Paths to peace


Written by Shobhakar Budhathoki • Region • October 2010

7-1 Even after eight rounds of elections for the position of Prime Minister, Nepal still remains indecisive and uncertain about the future of the government. Parties to the legislative/parliament are continuously urging the importance of consensus government indicating that divided politics would not support the success of peace process and timely completion of the task of the Constituent Assembly. In reality, political parties are neither sincere about their words, nor they have shown willingness to compromise for the nation.

Puspa Kamal Dahal "Prachanda" of the United Communist Party of Nepal (UCPN-Maoists) has announced that he would withdraw his candidacy from the "useless" PM election after signing agreement with the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-UML). However, distrust remains intact among political actors and political dynamics has not been changed even after the announcement by Prachanda. The UCPN-Maoists and CPN-UML claim that they are constructively engaged to find political solution that will create conducive environment for all political parties, and prepare foundation for moving forward. But another major, the Nepali Congress which has just finished 12th general convention, has decided to continue to participate in the election process. This dilemma about the selection of the PM has created confusion and is directly affecting national economy and development, as well as ongoing peace process and constitution-making efforts.

Despite suspicions and poor relationship, as well as lack of communication among political actors, the government and the UCPN-Maoists have surprisingly agreed to complete the integration and rehabilitation of the former combatants within four months (by January 15, 2011). This agreement was made without disclosing a proper plan, while extending the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Nepal for another four months. Both the government and the UCPN-Maoists agreed to form the secretariat under the Special Committee headed by the PM, and the former combatant will be brought under the supervision of the secretariat. Currently, the technical committee members are designated as members of the secretariat, and the government has added four more members of technical committee that includes representatives from the Nepal Police, Armed Police Force, Nepal Army and the Maoists combatants. Not surprisingly, the country's peace process is still deadlocked, and moving in an unknown direction.

Parties to the peace process have failed towards building confidence and preparing common understanding about the future of Nepal, as well as peace-building and constitution-making process due to their unreasonable positions. The management of former combatants is a key element for the success of peace process. However, there are many other issues related to conflict which needs to be addressed while enforcing the plan for the integration and rehabilitation of former combatants, including the agenda for socio-economic and political transformation.

As other post-conflict countries, Nepal faces numerous challenges to institutionalize democratic system and smooth transition from conflict to peace. The country's political future seems uncertain due to increasing distrust and misunderstanding among major political actors, as well as poor enforcement of the November 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Increasing lawlessness, anarchism and criminal activities are rampant and are contributing to the escalation of violence based on communal identity, ethnicity and discrimination which has resulted in widespread impunity and "criminalization of politics" and "politicization of crime."

The peace process is at a critical stage due to increasing party politics and interpretation based on personal and party interest, and lack of responsible political actors. Parties to negotiations are further engaged to derail the achievement of peace process rather than responsibly addressing root causes of conflict and past human rights abuses. Ongoing political stalemate has continuously affected the implementation of the CPA and to prepare the strategies to prevent future violence that may emerge based on ethnicity and identity. The blaming politics has further attributed to government and oppositions to avoid problems that create obstacles to peace process and constitution-making efforts.

The CPA has promised to address deep rooted issues such as economic and social issues, as well as discrimination, which has contributed to the escalation of conflict in rural parts of the country. However, such issues are neither addressed nor the government has prepared long-term plans for the future. In the meantime, numerous issues related to conflict are still unaddressed that includes disappearance, human rights abuses and atrocities, land reform, discrimination, return of properties, development, etc. More importantly, lack of political consensus and strategies to implement those provisions related to transitional justice mechanisms and rehabilitation and integration of ex-combatants and democratization of national army have placed serious obstacles in institutionalizing the peace process.

Without actual implementation of the CPA and other agreements, as well as political understanding, it is impossible to build the foundation for sustainable peace and stop the escalation of conflict. Parties to peace process must be well prepared to honestly implement the arrangements of the CPA without undermining the sense of provisions and not hurting the good-faith of peace negotiators. Therefore, parties to the process must be honest in handling the situation and building policies for national development and social transformation.

Even though political parties are still looking for a national consensus that will eventually support peace process and constitution-making efforts, there is plenty of work to be done for introduction of a fresh constitution. Whenever the constitution-making process begins, consensus is required to address contentious and unresolved issues emerging in the CA. Each article of the constitution must to be adopted with two-thirds majority if an unanimous attempt fails. These contentious issues include: language of preamble, governance system, fundamental human rights, particularly citizenship, state restructuring and federalism as well as separation of power between central and provincial governments, legislative and executive, national army, electoral system, judiciary, etc. Since the constitution-making process is considered a nation-building process, it is imperative to discuss a common agenda from all political actors as part of confidence-building measures that can facilitate the peace process and institutionalization of democratic system through legitimate methods.

In this country, finding common space and positions are more challenging than drafting the constitution and signing understandings or agreements. Without developing trusted communication lines and bridging gaps, political actors will fail and will also fall into the category of irresponsible actors. In addition, Nepal faces the crisis of national leadership or statesmanship to handle post-conflict crisis and prepare a comprehensive plan for the transitional period that can prevent violence and create harmonious relations in Nepal's diverse society. Therefore, competent leadership is another challenge for the prosperity of the country, success of peace process and laying the foundations for nation-building.

Political consensus and constructive engagement of political actors can have positive influence towards ending the current stalemate and designing a successful roadmap for the future of preparing a foundation for enforcement of the CPA. Without adopting a joint problem-solving approach, ongoing dilemmas and confusions cannot be cleared and the CA will be unable to deliver a message of hope that political actors are responsibly working to introduce a new constitution before next deadline expires. This attempt will also help to take the country towards a sustainable peace in a democratic nation. In this critical period, Nepal needs to show its uniqueness by demonstrating that it can resolve current political and other critical issues through mutual understanding and strategies for a peaceful, secure and lawful society.