By Jeevan Baniya
An apology might be taken as an act or weakness of a coward person. But it also demands a lot of courage and sincerity; thus very few can apologize.
I happened to read this news piece, which is often not good news anymore and is rather lightly understood in Nepal. The congress party lawmaker, Gagan Thapa realized his carelessness and publicly apologized for not providing information of his personal properties within the deadline to the office of constitutional committee. He further expressed his commitment to publicize each and every part of his life so that people will be able to read as an open book. We have rarely seen confessions and apologies from political leaders for their wrongdoings. Gagan Thapa’s prompt response from him on the allegation against him is very significant in the context of the political deadlock the country has experienced at the moment. I should come to this point later.
The problem that started from the Maoists’ decision to sack then chief of the Nepal army, Roomangud Katawal without making broad consensus in the cabinet they led. There remain no doubts that their one-sided decision was ill-intended even though it was a constitutional decision (so far I understand from the interim constitution of Nepal). The Maoist intention behind the hasty decision can be well understood from party chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s Saktikhor videotape.
Subsequently, the president made the unconstitutional move after he was motivated by the leaders of other political parties, although, we can not be sure whether the president was very much concerned about the legality of his decision to reinstate the sacked army chief in the middle of the night. The move has been interpreted by many legal pundits in many different ways; and the Supreme Court of Nepal remains almost dead to address this issue--thus nothing can be expected from it. This led to the resignation of the then Prime Minister Dahal and Maoists demand for ‘civilian supremacy’. Now they have even launched second-phase protest programmes for ‘restoring civilian supremacy’, which has generated huge frustration among the citizens in Nepal.
To further anger the Maoists and complicate the peace process, defense minister Bidhya Bhandari in recent days has been making irresponsible statements regarding the need for review on the peace accord and possible deployment of Nepal army to crush the Maoist protest. For Prime Minister Nepal and UML leadership, her statements remain to be her personal as if she is outside of the government and the party. Similarly, the Maoists’ commitment to counter the possible suppression and their thuggery seen in the different parts of the country in recent days -- all point to more chaotic situation in the coming up days.
Despite the fact that attempts made to address the Maoists’ demand in the past by the leaders of major political parties, the political developments demand a broad consensus at the earliest; otherwise the country is very likely to plunge deep into conflict.
It is very clear that the stigma of the quest for power on the part of some leaders has created an unfavourable environment in the country. For me, the expectation of resolving of the problem through any decision of the present coalition government is just a wishful thinking. The keys to unlock the present deadlock are in the hands of main leaders of major political parties and the President.
Much ink has been spilled to stipulate the growing need for pragmatic thinking among leaders for taking decisions to drive the country to the right direction, but unfortunately, such possibility is withering away. If they look at the commitments they made to people, leaders must forge a consensus. But, who cares?
Let me now get back to Gagan Thapa’s apology episode. One sees a way to resolving the present political crisis based on this episode. In my eyes, Thapa can be a great lesson and the point of departure to resolve the present deadlock. How?
Yes, the answer is very straight forward. Apologize!!
First, Prachanda should apologize for his ill-intended decision to sack the then army chief. Then, President Yadav should apologize for his unconstitutional move. And, minister Bhandari must apologize for her attempts to further complicate the peace process. The first two apologies can be very crucial in the meantime. Yet, it demands bold courage like that from Gagan Thapa. The history will appreciate your apology and the people of Nepal will solute your act.
Please do it for the country desperately needs it from you at this critical juncture. You can do it for the good of Nepali people and the country.
(Baniya is a PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Nobel Peace Prize to Obama: A Heavy Burden?
By Jeevan Baniya
The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced an unexpected decision that the Nobel peace Prize had been awarded to US American Barack Obama for his initiatives to peace in the world through his international diplomacy and co-operation. The committee emphasized the emerging hopes for peace through Obama's calls for peace and cooperation for the better future and highlighted his commitments to reducing nuclear arms, improving relation with Muslim nations and fighting climate change.
