Pointless 3 points- Nepali Times

Publisher\'s Note
Pointless 3 points

FROM ISSUE #505 (04 JUNE 2010 - 10 JUNE 2010) | TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBSCRIBE NT

REFER

WRITE TO EDITOR

There is nothing in the 3-point resolution reached just before midnight last Friday that is not already in the 12-point, 40-point, or 6-point agreements that have gone before.

Striking an agreement is not the problem, the difficulty is putting into practice what is agreed. Which is why they took it right down to the wire last week: so they could pull a fast one, fudge things so that they could continue to bicker endlessly. There is nothing here that couldn't have been agreed on six months ago, so why did the interlocutors indulge in such brinkmanship, punish the people with crippling strikes and hold the country's economy and development hostage?

Our politicians outdid themselves. Even by the low standards of responsibility and conscientiousness that they have now become world renowned for, their selfish and mindless lust for power that is the heart of this deadlock is breathtaking.

We have a habit here of always looking at the bright side, however, and this time, too, we could say, "It could have been worse." The 3-point agenda may be a dud, but at least the CA term was extended. The last-minute non-deal pulled us back from the edge of the cliff. It was a face-saving collection of words that bought time for more bickering for sure, but not extending the CA would have invited an even more dangerous scenario of instability and upheaval. The extremists of the right and left would have exploited the fluid situation to push through their agenda of turning the clock back, and squeezing the democratic middle.

There are only two ways ahead. One is to be cynical about it and say the Maoists will never compromise, the prime minister will never resign, and one year won't be enough. The other is to strengthen the moderate and pragmatic voices within all three parties so that they look beyond their partisan ambitions to the long-term national interest.
Just one glance at the economy may be instructive: the contraction of the banking sector continues, high interest rates have killed new investments and the balance of trade deficit with India has created a shortage of Indian rupees and fostered a black market in cash. The nation and the people can't take this punishment for much longer.

It doesn't really matter who gets to be prime minister. In fact, 'none of the above' would be the way to go, handing over day-to-day governance to a small team of technocrats within each party that can get the economy moving again, improve service delivery and tackle law and order so businesses are not extorted and people can live without fear of being kidnapped.

The politicians can then concentrate on what they were elected to do: write an inclusive, democratic constitution that will extricate this country from the quagmire they have got us into.

1. jange
The politicians can then concentrate on what they were elected to do: write an inclusive, democratic constitution that will extricate this country from the quagmire they have got us into.

Why should they? The gravy train's term will be extended again net year. And the media will have something to talk about in the meantime.

Posted on: 04 JUNE 2010 | 3:53 PM NST

2. Harka

My view is tht MKN had no mandate to be in the government in the first place. As it is a fact that it is only because of the love of the daughter Girija had agreed to put MKN up as the PM. MKN has further lost the ground to be the PM.

At this time, all attention must be paid to the writing of the constitution.

Becaus the constitution was not written within the two years the Nepalis gave to the CA, shouldn't we ask for the resignation of te CA head and others who were receiving their salaries and allowances? There is no guarantee that the constitution will be written in time. At worst case, it will be dragged to the very last minute again even if it comes through and thus haphazardly done and leaving many unhappy. Unhappy not only they did not find what should have been there but there was no time to reflect on it and get back to it.

May I suggest that there be a small government of advisors, instead of ministers, headed by the chief advisor. This advisory government should be based on a non party basis. While the chief advisor and advisors will run the day to day government work, all politicians should be busy in writing the constitution.

May I also further say that those who aspire to get a government appointment or run in an election in the next five years should be barred from being in the advisory post to run the government. The advisors to be appointed should be scrutinized by a committee to ensure that there is no controversy surrounding any of them or no evasion of tax payment any time. At the same time, we do not want to appoint a saint in such a post that requires efficiency as well as management and policy decisions. Therefor, all inefficient and incompetent bureaucrats should be weeded out from this advisory council.

