The winner can't take all

Publisher\'s Note
The winner can't take all

FROM ISSUE #516 (20 AUG 2010 - 26 AUG 2010) | TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBSCRIBE NT

REFER

WRITE TO EDITOR

KIRAN PANDAY

It is now becoming clear that Nepal's main political parties can only agree on one thing: postponing deadlines to keep disagreeing.

On May 28, when it looked like they couldn't do it any other way, they agreed to postpone the writing of a new constitution by one more year. Nearly three months later, nothing has been done on the constitution or the peace process, and the country is wedged between two prime ministerial candidates. Then on Tuesday, the chief whips of the three parties actually managed to agree to postpone voting for the fifth round till Sunday, because it looked like the deadlock would continue.

What this means is they can agree when push comes to shove. Although the leaders of the political parties believe this means they have five more days to horse-trade, it also means that there is more time to find a consensus candidate to lead an all-party government. By now, even the more die-hard proponents of majoritarian rule within the three parties have realised that this is just not going to work because their relative strengths in parliament cancel each other out. They also know that the endless elections are turning into a political farce, and public disenchantment is growing.

While the NC still hopes that it can get the UML and Madhesi leaders to issue whips to back Ram Chandra Poudel, both the kingmaker parties have been forced to remain 'neutral' if for no other reason than to keep themselves intact. The Maoist central committee has got the message, and says it is 'flexible' even though Chairman Dahal hasn't yet formally given up trying to improve his tally in the electoral arithmetic.

Nearly five years after the war ended and two years after the elections, this is what it has come down to. The lack of trust between the two political camps is so great that there is chronic failure to compromise, and hence no agreement on a consensus candidate for prime minister. On the surface it looks like a power struggle, and it seems to be driven by individual ambition. That is partly true. But at the root of the disagreement is a chasm between those who think an unreformed Maoist party wants to take the country down the path to totalitarianism, and the Maoist chairman's determination to be in power when the constitution is written.

If a trust deficit is the reason for this deadlock, the onus is on the Maoists to prove to the NC and UML, among others, that they are serious about metamorphosing into a legitimate mainstream political entity by demonstrating a commitment to fulfil the six demands. The NC and UML also have a responsibility to be less stubborn about keeping the largest party out of government.

The main ingredient of a consensus is compromise, not winner takes all.

READ ALSO:
Twin crises, PRASHANT JHA
The urban bias, CK LAL
Nein Kampf, INDU NEPAL

1. who cares

"....they agreed to postpone the writing of a new constitution by one more year". ï¿½ .... if you can produce this regularly, the note writer can have his own "FRIDAY NIGHT with ..." show.

there is another huge reason behind maosit not converting into civilian party, they do not mind staying away from govt.,,,, all they have to do is postpone election,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, is they are getting to loot, they are above the law,,,,,,,, tell me, which one is more beneficial to central committee members as well as cadres. ... joining govt. and not getting to loot, not getting to live luxurious life or not joining govt. and still above the law, protected by party, pla, ycl...... .............

see, uml is in govt. and still their cadres are committing suicide. .... but for maoist, its like happy days.ï¿½

so, one of the ways to press maoist is their criminal activities should be firmly dealt (shut to kill) and cut their illegal source of income.ï¿½

Posted on: 20 AUG 2010 | 1:41 PM NST

2. whatever
Stall,

if you don't know what to do, just stall. These guys are so good at it that sometimes I think we're going backwards in time. Its not even funny anymore.

Posted on: 20 AUG 2010 | 4:52 PM NST

3. Arthur
"If a trust deficit is the reason for this deadlock, the onus is on the Maoists to prove to the NC and UML, among others, that they are serious about metamorphosing into a legitimate mainstream political entity by demonstrating a commitment to fulfil the six demands."

Given the backwardness and extreme poverty of Nepal under the "legitimate mainstream" why is there an onus on the Maoists to prove anything to the old parties?

Nobody else trusts the old parties and they do not trust each other. If they had reason to trust that the Maoists would become like them then the Maoists would be as distrusted by the people as the old parties are.

"The NC and UML also have a responsibility to be less stubborn about keeping the largest party out of government."

But then there would be a constitution followed by elections and the NC and UML would become even more marginal. The whole point is to postpone elections and preserve their ability to keep looting.

Posted on: 20 AUG 2010 | 9:19 PM NST

4. who cares
here again,

you fool arthur, for your kind information, its maoist and jhalanath who do not want any kind of election, even the election for pm in the house, ,,, and almost everyone else has started to demand for election.

dont just write lies.

Posted on: 20 AUG 2010 | 11:15 PM NST

5. James,Manchester
Tossers the lot of them.Only interested in themselves and that includes you Prachandre and Batterai who i used to have time for

Posted on: 20 AUG 2010 | 3:12 AM NST

6. Rajaram
No more Hitler's Jugend, Stalinite Comsomol, El Duche's Black Shirts or Chaing Ching's Youth Guards or ,Polpot' Youth Gangs; we cannot think of any parties Para-military organization. Can't even talk of private army. Desolve them first; whether YCL or PLA.Give them Golden or Platinum Hand-shake. First get rid of them from our daily life. Abjure violence, make the country like Costa Rica;free of regular military .gradually., replacing by security forces. Make Nepal an example of Peace and Democracy in this part of the world.
Create level playing field for all.parties. Compete with economic and social agenda for governing. ; interim or periodic term.
Constitution must be befiting 21st century globally accepted democratic one. This is the minimum we can afford.
We are serious about that and none of anyone's monkey tricks or advocacy any longer.
Enough is enough. We have had enough by now.

