The only full timer out of the 200,000 Nepalis in the US to work for Nepal's democracy and social justice movements in 2005-06.
Nepal’s Current Crisis, Future Perspectives and Practical Steps
Former Prime Minister, and
President, Nepali Congress (Democratic)
First of all I would like to express sincere thanks to Professor Radon of the School of International Affairs of Columbia University for taking long-term interest in Nepal’s democracy. I remember that Columbia University even organized a conference for drafting Nepal’s democratic constitution in 1990. I would also like to commend Khagendra Chetry and Associates for their initiative in making this seminar a success. The interest shown in organizing this seminar at this crucial juncture in Nepal’s history is especially commendable.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the organizers for inviting me to be the key note speaker at this important meeting. I am hopeful that this seminar will provide added impetus to the aspirations of Nepalese people for peace and democracy.
Nepal is dear to all of us. Many of us gathered here today call it home or have profound interest and love for the Nepal and its people. A special thanks is I feel due to all of you for supporting the endeavour of the Nepalese to return to democracy and peace. Your interest and efforts have helped us to garner international support towards re-establishing democracy, rule of law and human rights in Nepal. Thank you and please continue to root for your Nepali sisters and brothers in this arduous journey to restore peace, human rights and democracy.
Before going on to share my viewpoints on the way forward for our nation, I would like to mention a few key historical points. Nepal’s national construct is almost as old as that of the United States. Of these 237 years of being one nation, the Nepali people have spent more than 60 years struggling to establish a democratic system within its borders. We have had two short periods in the last 60 years where democratic rule prevailed; first from 1951 to 1961 and the second from 1990 to 2005. It is in these two relatively short periods of time that there were maximum efforts to improve the quality of life of the ordinary people. I would ask this august audience to examine social and economic facts and figures to reiterate my point. Therefore, there can be no doubt that a democratic system is best suited for the development of Nepal as a nation.
The second point I would like to put before you all is the fact that the traditional forces of the palace have always conspired against the people and political parties to be retain absolute power. Our recent history has witnessed this twice in the last six decades. The monarchy is an old and feudal institution with deep roots and access to resources which it has always used to further its own ambitions. Late King Birendra must be considered an anomaly in a lineage of dictatorial kings. He was a king who had made his peace with democracy and sovereignty of the people while other traditional elements of the palace did not.
A third fact which I would like to put before you all is the fact that Nepal’s most recent experience with democracy was a period which may have seen instability but it was also a period which was marked by experience in reforming governance and trying to deepen the democratic exercise. I know it is the trend among Nepali intelligentsia to lay all evils at the door of politicians and of the royalists to blame the democratic system and justify the royal takeover. I would like to bring attention to the fact that all nascent democracies are marked by in-fighting and instability and this is part of the maturing of the system. If you turn the pages of history to the times right after the establishment of democracy in the United States you may find it not so dissimilar. I am not trying to defend political parties and leaders with this statement but I feel the need to point this fact out to this audience.
I would also like to state that Nepal made significant economic strides during its recent encounter with democracy .There were achievements in vital statistics in all major sectors from education and health to drinking water, sanitation, road construction, communication network, hydro-power development, overall economic growth, poverty reduction, exports, and increase in foreign exchange reserve. Urban and modern sector of the economy was almost taking off at the turn of new century. However, the growth of the rural and informal economy as well as the agriculture sector was quite sluggish.
Political reform to include the traditionally excluded was also slow to be realized by the political parties across the spectrum. The Maoists took advantage of this fertile ground to feed their insurgency.
Now I would like to share some facts which provide direction to the future of our nation. One key fact we can not overlook is the relative youth of our population. Most Nepalis are young – in fact almost 60 per cent of our population is under 25 years of age. Their hopes and aspirations are for a democratic and prosperous Nepal where all their diversities are acknowledged and valued. The women of our nation have become increasingly aware of their rights and are more vocal, visible and active than in any time in our history. The disadvantaged and excluded groups shackled by centuries of feudalism and casteism are now vigorously seeking to shed of those burdens and live a life of pride and dignity. All these trends, my friends, are the outcome of our most recent exercise with democracy. The genie is out of the bottle – so to speak – awareness of rights has reached every corner of our difficult and beautiful land and that can not be changed. It will not be changed.