It is true that he has shown outstanding leadership through his efforts in diplomatic spheres. But, the questions can be raised, and have been raised: how come has his only eight months of presidency ensured his chance for the award? Is he a worthy candidate at the moment? I think the answers can be sought in comparative perspectives; and arguments may vary person to person. Till the morning the Nobel Committee made the announcement, the award for me stood for achievements not intentions; but from today onwards my understanding is shaking.
Praising Obama’s steps to these fronts is, no doubt, justified. However, in the context when the results of his initiatives are yet to be realized and the America is still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the decision has also drawn massive criticism; I think it is too early for Obama to deserve the award if the value of the Nobel Peace Award is something that really matters.
It is not unusual if any American president and his policy initiatives draw the attention of the world as long as the country is sitting on the driver’s seat of the international politics. Yet, if the decision has been driven by the normative values with the expectation for his future roles to the aforementioned fronts, one has to closely study the parameters of the committee on decision making process.
To look at the another part of the award, this award, I think, is going to be a heavy burden for Obama while the U.S war in Afghanistan is demanding more forces from the US, and in the pretext that Obama has already decided to fight terrorism in the region. As well, the domestic discontents regarding Obama policy towards Iran itself is going to be a challenge to fairly concentrate on peace building around the world. It is not easy to be optimistic on no civil casualties and injuries in the future while the Obama administration is sending more troops in Afghanistan and the troops have been attacking the civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
If the award to Obama is to make him realize that the world is expecting great things in the days to follow so as to make this world a safer place to live in, Obama will have to go beyond the United State’s national interests in international fronts. For me, this is an uphill task for him even though it is not impossible.
Certainly, he does have the power to reshape this world, however, the American national interests and the domestic polarization within the US gives us a very gloomy picture to this expectation at least by now. And we have yet to see whether Obama can live up with his commitments to the people’s transferred expectations in the world and light the candle of peace in the years to come.
Let’s wait how Obama converts this burden into deeds.
(Baniya is a PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. He can be reached at: (baniyajeevan@hotmail.com)
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced an unexpected decision that the Nobel peace Prize had been awarded to US American Barack Obama for his initiatives to peace in the world through his international diplomacy and co-operation. The committee emphasized the emerging hopes for peace through Obama's calls for peace and cooperation for the better future and highlighted his commitments to reducing nuclear arms, improving relation with Muslim nations and fighting climate change.
It is true that he has shown outstanding leadership through his efforts in diplomatic spheres. But, the questions can be raised, and have been raised: how come has his only eight months of presidency ensured his chance for the award? Is he a worthy candidate at the moment? I think the answers can be sought in comparative perspectives; and arguments may vary person to person. Till the morning the Nobel Committee made the announcement, the award for me stood for achievements not intentions; but from today onwards my understanding is shaking.
Praising Obama’s steps to these fronts is, no doubt, justified. However, in the context when the results of his initiatives are yet to be realized and the America is still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the decision has also drawn massive criticism; I think it is too early for Obama to deserve the award if the value of the Nobel Peace Award is something that really matters.
It is not unusual if any American president and his policy initiatives draw the attention of the world as long as the country is sitting on the driver’s seat of the international politics. Yet, if the decision has been driven by the normative values with the expectation for his future roles to the aforementioned fronts, one has to closely study the parameters of the committee on decision making process.
To look at the another part of the award, this award, I think, is going to be a heavy burden for Obama while the U.S war in Afghanistan is demanding more forces from the US, and in the pretext that Obama has already decided to fight terrorism in the region. As well, the domestic discontents regarding Obama policy towards Iran itself is going to be a challenge to fairly concentrate on peace building around the world. It is not easy to be optimistic on no civil casualties and injuries in the future while the Obama administration is sending more troops in Afghanistan and the troops have been attacking the civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
If the award to Obama is to make him realize that the world is expecting great things in the days to follow so as to make this world a safer place to live in, Obama will have to go beyond the United State’s national interests in international fronts. For me, this is an uphill task for him even though it is not impossible.
