Jhala Nath Khanal is the Standing Committee Member of the main opposition Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist). He heads the party's Intellectuals Department and is regarded as a shadow foreign minister.

Ten years after democracy, where do you think this country is headed?
The way we have run the country in the past 11 years is not what was envisaged by the constitution. We have distorted the constitutional provisions.

How?
Democracy is not only the freedom to speak and organise rallies. They are inseparable parts of democracy, but we have not been able to implement democracy in social, political, administrative and cultural aspects. Now our democracy is showing signs of getting derailed, and this has implications for other sectors also. The country now is in a state of crisis.

What factors led to this crisis?
We could not establish good governance. We got democracy, but retained the old administrative system. We should have re-organised the VDCs, districts, zones and developmental regions in light of changes, and devised a system compatible to democracy. We also looked upon the bureaucracy as agents of the party in power, leading to politicisation of the civil service.

But aren't political parties like yours responsible for this?
When the party in power began doing it, others were forced to follow suit. During the interim government when I represented the left alliance, we had agreed that employees should be allowed to organise in a united manner. But once the unions started taking shape the Nepali Congress began setting up "democratic" unions. Now almost every institution has politically-affiliated unions.

Your party's demands for constitutional changes are close to what the Maoists want. Is that the way out of this impasse?
There may be similarities but many of their positions are unclear. The Maoists want an interim government to formulate a people's constitution by electing a constituent assembly. We cannot agree to that position. The constitution is the outcome of the 1990 movement, and it has problems but we think they should be corrected through amendments. Maoists want a clean break. But we are still hopeful they can be brought back to the mainstream if the government has vision and is aware of the problems facing the country. That process can begin by bringing them to the negotiating table to discuss what are the main changes they want in the new constitution, and if those things can be corrected through amendments. But this option has not yet been explored. The present government seems unwilling or unsure about talks because of a lack of political vision. They must realise that problems can only solved by give-and-take. You should be willing to give something to get something. We are optimistic that we can reach an agreement on constitutional reform with the Maoists.

Have you had talks direct talks with the Maoists?
Not at a formal level. But informally, nationwide, we are there where they are. At the field level we meet and talk. In some places they listen to our arguments in others they do not. We have not had formal talks at the central level, but we are in favour of holding such talks.

Isn't it at the field level that your cadre are being wooed away by Maoists? And isn't that the reason for the radicalisation of your politics?
Not only our cadre, anyone unsatisfied with Nepali Congress rule or who has been victimised, and doesn't see any solution in the near future has been attracted to the Maoists. Among them are also those who support us.

What about your card-carrying members?
We have about 90,000 organised members. They have not joined the Maoists. But they are having difficulty working in areas where the Maoists have influence. There have been stray cases of people being disillusioned in our organised ranks, but that is more among supporter groups and voters.

You are heading a party team that is studying the Maoist problem. Any progress?
We have divided the study into three parts: first we visited places affected by the insurgency and collected facts on the excesses committed by the government and the Maoists. Then we met political parties and others stakeholders. Now, we are analysing the data and will have a report ready in about 10 days. We are trying to find out why the insurgency began five years after democracy, and the factors that led to its rapid and unprecedented spread. We will propose a formula for resolving the crisis.

In a recent public opinion poll, many Nepalis said political parties are threatening democracy with their activities. Does the UML have a strategy to counter that cynicism?
In the past 12 years, the Congress had a majority twice, but has failed to establish working relationships with opposition parties and other social forces. We have to learn from that failure. If we are unable to prepare a long term national development vision and implement plans based on that, then our situation, too, may not be different from that of the Congress. But we are also a little worried that we may inherit the mess that the Nepali Congress is going to leave.

What are the possibilities of the UML and other Communist parties, especially the breakaway Marxists-Leninists, re-uniting?
Basically, we don't have any ideological or political differences with the ML. We agree on almost every issue, but there were differences over party leadership positions. This can be resolved over time and leftists who believe in a peaceful development process will come together. If there is unity between us it can help us in tackling the present extreme leftist tendencies.

There has been criticism that you are crossing the boundary of constitutional opposition in harassing the Nepali Congress.

We have also heard comments to the effect that the main opposition has become a "gentlemanly" opposition (laughs). In fact, the ruling party did not respond to polite talk that is why we have been forced to combine opposition on the streets and in parliament. In the process, we may have touched boundaries, and in some cases even crossed them. We are ready to listen, and are willing to make amends. Our main objective now is that the streets should not be monopolised by extra-constitutional voices.

Is that why you're shutting the country down for three days?
We are hoping that will not happen, we don't want to have the three-day bandh. But for that the government would need to take proactive steps and make a proposal for finding a solution.

Is your party in the school-reform protests because you feel the Maoists and the ML have overtaken your student wing?
The directionless, indisciplined and blinkered situation of the educational sector is because reforms have not been implemented after 1990. What we see today is the sum total of all the problems that have accumulated over the years. The quality of public education is bad, the management of education is politicised, and there is corruption. But there are those who are in only to make money out of education. The government should have had devised a regulatory mechanism to stop this. But we don't agree that schools should be shut down or nationalised. The demand of the Maoist students is knee-jerk and harmful both to education and the national interest. We think the government should improve management of public schools, increase investment and improve the quality of education.

Why should college student unions be agitating? Isn't school reform the purview of legislators?
We've discussed education policy many times in parliament. We have raised the issues in parliamentary sessions and concerned committees and with ministers. The government has also formed commissions with valid recommendations. But there is no implementation. Our students identified the problems and suggested solutions, which we took to parliament but the ruling party didn't listen. This is why the students feel the democratic process won't lead to a solution, and have decided to get out on the streets.