THIS IS THE ONE-POINT AGREEMENT THAT THREE BIG PARTIES OUUGHT TO HAVE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Does this sound reasonable??

MKN, please resign immediately further to the formation of the Advisory Council following the scrutiny by a tough committee of civil society, retired judges and journalists (minus Dhamala and that type) others.

No further stalemate and dillydallying in resigning, Mr. Prime Minister.

Posted on: 05 JUNE 2010 | 6:07 PM NST

3. Arthur
"the way to go, handing over day-to-day governance to a small team of technocrats within each party that can get the economy moving again, improve service delivery and tackle law and order so businesses are not extorted and people can live without fear of being kidnapped."

Last words of the "democratic muddle" so afraid of elections between Maoists and anti-Maoists that it dreams of another "non-party" panchayat.

Certainly this is a "muddle". But what is supposed to be "democratic" about "a small team of technocrats"?

Does Kunda Dixit understand where his fear of elections has landed him?

Posted on: 06 JUNE 2010 | 2:41 AM NST

4. Danny
The Maoists agreeing to extend the CA is no concession,it was to their interest as well. Do,nt forget that.Point no.2 for the interest of all parties;except the royal aspirant,s party. Clause no.1 and 2 are only of real importance,for the making of democratic constitution.. .The main question Ultimate Reality is whether we want Pluralism or Totalitaranism? This will make or unmake the new constitution.Orthodox Communism to its adherants is like Relgious fundamentalism ,.They exhibit a tendency to claim to be the true religion,the true revelation,the true way of salvation or release.But today,s world is of political pluralism,due to mixed identities of ethnicity or religion.The breaking of cultural,racial linguistic and geographical boundaries is going on an unprecidented scaleall over the world.For the first time tn the recorded history of mankind,we are becoming a world community.Credal, dogmatic,fudamentalists,bigots,have got to change themselves.Liberty,Equality and Fraternity! Let Real/Liberal Democracy with Social Justice for the have-not be the oder of the day.Create Wealth to distribute uniforly.

Posted on: 07 JUNE 2010 | 6:01 AM NST

5. jange
It is only when you recognise that the Maoists are a Mafia organisation that their activities make any logical sense.

One day, in the not too distant future, the NT will realise that.

Posted on: 09 JUNE 2010 | 4:24 PM NST

6. Satyajeet Nepali

"The extremists of the right and left would have exploited the fluid
situation to push through their agenda of turning the clock back, and
squeezing the democratic middle."

Yet another cliché and hollow assertion from Mr. Dixit (read Mr. Deceit!)

As far as "extremists of the left" are concerned, for all their
posturing, it is totally in their interest to hang on to the CA.
Common, in their more-than-decade-long struggle, the CA is the
greatest weapon they've managed to chance upon (thanks of course, as
Arthur puts it, to the "democratic muddle"). Why would they ever let
go of it? It was their priceless ticket to becoming a legitimate
political party without ever giving up their illegitimate structures
and agendas?

As for "extremists on the right" my long-standing question remains:
please identify them and their "extremist" actions. Who are these
dangerous rightists? And what "extreme" actions have they undertaken
until now? On the contrary, *excluding the right* from the so-called
"peace process" may lead to the birth of rightist extremism as Biraj
Bista pointed out in last week's Guest column.

The real truth is that the genuine "democratic middle" has been
hijacked and misled by an *extremely* short-sighted and partisan
political and intellectual leadership. This leadership is as extreme
in its dishonesty and deceit towards its followers as it is in its
"muddle-headedness" as to any coherent political strategy or vision
for long-term national benefit. They hide behind worn clichés about
the virtues of democracy without ever practicing them in their
personal lives.

It is this DISHONEST and MINDLESS leadership that the real "democratic
middle" should throw off if our country is to progress.

…And REFERENDUMS may be the best way of doing that.