Certainly, he does have the power to reshape this world, however, the American national interests and the domestic polarization within the US gives us a very gloomy picture to this expectation at least by now. And we have yet to see whether Obama can live up with his commitments to the people’s transferred expectations in the world and light the candle of peace in the years to come.
Let’s wait how Obama converts this burden into deeds.
(Baniya is a PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. He can be reached at: (baniyajeevan@hotmail.com)
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
Saturday, September 26, 2009
True Representatives?
Jeevan Baniya
In my recent informal talk with one Danish scholar currently working in Nepal posed a very critical question: what does it mean by representation? Who represent the citizens? While asking these questions, he was actually guiding me for my research work. After about fourty minutes of talk, I waved my hands for god-bye. While my way home the very striking questions kept knocking doors and windows of my half-asleep psyche. Then I began dig down in the situation of Nepal to get them better answered.
Revisiting the electrifying result in the part of UCPN-Maoists and some regional political parties in CA election, which of course, for the first time in the history, ensured more equal representation in Nepal’s politics, I contemplated whether this is a true representation. Out of the contemplation, I got more bemused like many people of Nepal might have been.
Soon after the CA result, I had assumed that there is a historic shift in the power at least in the political spectrum, which may lead the country to the direction for change. But unfortunately, the dominant political leaders from main political parties then highly engaged in creating political black holes that has now created a complex matrix of mess that reminds of what one Indian scholar said ‘Politics is a Dirty River.’
Obviously, people’s expectation was high at least for peace and political stability in the country especially when all the political parties had clapped together in the parliament for the historic pronouncement of the country turning into a federal republic. It is again a shame that merely a handful of leaders from some political parties have over-shadowed the CA and thus have downplayed the legitimacy of CA, which the people of Nepal formed to decide their future. Instead, the movers and shakers of major political parties have misused the political opportunities and the space they have at this critical juncture of transition.
Needless to lay an emphasis again on the need of political parties to respond to what they had promised to the citizens during CA election, the political development and the growing deficit of trust among political actors all gives us a very bleak picture of the country. And the present complexities of polarisation and the occasional manipulation of the polaristion by somel eaders for their short-term benefit have further fueled the deteriorating situation.
While looking at the participation and representation issue in the local governance process dominant elite groups still have upper hand on the state institutions. Their control over public resources has not diminished and their close relationship with business groups, political leaders and bureaucrats has rather strengthened.
Consequently, people’s access to governance system has remained weak. Although some leaders from political parties , after the Maoists imbued the minorities and marginalities groups through the revolution, occasionally attempt to build up progressive block for some issue (which is actually good way to push their agenda), their attention towards consolidating the democracy through this transitional phase is hardly realised. The issues of historically excluded groups are poorly seen at fore and, unfortunately, not even pushed up by representatives of those groups. While the strengthening of the instruments and capacities of the groups to ensure their exercise their control over their matters is crucial at this moment, their inclination to petty party politics and rhetoric of flawed representation indicates their inappropriate or no roles in CA. Still trapped in the narrow understanding of democracy, representation and participation even in the part of CA members, who have been endowed with big responsibilities from people, have not been able to break away from old political culture, and move further. The CA members' hobnobbing with party or any camp without analysing the potential consequences of their acts, for the broader interest of the people, might lead to a dire situation.
While main political parties have grossly deviated from undertaking the homework to writing the constitution on time, it is also surprising that the members of the CA who are supposed to represent their diverse interests- people as a whole have remained silent and have been captivated in the political games of the same old version of power politics. These misleading acts, and the progress that Nepal has made so far in various aspects of life, are sure to frustrate the people day by day. It is also their responsibility to prevent us from potential conflicts through wise political decisions no matter which party they belong to. Sadly, no such symptoms are visible.