Citizens and friends of Nepal, another key consideration I would like you to keep in mind is the fact that our beautiful country’s difficult terrain and scattered settlement patterns present tremendous challenges for development. It is not that all consecutive governments during the brief period of democracy did not rise up to it. Serious reform exercises were undertaken to improve governance and ensure improved fiscal health of the nation. Key issues kept under wraps during the undemocratic panchayat era were identified and vocalized and many key social and economic development indicators changed in the positive direction as a result. However, the impacts could not be felt as extensively as it should have been. But no one can be a miracle worker in so short a period of time. Extreme elements of first the left and then the right took advantage of people’s increasing expectation and of the limited availability of resources to respond to aspirations to discredit the democratic system and create the ensuing tri-partite conflict.
I would like to state here that the conflict originally initiated by the CPN Maoists has caused tremendous loss of life and property to our already resource-poor nation. It has retarded our economic and social growth and it has caused able-bodied youth to flee the nation for security and economic reasons. The cost this will be increasingly felt in the future. Added to this the royal takeover of February 1 by King Gyanendra has further compounded the crisis.
The February 1, 2005 royal take-over has not only brought the hard-won democracy to an end but also pushed Nepal into a path of more violence and chaos. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, our party Nepali Congress (Democratic) along with other six parliamentary political parties agreed upon Common Agreement and Commitments (CUC) in April 2005. We believe that this agreement forms the only viable way out of the current political crisis in our country. Some of the salient features of this agreement are:
I attach great importance to the unity of the seven-party alliance. I consider this agreement a dependable basis for people’s nonviolent movement to restore lasting peace and re-establish democracy in Nepal.
Only a negotiated settlement with the Maoists will serve to establish lasting peace and a functioning democracy. Without a negotiated settlement this conflict could take longer than a decade to be resolved. There can be no military resolution of this issue. Violence will mean further colossal loss in terms of both human and physical capital and missed opportunity for nation building. It was in recognition of this fact that the 7 political parties entered into an alliance between themselves and then into an understanding with the Maoists – even though it was not easy for us. Every one of our parties has lost cadres and leaders to the guns of the Maoists; thousands of friends and supporters have been displaced by the conflict. But we felt the need to rise above our own interests for the greater interest of the nation.
Our seven party alliance is trying to convince the Maoists that peaceful mobilization of the masses will have a far reaching impact in establishing peace and democracy while continuation of an armed insurgency would only give an excuse to the King's regime to suppress democracy and human rights. The 12-point understanding is an outcome of this realization. Let me tell you all in the words of President Kennedy that “we are not negotiating out of fear, but we would not fear to negotiate” for greater good.
The 7-party alliance sets great store by the continued support of the Bush government to the democratic and peaceful aspirations of the Nepalese people. We have all been greatly encouraged by the statements made in favour of democracy by the US government from time to time. I feel especially encouraged by President Bush’s statement which said “America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the word”. I also agree with President Bush when he says “the only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror and replace hatred with hope is the force of human freedom”.
I am conscious of the concern expressed in some quarters that democratic parties should have no truck with the armed and violent Maoists. Here I would beg to differ as there has to be a starting point for the peace process. The Maoists’ have expressed commitment for peaceful and negotiated settlement. We in the 7-party alliance feel the olive branch being extended has to be given a benefit of doubt and we as democratic forces have a tremendous responsibility to translate peace into reality. If we do not encourage them in this mission, it will have failed our people and their aspiration for peace.
I would also like to re-iterate that the 12-point Understanding with the Maoists is still work-in-progress. There are still a number of issues that needs to be clarified to develop this understanding into solid foundation for resolving the conflict and establishing an inclusive democracy. For this, the Maoists should be willing to fully and honestly implement all the provisions of this Understanding. They should further re- assure the national and international community that they are willing to come into the process that fully honors and accepts the core principles of nonviolence and liberal democracy by renouncing violence and laying down arms. We are encouraged when President Bush said that India and America agree “that the Maoists should abandon violence, and that the King should reach out to the political parties to restore democratic institutions.”
