The two sections, necessarily, compliment each other.

Internal Party Democracy: Political leaders no longer enjoy the popularity and legitimacy that they carried with them at the start of the new democratic era in 1990. Part of the reason is that operation of the parties lack transparency and democracy within themselves. Younger members of political parties often complain that party bosses run the party like a fiefdom. Party finances are not audited. The lack of inner-party democracy has made the party leaders and office bearers lacking in accountability and discouraged the growth of new leadership with political parties.

The constitution and the rules, which govern the functioning of political parties, should have the force of a legal contract between the party and its members and when these rules are broken, the aggrieved should have the right to seek restitution in an appropriate court of law. Just as there are better models to follow on constitutional monarchy than the one we have, so there are better models to follow on party democracy and functioning, including European and Canadian models.

Political Accountability: It is not uncommon for politicians to say one thing during an election and to do otherwise afterwards. Even developed countries are struggling with the issue of making politicians accountable.

In some parts of Canada and the United States, there are provisions for recalling elected representatives if they blatantly violate their election promises. Nepal could benefit and consider such legislations without jeopardizing stability.

RNA under the Command of the Government: Under the principles of the Middle Ground, the King?s role will be that of a constitutional monarch. It follows that the King will be the ceremonial commander of the army, but the army will work under the command of the serving government, which enjoys the confidence of the parliament. A mechanism for non-partisan deployment of the army needs to be worked out by consensus among the parliamentarians.

It can be argued that this transition of control will be most easily achieved under a cooperative constitutional monarchy than with any other form of government.

Abolition of Corruption in Public Places: The perception that corruption exists can be many times more debilitating to political systems than the actual extent of corruption itself. Nepal is a country where the public perception is that there is routine, massive, and pervasive corruption at all levels of the state. Without going into how and why this perception arose, it seems urgent that state actors in Nepal take steps to restore the public?s faith in civil institutions and to tackle both the perception and real extent of corruption.

The fact that no country, including developed countries, is free from corruption should not be an excuse to tolerate corruption. It will probably be impossible to eliminate corruption completely, but some of the most corrupt societies of the past are now amongst the cleanest now (e.g. Singapore and Hong Kong). The most important tools against corruption are the development of strong civil society, fourth estate, and vigorous and impartial enforcement of anticorruption laws. The government should encourage investigative journalism, reward whistle-blowers, and public honesty. Eliminating excessive bureaucracy and red tape, lifting undue quotas and import restrictions, and increasing transparency in government tenders and licenses also reduce opportunities for corruption.

Individual members of the Nepali diaspora have been at the forefront of advocating substantive devolution of political and economic powers for strengthening local democracy and addressing long standing structural inequities within Nepal. Achieving a workable balance in the distribution of political and economic resources and responsibilities between the center and the various regions is an essential aspect of reducing conflict and keeping Nepali politics in the middle ground.

The following devolutionary goals have been identified as necessary and practical ways through which the historically over-centralized Nepali state structure might be made to divest prerogatives in favor of the regions. Obviously, these ideas need to be further refined through discussions so they can fit well into the Nepali context.

Elected regional government: In a varied and heterogeneous nation like Nepal, a single (and distant) elected central government ends up limiting rather than fostering the people?s faith in democracy. By bringing to life layers of elected bodies around the country, the concept of regional government will add depth and density to democracy in Nepal.

Revenue sharing: The Nepali state has not shed its basic extractive and predatory character since its inception. Great economic and development imbalances persist between regions. A revenue-sharing mechanism (e.g., hydro power) between the center and the proposed regional governments will balance regional economic growth and will bring more equal benefits to local populations. Responsibility without financial resources is a recipe for failure.

Modification of electoral representation formula: Democracies become more widely accepted and stable when citizens feel that their votes count. It is being widely accepted that the ?winner-take-all? electoral system, such as adopted by Nepal, fails to recognize the voice of the minority and increases their sense of political alienation and cynicism about democracy. Alternative political systems which co-opt minority representation in government are far more suitable in a culturally and geographically variegated country like Nepal. Such systems have been developed and adopted by many countries.

Administrative decentralization: ?Democracy? means rule of the people. There is no effective ?rule of the people? when the administration of the entire nation is sanctioned from the center, with little or no discretionary input or role for local and regional entities. The constitution should spell out clearly the respective jurisdictions of the local/village, region, and center. The Canadian Constitution can serve as a good example.

The call of our time is to safeguard the accomplishments of the 1990 People?s Movement, to restore sovereignty of the nation in the people, and to work towards the middle ground to resolve the nation?s core problems. History teaches that recognizing, adopting and adhering to the middle path takes much vision and courage. The natural instinct is to stick to one?s own interpretation of the world (usually based on narrow self-interest) and to shun ideas and individuals that require a voluntary shift to the middle. But success in politics and statecraft, more so than in any other area in human affairs, is hinged to the middle ground in a way that ultimately requires friend and foe to migrate sufficiently towards each other so that the peoples? business can move forward and flourish. We urge all political forces in Nepal to recognize that great achievements in the affairs of nations have come about when leaders practiced the art of compromise. There is no dishonor for Nepal?s monarch and political leaders to follow in the path of the likes of Gandhi, Nehru and Mandela.

(Discussion contributors: Dharma Acharya, Ph.D.; Ambika Adhikari, Ph.D.; Roger Adhikari; Gaury Adhikary, MD; Pramod Aryal, Ph.D.; Alok K. Bohara, Ph.D.; Girija Gautam; Shiva Gautam, Ph.D.; Madhu Ghimire, MD; Naresh Koirala; Shambhu Lama; Anup Pahari, Ph.D.; Mallika Shakya; Arun Sharma; Vijaya Sharma, Ph.D.; Puru Subedi; Sharda Jung Thapa; and Suman Timsina)