(The writer is currently a PhD research Fellow at Department of Political Science in University of Oslo, Norway. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
In my recent informal talk with one Danish scholar currently working in Nepal posed a very critical question: what does it mean by representation? Who represent the citizens? While asking these questions, he was actually guiding me for my research work. After about fourty minutes of talk, I waved my hands for god-bye. While my way home the very striking questions kept knocking doors and windows of my half-asleep psyche. Then I began dig down in the situation of Nepal to get them better answered.
Revisiting the electrifying result in the part of UCPN-Maoists and some regional political parties in CA election, which of course, for the first time in the history, ensured more equal representation in Nepal’s politics, I contemplated whether this is a true representation. Out of the contemplation, I got more bemused like many people of Nepal might have been.
Soon after the CA result, I had assumed that there is a historic shift in the power at least in the political spectrum, which may lead the country to the direction for change. But unfortunately, the dominant political leaders from main political parties then highly engaged in creating political black holes that has now created a complex matrix of mess that reminds of what one Indian scholar said ‘Politics is a Dirty River.’
Obviously, people’s expectation was high at least for peace and political stability in the country especially when all the political parties had clapped together in the parliament for the historic pronouncement of the country turning into a federal republic. It is again a shame that merely a handful of leaders from some political parties have over-shadowed the CA and thus have downplayed the legitimacy of CA, which the people of Nepal formed to decide their future. Instead, the movers and shakers of major political parties have misused the political opportunities and the space they have at this critical juncture of transition.
Needless to lay an emphasis again on the need of political parties to respond to what they had promised to the citizens during CA election, the political development and the growing deficit of trust among political actors all gives us a very bleak picture of the country. And the present complexities of polarisation and the occasional manipulation of the polaristion by somel eaders for their short-term benefit have further fueled the deteriorating situation.
While looking at the participation and representation issue in the local governance process dominant elite groups still have upper hand on the state institutions. Their control over public resources has not diminished and their close relationship with business groups, political leaders and bureaucrats has rather strengthened.
Consequently, people’s access to governance system has remained weak. Although some leaders from political parties , after the Maoists imbued the minorities and marginalities groups through the revolution, occasionally attempt to build up progressive block for some issue (which is actually good way to push their agenda), their attention towards consolidating the democracy through this transitional phase is hardly realised. The issues of historically excluded groups are poorly seen at fore and, unfortunately, not even pushed up by representatives of those groups. While the strengthening of the instruments and capacities of the groups to ensure their exercise their control over their matters is crucial at this moment, their inclination to petty party politics and rhetoric of flawed representation indicates their inappropriate or no roles in CA. Still trapped in the narrow understanding of democracy, representation and participation even in the part of CA members, who have been endowed with big responsibilities from people, have not been able to break away from old political culture, and move further. The CA members' hobnobbing with party or any camp without analysing the potential consequences of their acts, for the broader interest of the people, might lead to a dire situation.
While main political parties have grossly deviated from undertaking the homework to writing the constitution on time, it is also surprising that the members of the CA who are supposed to represent their diverse interests- people as a whole have remained silent and have been captivated in the political games of the same old version of power politics. These misleading acts, and the progress that Nepal has made so far in various aspects of life, are sure to frustrate the people day by day. It is also their responsibility to prevent us from potential conflicts through wise political decisions no matter which party they belong to. Sadly, no such symptoms are visible.
(The writer is currently a PhD research Fellow at Department of Political Science in University of Oslo, Norway. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
Growing American Interest and the Option for Nepal
By Jeevan Baniya
Recently, people from Mustang district had got the opportunity to welcome and share their grievances and problems with the American Ambassador to Nepal, Nancy J Powell, who had made a ‘surprise visit’ to the area. However, no mainstream media covered her visit. As some reports suggested Powell, who landed there by a chartered helicopter, talked to locals on ‘development problems’ and their living conditions. It has been reported that the local political leaders expressed their dissatisfaction over her visit, as saying a foreign diplomat is not supposed to make a trip in that manner. However, she has been reported to have had approval letter for visiting upper Mustang from Annapurna Conservation Area Program (ACAP), which is mandatory for visiting the area.