My party and I have always been committed to the process of resolving the violent conflict through dialogue and negotiation. My commitment to a negotiated settlement is based facts and recommendations that I proposed for resolving this crisis during my tenure as the chair of the High Level Peace Committee commissioned by then Prime Minister Krishna P. Bhattarai in the year 2000. Based on the wide ranging consultations with people of different walks of lives and also our “informal” links with the Maoist leadership, we proposed a number of measures for the political resolution of the problem. Some of those recommendations still hold value for approaching a peaceful resolution to the on-going violent conflict.
Later in 2001, as soon as I became Prime Minister and even prior to taking oath of office, I declared ceasefire and initiated peace negotiation with the Maoists. After three rounds of peace talks that lasted for about five months, the Maoists unilaterally walked away from the negotiation process and resumed their violent campaign. As a Prime Minister of the country, I was left with no option but to invoke a state of emergency in the country according to constitutional provisions to protect the lives innocent civilians and mobilize national security to counter violence and exert pressure to bring the Maoist back to the peace process. Just as the Maoists were beginning to feel the pressure of the counter-offensive and showed indications to re-start peace negotiations, King Gyanendra removed me from the elected office of the Prime Minister unconstitutionally and in October 2002.
After failing to bring major political parties to government and failure of a second round of peace talks with the Maoists and further deepening of the crisis, King Gyanendra was forced to re-instate me as Prime Minister in May 2004. Recognizing the gravity of the situation and honoring the call of duty for the last elected Prime Minister of the country to restore peace and hold General Elections I accepted and formed a four-party coalition government. Our four parties together enjoyed the support of more than two-thirds of the elected members of the last House of Representatives. This was a sincere endeavor on my part to bring together the democratic forces and the constitutional monarchy to re-establish peace and build the nation. During this tenure we formed a High Level Peace Committee and Secretariat under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister’s office to resume the peace negotiation. At this junction I would like to state that I have always been committed to peaceful resolution of the violent conflict on the basis of the universally accepted principles of democracy and people’s sovereignty and supremacy. However, though the government was serious and sincere to initiate dialogue, the Maoist leadership did not unfortunately respond.
That the King was also not serious about resolving the conflict became clear when he seized absolute power imposed direct autocratic rule on February 1, 2005 after he removed me from the office of Prime Minister and illegally detained all political leaders for more than 3 months. I feel sad to state that that our sincere effort to build a strong partnership between multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy was aborted by this drastic step of the monarch. However, I have no regrets for having made that effort. I tried to do what I thought was at that time in the best interest of our nation.
The intentions of the King to way lay the democratic system were further revealed by the formation of the Royal Commission for the Control of Corruption – an extra-constitutional body with powers against basic principles of jurisprudence - even while another national body the Commission Against the Abuse of Authority was already establishment by an act of Parliament. The RCCC was established with the express purpose of defaming political leaders. My stand against the RCCC and its unconstitutionally resulted in a 9 and half month long illegal detention for me and cabinet colleague. We were falsely indicted on ‘corruption’ charges on a project funded by the Asian Development Bank even after the ADB’s own independent commission found no foul-play in the award of a global tender for a drinking water project. I was freed on 14 February 2006 after the Supreme Court of Nepal declared it an unconstitutional body.
More important than our personal vindication is the fact that the Supreme Court has, in this landmark decision, reasserted the basic and fundamental principles of liberal democracy, people’s sovereignty and supremacy, rule of law and separation of the power. If one reads the court decision carefully, one is bound to reach the conclusion that the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms implies that the King’s current direct and autocratic regime is unconstitutional.
We are all gathered here today as Nepal is in deep crisis. The need of the day is to analytical and flexible without compromising the basis principles of democracy, rule of law, sovereignty of the people and human rights. Accommodation of genuine demands, broadening of the democratic plank and serious attempts to include the excluded has be the direction of Nepal’s future democracy.
What can be the way forward to bring our nation back on track? That is the question upper most on our minds as we sit here and deliberate. On the level of intelligence and perception the answers are easy and even simplistic. It suffices to say all the three sides of the conflict – the king, the political parties and the Maoists should sit down around a table share their agendas, find commonalities and also the key differences negotiate compromise and share the power. However, all of us know this is easier said then done. At the 7-party alliance and the Maoist have initiated a dialogue and there is some hope in that direction.
However, what about the third piece of the puzzle – the King? How should we as a nation handle him? Some observers and commentators sate that there should be reconciliation between the ‘constitutional forces’ – my question is – is the king constitutional any more? After February 1st 2005 he is no longer staying within the role prescribed by framework of the Constitution of democratic Nepal. The king must return to the role prescribed by the Constitution before dialogue. In fact the call of the youth for only a ceremonial role has been to be seriously discussed.
