7/31/2019 Epw 2009 Democracy Betrayed in Nepal

1/1

editorials

octobe r 3, 2009 vol xliv no 40 EPW Economic & Political Weekly6

dmccy By n Np

Can a system where capitalism and democracy are signifcantly less incompatible be peaceully created?

The great hope that ollowing the Maoists joining the

democratic mainstream and participating in competi-

tive politics, a new democratic Nepal would be on its

way has been dashed. Ater the resignation o Pushpa Kamal

Dahal (Prachanda) as prime minister in early May this year

over the thwarting o his move to establish civilian control over

the armed orces, a rickety 22-party coalition government

with Madhav Kumar Nepal o the Communist Party o Nepal

(Unifed Marxist-Leninist) [CPN(UML)] took ofce. But the Nepali

Congress (NC) and the CPN(UML) have been bitterly contending

with each other to gain the upper hand, and the various actions

in each o these outfts continue to wrestle with each other,

rendering governance a casualty. Their main aim o eectively

keeping the Maoists out o power has however, at least so ar,

been attained.

No doubt, Washington and New Delhi must be heaving a

sigh o relie, or neither the CPN(UML) nor the NC is interested

in the integration o the Maoist Peoples Liberation Army (PLA)

into the Nepal Army (NA), as also the democratisation othe latter, both o which are part o the Comprehensive Peace

Agreement o 21 November 2006. Nor are they bothered about

institutionalising civilian control over the armed orces, which

the interim constitution requires, and they have the tacit back-

ing o India and the US in this respect too. So it is only a govern-

ment headed by the Maoists that can ensure these basic pre-

requisites o lasting peace in that strie-torn land. But given

the ganging up o virtually all the major political parties in

the constituent assembly against them, the chances o all this

happening is distant.

Meanwhile, even as the task o drating a new constitution is

getting more and more urgent with the approach o the deadline

o May 2010, it is most unlikely to happen beore that date. Then

what o the peace process itsel? Ater all, there is an internal

struggle going on in the Unifed Communist Party o Nepal

(Maoist) [UCPN(M)] over the derailing o the path towards a new

democratic Nepal. The partys shit rom the Maoist strategy

does not seem to have got it any closer to its goal o establishing a

new democracy in Nepal.

It may be well to recall that the Communist Party o Nepal

(Maoist), as the UCPN(M) was known earlier, having decided to

change its path, tactics and strategy in advancing towards the

goal o a new democratic Nepal, went to the extent o enteringinto a grand political alliance, which included parties that had

earlier collaborated with the monarchy to eliminate it. But, all

that has been achieved so ar is the removal o the monarchical

dictator, Gyanendra, and the establishment o a republic. No

doubt, these are signifcant milestones, but, to get there, the PLA

had to be demobilised, disarmed and confned to the barracks

under the supervision o the United Nations in Nepal; the base

areas that the Maoists had established during the 10-year long

Peoples War had to be given up, including the land and property

o the ruling gentry that was seized by the people in the course o

that war, and their irregular militia, the Young Communist

League, had to be demobilised and has now been turned rom a

political to a social and development organisation. In all o

this, the Maoists have kept to their side o the hard bargain. But

the major mainstream political parties have betrayed the will

o the majority and gone back on the peace document (the

Comprehensive Peace Agreement o 21 November 2006) they

had put their signatures to.

In the understanding o the UCPN(M), a new democracy is

one where the dominance o the wealthy, powerul and privi-

leged o the semi-eudal and comprador capitalist order hasbeen subverted, thereby qualitatively enhancing the otherwise

limited compatibility o capitalism and democracy. We are o

course here interpreting the latter term as government with the

will o the majority o the people.

What about the integration o the PLA into the NA, something

which had been agreed upon earlier? And about which New

Delhi, Washington, the mainstream political parties and the

power elite are so apprehensive, indeed so earul? What they are

jittery about is the PLAs close relation with the Nepali people.

The argument that the proessionalism o a national army will be

undermined is plain rubbish. What the powers-that-be are inter-

ested in preserving is really the NAs culture o eudalism, or the

integration o the PLA into its ranks (the PLA had no badges and

no permanent ranks; the necessary hierarchy was created by the

appointment o suitable persons, both men and women, to appro-

priate positions o leadership) with its proletarian culture will

surely democratise the existing army. And, a democratic army

with the motto Serve the People as a source o inspiration is

surely an alien concept as ar as the wealthy, the powerul and

the privileged are concerned.

Sadly, all this makes a peaceul transition to a new demo-

cracy, which includes multiparty pluralism the present experi-

ment o the Nepali Maoists, what they call 21st Century Demo-cracy unlikely. But or that it is the powers that be who are to

blame, not the Maoists.

As in many other endeavours, the data rom the panchayati raj

ministry study shows that the duration o political involvement is

directly indicative o the perormance o women representatives.

The study also recommends that an eort should be made not only

to maintain womens representation in the panchayats, but also to

strengthen their ability to remain in politics by provision o training

to unction eectively in ofce. That eort can only come when the

government is less anxious to cover up its inability to resolve the

deadlock over the Womens Reservation Bill and more keen to ensure

that womens representation at the grass roots level is truly eective.