The local leaders, who had been critical however, seem to have been unaware about how politics and diplomacy of Nepal functions when it comes to the questions of sovereignty. And it will not be unusual if the Maoist-led government remains tightlipped on the matter. Neither will we hear the leaders of the main opposition Nepali Congress seeking government clarification in the parliament, as they did in the case of Defence Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa’s secret trip to Khasa Bazaar.
Let me get back to the US ambassador’s visit to Mustang. Although the ambassador has said that it was a private trip, it could well have strategic connotations. Lomathang, in Mustang district, borders China. Her visit to the area along with US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher, last month also reasserts the American strategic interest in Nepal, not to mention its interest in the domestic affairs of Nepal. It has been also reported the German ambassador to Nepal also visited Mustang but no information is available about his engagements there. Similarly, there is also rumour that the ambassador of France to Nepal is also supposed to have reached to Mustang around this time. These developments should be taken as meaningful particularly in context of China pressuring Nepal to stop all kinds of anti-China protests in Nepal. Interestingly enough, there are about 16 Indian army officials in the leadership of a Cornell General for some kind of training, who reached there recently, according to the Chief of ACAP Bharat K.C.
The end of the cold war stimulated efforts to create new regional power centers and consequently some regional power centers emerged in the world mainly the US, EU, China, India and Iran and Brazil. Foreign policy analysts view China as an emerging supper power in Asia as well as in the world and it has been realised that China’s growing influence is making a fundamental shift in international political dynamics although the degree of its manifestations have been speculated in different ways. Some even predict that China’s economy will be bigger than America’s within two decades. Political scientists have pointed to the historic shift of power from West to East as some Asian countries have been achieving remarkable economic growth, which in future might lead to strengthening of their military power as well. Realists stress that the simultaneous rise of China and India is a matter of serious concern for the US.
The US that has strengthened strategic relationship with India in recent years through cooperation on nuclear development seems interested to balance China’s rapidly rising power in Asia. The intention of the US to contain China also becomes clear when we see its engagement with Japan, India and Australia in recent years. The joint military exercise of US, Japan and India in 2007 has further fueled the Chinese assumption for US strategic interest to circle China. In this context, it can be said that China resents the role of the US in the Asia-pacific region while the latter is worried about its loosing influence in this region.
By this time China and India are at the state of neither friends nor enemies, and they are cooperating and competing at the same time despite one assuming another as a potential threat in the long run. The reason is that China is not fully assured about India on Tibet as India supported exiled Tibetans separatist activities giving asylum to fugitive rebels and it propped up the Tibetan Government in Exile. As most analysts argue that India’s security concept and strategic thinking now consist a complex mix of pragmatism and idealism, the US stills is not sure about India’s full cooperation in the future thus seeking parallel alternatives; and Tibet is one of them.
Nepal as we know lives largely within Indian orbit; however the rising power of China is trying to pull Nepal closer to its orbit. China’s regular high level visit to Nepal after the overthrowing of the King, their high level delegations to Nepal’s political parties’ conventions and their proposal for new foreign policy in the changed circumstances all indicate that China is very much willing to assert its interests in Nepal and it is determined to pursue the policy of containing Free Tibet protests in Nepal, which China views as a threat supported by India as Nepal shares a vast open border with the southern neighbour. On the other hand, the US, the western power, and partly India see, Tibet case as their future strategic tool to contain and bargain with China. However, this picture is not particularly favorable for Nepal and it may even pose a challenge to peace, stability and our development course.
In the abovementioned strategic games involving these quarters, one thing is clear that each country has its own national security, power and development interest in the case in Nepal. Then, it makes us ask ourselves some pertinent questions: What and how can Nepal pursue its own national goals in this geopolitical situation? How do we manage these conflicting foreign interests in Nepal? And are we prepared for any possible threats to our sovereignty that could emerge due to the conflicting interests?