Posted on: 21 AUG 2010 | 6:43 AM NST

7. Slarti

I most sincerely wish I had your ability and wisdom to look at things as clearly and arrive at a conclusion so easily.

Lest you complain that the lady doth protest too much, let me get to the point. You are wrong.

The facts that you have quoted should have helped you arrive at the right conclusion that the reason that nobody has agreed so far is because there is no point of agreement at the end of that compromise.

The precondition to an agreement is that the parties should be able to agree where they want to be. The Maoists and the political parties don't.

The reason they were able to extend the term of the fraudulent assembly was because they both wanted it, they reached a compromise to get the most out of what they wanted. But the fact that they managed to reach a compromise confirms that it was because an extension was in both their interests.

The country, the constitution, the "people" and men and women who form it are none of these politicians concerns. They pay lip service to all of that. Had they been concerned about that, the Maoists would not have launched a murder campaign, the political parties would not have agreed to ditch the old constitution and the Monarchy.

The only institution that showed concern for the people, truly, was the Monarchy. The murderers and the fraudsters quickly agreed to ditch it because they agreed that the Monarchy's concern was not theirs.

Posted on: 21 AUG 2010 | 4:01 PM NST

8. Satya Nepali

You are right. The political parties now have the ability to postpone things and be as irresponsible as they like. This is a result of abolishing the monarchy.

Let me request fellow readers to extend their memories to the pre-2008 period. Even though the monarchy was in a state of suspension during 2006-08, its latent presence got these parties TO ACT. They dilly-dallied even then, but got to a decision at midnight of the deadline day because they were afraid the Monarchy might do something. In other words, the monarchy was a CHECK AND BALANCING FORCE that kept these parties in line.

And that is precisely the reason why these parties wanted to abolish it: so that there would be no "check-and-balancing" force on their power. By abolishing the monarchy, the Nepali people have (inadvertently) given the parties carte blanche to be as IRRESPONSIBLE as they like. We have created a new 'NIRANKUSH' system. There is no 'ankush' on the parties anymore.

The monarchy is an institution that can play this highly important and necessary 'ankushe' or 'check-and-balancing' role in our polity.

Nepalis should learn the right lessons from the experiences of the 50s, the 90s and the current period (2005-10). The Monarchy is a force that can play a useful, constructive, balancing and stabilizing role in our polity! We ignore this lesson at our own peril.

Posted on: 21 AUG 2010 | 11:20 PM NST

9. KaluBhadgaule
"and the Maoist Chairman's determination to be in power when the constitution is written"
.This Lady Macbeth of Nepali politics has become a real spoil sport.But he only has no monopoly for that.
Let us have a fresh poll to elect a sob- s of Nepali politics.Let us see ,who are nominated and how much votes they can carry.

Posted on: 22 AUG 2010 | 6:19 AM NST

10. Budabaaje

Satya Nepali is absolutely right! If the King were around now, do you think these politicians would have the luxury of postponing everything endlessly? The King would have nominated a PM and we would have moved on. And that's how it should be.

In the name of "democracy", "peace process", "transition" or some other clever excuse, the politicians/parties have no right to do what they are doing now. This is just a mockery and an insult of the Nepali people ï¿½and of the idea of democracy!

BRING BACK THE MONARCHY! That will teach these 'wolf-in-sheep's clothing' politicians (i.e. feudalists-in-democrats'-disguise) a lesson they will NEVER forget!

Posted on: 22 AUG 2010 | 6:26 PM NST

11. Battisputali
The ideal solution would be to: amend the interim constitution; have another election. Nepal doesn't need to bring back the Monarchy to get out of this situation. Give the president the power to call elections to get out of the stalemate. Ah, but we have to depend upon the parties to do this many of which perceive that they have a lot to loose from having another election. Sucks.

Has anyone else noticed that the Congress Party might (in the long-term) have the most to gain from this parliamentary stalemate? It may only be a correlation but (judging by the news stories across the board) congress may be headed for a strong reorganization internally and is getting quite a lot of good PR from aforementioned stories about internal change, which will potentially place it in good position in the next election (whenever it may happen).

Posted on: 24 AUG 2010 | 1:29 AM NST

12. Kiranti
Does it matter at all who gets to sit on the coveted chair? They and their supporters are all the same, eyeing the moolah only.

Posted on: 25 AUG 2010 | 3:30 PM NST

13. K. K. Sharma
This is not the year 2002. The incompetnts cannot be sacked now.So Nepal has to live with the rule of the incompetnts. And they have the right to be incompetent, because Nepali intellectuals had supported them.

Posted on: 25 AUG 2010 | 12:38 AM NST