Posted on: 09 JUNE 2010 | 3:18 AM NST

7. Johann
The fact that Mr Dixit is getting it from both the lefft (Arthur) and the right (Satyajit) probably means the publisher is on the right track. The Absolute Maoists and Absolute Royalists don't realise both are outdated ideologies that are enemies of democracy and freedom. Both depend on patronage, cronyism, corruption and intimidation to survive. One is led by a personality cult, the other is a feudal vestige.

Posted on: 10 JUNE 2010 | 4:46 PM NST

8. jange
Satyajeet Nepali- "...becoming a legitimate political party without ever giving up their illegitimate structures and agendas?"

Sums up the Maoists perfectly.

Posted on: 10 JUNE 2010 | 5:16 PM NST

9. jange
Satyajeet Nepali- "...becoming a legitimate political party without ever giving up their illegitimate structures and agendas?"

Sums up the Maoists perfectly.

Posted on: 10 JUNE 2010 | 5:16 PM NST

10. Arthur
Satyajeet Nepali #6,

I guess by extreme right Kunda Dixit means monarchists such as yourself together with others who support and call for military rule.

He needs to exaggerate the strength (and/or "extremism") of such people so that he can present his own views as "the democratic middle" which is "squeezed" from both sides.

His real focus is on attacking the "extreme left" so if he did not pretend there is also a strong "extreme right" it would be natural for people to think of him as representing "the right" (whether "moderate" or "extreme"). He wants to be thought of as "the democratic middle" so even if people like you did not exist, he would have to invent you.

To answer your question, I think that in reality the most "extreme" action from the right so far has been the military veto on democratization of the Nepal Army and integration of the two armies. That has paralyzed the peace process and everything else in Nepal for a year now. So it is pretty extreme.

From a right wing position that is perfectly proper and natural since the army is a "stakeholder" in politics entitled to protect its own vital interests, and is saving the state from capture by the "extreme left".

Unfortunately that extreme right wing position is the central focus of opposition to the Maoists and the basis on which the current government was organized by India and still continues.

So Kunda Dixit cannot call it "extreme right wing" or even "right wing". (Although in any democratic country an army chief attempting to veto any political decision would be summarily dismissed).

This "democratic muddle" cannot describe these extreme actions of the right, because it does not oppose those extreme actions but only opposes the forces fighting them, abusing those fighting against a military veto as "extreme".

The muddle cannot actually describe extreme actions of the left either, since the Maoists are being very restrained in the face of continuous provocations (including murder).

All it can do is dream its muddled dreams of "a small team of technocrats" taking power.

Posted on: 10 JUNE 2010 | 10:43 PM NST

11. Sargam
#Satyajeet Nepali, Do you really like 'Satya'? But a Satya depends upon who regards it and from what angle?

I've the feeling that you cannot digest the situation of no more Monarchy. You should now think from the angle that maybe your own son also could become one day the president of Nepal. Why can't you see things in projection? If there were no massacre at Narayanhiti palace we'd have given benefit of doubt. But there is this regicide and still we are incapable of pointing our finger at the instigator behind this tragedy.

Please be clear of your choice. Why do you become the supplier of fodder to Maoists? Think about the future of your offspring. Do you want that your children bear the yoke of Maoism during more or less 30 years?

Do you want that Nepal remain a backward country like Laos, North Korea? Never in the past a communist country could provide peace and happiness to a country where such a regime was tried. See what Jyoti Basu made of West Bengal. He simply made WB the poorest state of India.

Why should Nepal become again a country of laboratory for political experience that we know will be deleterious for the population?

Let us be a simple country where folks are happy to live without constraints imposed by some illusionists?

Posted on: 10 JUNE 2010 | 4:50 AM NST

12. Sargam
#Johann has my full backing.There is one person on this thread who has a clear vision of Nepalese politics is Johann.

Buck up and keep going.

Posted on: 11 JUNE 2010 | 10:39 AM NST