Globalisation has proved that in any country without security there can be no development and without development security is incomplete. Most powerful countries have realised that a strong economy is the foundation of military strength and guarantee to social stability. Moving beyond traditional belief, scholars hold that it is economic rather than military strength that gives states better say in international affairs.
Considering its sources of power such as size of demography and territory, economic products and military capacity, realistic and pragmatic approach for Nepal to strengthen the sovereignty and security will be strengthening our economy, international relations and human resources with the foreign policy that is effective in engaging with the key power centers.
Furthermore, integrating the then Maoist-army into national army and equipping the military alone will never be sufficient to guarantee either our sovereignty or security. Failure to initiate timely approaches will further weaken our sovereignty, thereby turning the nation as a ground of the power centres.
http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2009/others/guestcolumn/apr/guest_columns_03.php
(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was orginally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
Recently, people from Mustang district had got the opportunity to welcome and share their grievances and problems with the American Ambassador to Nepal, Nancy J Powell, who had made a ‘surprise visit’ to the area. However, no mainstream media covered her visit. As some reports suggested Powell, who landed there by a chartered helicopter, talked to locals on ‘development problems’ and their living conditions. It has been reported that the local political leaders expressed their dissatisfaction over her visit, as saying a foreign diplomat is not supposed to make a trip in that manner. However, she has been reported to have had approval letter for visiting upper Mustang from Annapurna Conservation Area Program (ACAP), which is mandatory for visiting the area.
The local leaders, who had been critical however, seem to have been unaware about how politics and diplomacy of Nepal functions when it comes to the questions of sovereignty. And it will not be unusual if the Maoist-led government remains tightlipped on the matter. Neither will we hear the leaders of the main opposition Nepali Congress seeking government clarification in the parliament, as they did in the case of Defence Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa’s secret trip to Khasa Bazaar.
Let me get back to the US ambassador’s visit to Mustang. Although the ambassador has said that it was a private trip, it could well have strategic connotations. Lomathang, in Mustang district, borders China. Her visit to the area along with US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher, last month also reasserts the American strategic interest in Nepal, not to mention its interest in the domestic affairs of Nepal. It has been also reported the German ambassador to Nepal also visited Mustang but no information is available about his engagements there. Similarly, there is also rumour that the ambassador of France to Nepal is also supposed to have reached to Mustang around this time. These developments should be taken as meaningful particularly in context of China pressuring Nepal to stop all kinds of anti-China protests in Nepal. Interestingly enough, there are about 16 Indian army officials in the leadership of a Cornell General for some kind of training, who reached there recently, according to the Chief of ACAP Bharat K.C.
The end of the cold war stimulated efforts to create new regional power centers and consequently some regional power centers emerged in the world mainly the US, EU, China, India and Iran and Brazil. Foreign policy analysts view China as an emerging supper power in Asia as well as in the world and it has been realised that China’s growing influence is making a fundamental shift in international political dynamics although the degree of its manifestations have been speculated in different ways. Some even predict that China’s economy will be bigger than America’s within two decades. Political scientists have pointed to the historic shift of power from West to East as some Asian countries have been achieving remarkable economic growth, which in future might lead to strengthening of their military power as well. Realists stress that the simultaneous rise of China and India is a matter of serious concern for the US.
The US that has strengthened strategic relationship with India in recent years through cooperation on nuclear development seems interested to balance China’s rapidly rising power in Asia. The intention of the US to contain China also becomes clear when we see its engagement with Japan, India and Australia in recent years. The joint military exercise of US, Japan and India in 2007 has further fueled the Chinese assumption for US strategic interest to circle China. In this context, it can be said that China resents the role of the US in the Asia-pacific region while the latter is worried about its loosing influence in this region.
