MIN RATNA BAJRACHARYA

In the last few days, Nepali politics has become tangled and unpredictable. Clarity is the first casualty in the maze that this final run-up to the constitutional deadline has become.

The political parties and their leaders are reactive, setting their agenda on the basis of what they believe are the strategies of opponents within and outside their parties. Overlapping interests and tactics have meant that they have lost sight about what all this is supposed to be about: constitution-writing and concluding the peace process. It is time for them to sit back and look at themselves in perspective, see how far we have come since the 12-point understanding and assess the historical changes this nation has gone through.

Politics in Nepal has changed for the better. Not everyone will accept that, but if you think deeper, it is true. In spite of everything, the political transformation of the past three years cannot be underestimated. A 250-year old Hindu kingdom became a progressive, secular republic, which gives 33 per cent representation to women and recognises rights of the marginalised. That is a tremendous step forward for a country that was steeped in feudalism and until recently was in the throes of a bloody war. The current standoff among the parties is to a great extent about claiming ownership of this change.

When it comes to hard political bargaining, each party is very careful about how much it is willing to concede to its opponents. So there is a 'marriage of convenience' which is exposed when you get to the nitty-gritty. Loktantra, for instance, means different things to different parties. Similarly, there is a debate between the NC and the Maoists regarding the right to private property and land reform. But, to be honest, there isn't much of a gap between the two on a liberalised economy, with the debate only on the modalities of implementation.

The least of all problems between the two parties is an ideological conflict. The parties have progressed from dogmatism, and the tussle is more about power-sharing. There is fear among NC leaders about the growing leftist influence in the country. So, the slogan of the "threat of left-wing dictatorship" propagated by the party is more to consolidate its own political sphere of influence than an actual perceived threat. Similarly,having decided to lay down their guns the Maoists need as much political influence to build a strong public support base.

The strong rhetoric that is flying around just reflects the effort by both sides to enhance their bargaining positions. Remember, the situation was just the reverse last year, and the Maoists were able to pressurise Madhav Nepal to resign as a condition for extension. But the bottom line is this: everyone wants an extension because these are political actors and they understand very well that politics does not operate in a vacuum.

The government's 46-week work schedule is actually another way to say 'one year'. The first 12 weeks is proposed for completing the peace process, which can be completed sooner if there is agreement among the parties. The debate about the system of governance will be intense and it will take several rounds of meetings before the parties come up with a compromise formula acceptable to all. But if everybody agrees on the UML's proposal of the French model, then the debate can be resolved overnight.

Same is true with the nature of federalism, and the kind of electoral system. There can easily be a politically acceptable compromise if the parties climb down to reality from their populist posturing. The time frame is neither strictly in line with the proposed schedule, nor is it overstated. Even agreeing on a proposed timeframe is a positive indication.

The political parties must have learned in the last three years that they cannot operate as if this is politics-as-usual. Nepal is still in transition, when the rules are different. It demands compromise, decisions by consensus and sobriety, not populist sloganeering on the streets. We have to return to the spirit of the 12-point agreement and forge that consensus again to complete the task at hand in the extended timeframe.

Prof. Krishna Khanal is the director at Center for Constitutional Dialogue.

Read also:
The midnight hour, ANURAG ACHARYA
Feeling crabby?, RABI THAPA
The games they play, ANURAG ACHARYA