Another key question is about the Nepal Army who has traditionally sworn loyalty to the kings of Nepal. The Nepalese army must be made to realize that they receive their pay from the tax- payer’s money and their loyalty is first to the nation and the people. The army has to be controlled by the Parliament. An army which wishes to modernize must also re-orient their attitude and behaviour to suit the call of the times and the aspirations of the people.
At present, of the three sides involved in the conflict, only the political parties have any legitimacy. They have submitted to the democratic will of the people in elections. The Maoists and the King have decided they know what is best for the people of Nepal; the political parties can not follow that path – the only legitimate basis for government is a Parliament of democratically elected representatives. A national election has to be conducted but by a multi-party government; the representation of the insurgents in such a government could ensure free-fair elections. A cease-fire would also be required to ensure genuine participation and ability to select democratically. Elections organized by the king’s stooges would result in a fiasco – just like the recently organized ‘local elections”.
As the resolution of the crisis in Nepal must be based on the restoration of the rule of law – it will require the restoration of a legally constituted legislative branch of the government. Therefore free and fair elections must be free of the influences of both the armies. The international community or a group of friendly countries could ensure this for Nepal.
The 7-party alliance is under no illusion about the intentions of the Maoists – just as they are under no illusions about the intentions of the Palace. One seeks to obtain power through illegal means, and the other has already done so. Negotiations with either force are not desirable but necessary for the sake of the country. Negotiations with the King can only be based on the premise that the King has no legal authority beyond the Constitution. Again, I would like to re-iterate that local and international observers must concede that both Maosists and the King are acting unconstitutionally and that, as defenders of the Constitution of democratic Nepal – only the parties have legitimacy to lead the country.
If there are to be negotiations with the Palace, negotiations with the Maoists must also take place simultaneously. To acknowledge only two out of the three forces competing for power in Nepal will result in continued conflict and destruction. Those condemning talks with the Maoists, on grounds they are not trustworthy and have not demonstrated their commitment to peace and negotiations in good faith, must accept the same problems apply to negotiations with the Palace.
The political parties need to be supported for reaching a resolution of the crisis in Nepal through simultaneous negotiations with the King and the Maoists- while recognizing that on the political parties negotiate with mandate from the people of Nepal.
The political parties will regardless of the reaction of the King, press ahead with our campaign to restore democracy in Nepal through:
(i) Continued popular, peaceful mass agitation
(ii) Increase democracy within the political parties of the Alliance, making them more reflective of the wishes of the people
(iii) An expansion of the 7-party alliance to include clear statements concerning the past weaknesses of democratic governments in Nepal and points of agreement between the 7-parties on the political priorities for the future democratic government of the country, with details of major policies and the means and costs of their implementation.
We hope that the King and the Maoists will respond positively to these proposals and that we can move ahead together. But mostly we hope that the people from whom we derive our authority see in these proposal concrete steps that can lead to the rebirth of a free and democratic Nepal.
From this forum I would also like to request the US government to grant Temporary Protected Status to Nepali citizens so that they can legally stay here and work during this crisis in Nepal. Some of them do not have an option to go back. Further I also request the US Congress to pass a joint resolution against the undemocratic move of the King and for the restoration of democracy in Nepal. Last but not the least on behalf of the people and political parties of Nepal, I would like to thank the Senators and US Congressmen who have supported and will continue to support the cause of democracy in Nepal.
Call for Democratic Action
From The Conference on Nepal
at
Columbia University
At the Nepal conference at the school of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University in New York City, USA, on Wednesday, March 22, 2006, Nepalese as well as non-Nepalese citizens, experts, scholars and public figures concerned about Nepal’s future have discussed the country’s challenges and prospects, have come to the following consensus and call for democratic action in Nepal. The organizers and participants of this conference call on all parties involved in the conflict in Nepal, the king, the political parties and the Maoists, to restore peace, freedom and democracy by respecting and realizing the demands of this call for immediate action.
We call for:
The participants of the Nepal Conference at Columbia University on March 22, 2006:
-------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Sign Print
------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
Post a Comment
No comments:
Post a Comment