Ticking away - Nepali Times

Publisher\'s Note
Ticking away

FROM ISSUE #493 (12 MARCH 2010 - 18 MARCH 2010) | TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBSCRIBE NT

REFER

WRITE TO EDITOR

Nearly four years into the ceasefire, Nepal's peace process is stuck. Constitution-writing has ground to a halt. There seems to be a real danger of democratic reversal and backsliding. The political stalemate has brought about a state of national paralysis. Everything is on hold, and we're all waiting to see what happens next. The economy is stagnant, the country is literally in darkness. Lawlessness and crime have got worse, journalists are self-censoring and corruption doesn't even make the news anymore. The republic is on autopilot.

Things are a mess, but no one expected this to be easy. Is four years enough to expect a country to go through such wrenching change, and in all the chaos hope to write a new constitution?

There are major disagreements. But why are we surprised? In fact the big surprise is that the whole process hasn't unraveled in the past four years. There is some uncertainty about what will happen after May 28, but it's not going to be the end of the world.

What is holding things up is a power-sharing deadlock within the leadership trinity. The Maoists won't let things move until they are in government and the other two parties are adamant about not letting them in. There is consensus on the need for a political consensus, but that is about it.

We are tantalisingly close to our goal. Once a political accommodation is agreed, a lot of other things will fall into place. The external factor is important. The regional powers are not fighting a proxy power struggle in Nepal. Other external actors (the bilaterals and the UN) have to be very clear on basic values like democracy, pluralism and non-violence. You can't ban the use of political violence in your own country and tolerate it in another. You can't be democratic and excuse totalitarian tendencies. When a party (whichever party) in a post-conflict situation is actively using violence, threats and intimidation it has to be made clear that it won't be tolerated. Often, there is an attempt to look the other way to "protect the process" or the international community's need for a success story.

In the midst of all this, the people's real needs are more basic: jobs, food, schools and hospitals, clean government, law and order. The real threat to peace is a stagnant economy, lack of jobs, development at a standstill, and the people's rising frustration with this. Just this should be warning enough to the political leadership that time is of the essence.

READ ALSO:
Destination Unknown - FROM ISSUE #493 (12 MARCH 2010 - 18 MARCH 2010)
Never too late? - FROM ISSUE #493 (12 MARCH 2010 - 18 MARCH 2010)

1. Arthur
As usual the publisher pretends the issues over which the largest party resigned from government can simply be ignored.

What is holding things up is not "power sharing" but actual implementation of the peace agreement by democratizing the Nepal Army and integrating the PLA.

Pretending that the peace agreement and interim constitution are just scraps of paper so that Nepal's "business as usual" can proceed with dividing up the spoils of office seems to be so integral to the elite's world view that the publisher cannot even argue against opposing views but can only pretend that everyone has to view things the way he does.

Even more bizarre is the insistence that donors and the UN "must" also view the world as he does and join in fighting (Maoist) "totalitarian tendencies" while happily accepting that "democracy, pluralism and non-violence" can be achieved by scrapping the peace agreement and maintaining a government acceptable only to India and the Nepal Army. Are there any signs that either the donors or UNMIN are actually any more impressed with what the publisher says "must" be done than with what MKN says "must" be done?

The most recent indications seem to be the opposite, with donors losing patience with corruption and UNMIN with being blamed for refusal to carry out the peace agreement. I haven't seen any "external actors" other than India supporting the publisher's view that all Nepal needs is "power sharing" rather than implementation of the peace agreement.

As for the regional powers not fighting a proxy power struggle in Nepal, that's certainly a positive factor. But its odd not to mention India's role in creating and prolonging the life of a "government" that is obviously incapable of achieving anything at all.

Posted on: 12 MARCH 2010 | 2:22 PM NST

2. jange
Remind me again. What was wrong with the old constitution that it couldn't be amended to have whatever that was needed? And what will be in the new constitution that will make it so very significantly different than the last one?

Posted on: 12 MARCH 2010 | 5:28 PM NST