By this time China and India are at the state of neither friends nor enemies, and they are cooperating and competing at the same time despite one assuming another as a potential threat in the long run. The reason is that China is not fully assured about India on Tibet as India supported exiled Tibetans separatist activities giving asylum to fugitive rebels and it propped up the Tibetan Government in Exile. As most analysts argue that India’s security concept and strategic thinking now consist a complex mix of pragmatism and idealism, the US stills is not sure about India’s full cooperation in the future thus seeking parallel alternatives; and Tibet is one of them.
Nepal as we know lives largely within Indian orbit; however the rising power of China is trying to pull Nepal closer to its orbit. China’s regular high level visit to Nepal after the overthrowing of the King, their high level delegations to Nepal’s political parties’ conventions and their proposal for new foreign policy in the changed circumstances all indicate that China is very much willing to assert its interests in Nepal and it is determined to pursue the policy of containing Free Tibet protests in Nepal, which China views as a threat supported by India as Nepal shares a vast open border with the southern neighbour. On the other hand, the US, the western power, and partly India see, Tibet case as their future strategic tool to contain and bargain with China. However, this picture is not particularly favorable for Nepal and it may even pose a challenge to peace, stability and our development course.
In the abovementioned strategic games involving these quarters, one thing is clear that each country has its own national security, power and development interest in the case in Nepal. Then, it makes us ask ourselves some pertinent questions: What and how can Nepal pursue its own national goals in this geopolitical situation? How do we manage these conflicting foreign interests in Nepal? And are we prepared for any possible threats to our sovereignty that could emerge due to the conflicting interests?
Globalisation has proved that in any country without security there can be no development and without development security is incomplete. Most powerful countries have realised that a strong economy is the foundation of military strength and guarantee to social stability. Moving beyond traditional belief, scholars hold that it is economic rather than military strength that gives states better say in international affairs.
Considering its sources of power such as size of demography and territory, economic products and military capacity, realistic and pragmatic approach for Nepal to strengthen the sovereignty and security will be strengthening our economy, international relations and human resources with the foreign policy that is effective in engaging with the key power centers.
Furthermore, integrating the then Maoist-army into national army and equipping the military alone will never be sufficient to guarantee either our sovereignty or security. Failure to initiate timely approaches will further weaken our sovereignty, thereby turning the nation as a ground of the power centres.
http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2009/others/guestcolumn/apr/guest_columns_03.php
(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was orginally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
Addressing Ethnic Grievances in New Constitution http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2009/others/guestcolumn/mar/guest_columns_03.php
By Jeevan Baniya
As often expressed, the Constitutional Assembly (CA) of Nepal is supposed to preserve and institutionalise the achievements made through many human sacrifices and sufferings over many years; and it is widely shared view that it will be possible only after a successful writing of a new constitution. Different views on various issues coming out from various sections of the society. Views on the issue of ethnicity, marginalised groups and minority groups are one of them.
The debate whether it is better to have federalism in Nepal or not is now no more an issue, for, most of the political parties have already vowed to establish a federal republican order. But the question regarding what kind of federal structure is suitable or what sort of federal state can provide opportunities to all citizens of Nepal with which citizens can live with equal dignity and respect, remain largely unanswered. The fact that the country is full of diversities with over 90 castes and ethnic nationalities, more than 80 languages spoken, about 10 religious groups makes drafting an all-inclusive constitution all the more challenging.
Arguments have been articulated by some that ethnicity-based federal system is the best way to address the issues of the marginalised and minority groups. They argue, supporting the idea that the state in the past attempted to dominate ethnic nationalism hindering the growth of a modern state, and now is the time they are set to fight for their rights. There are also counter arguments that ethnic or linguistic based federal line will not be viable for the country and that it will lead to the disintegration of the country.
Recent arguments from some constitutional experts also share this view and have advised the political parties not to take the path of ethnic federalism. If this path is seen vulnerable to breeding and sowing the seeds of instability and fragmentation in Nepal, it is also equally urgent to have a serious discourse on whether territorial or any other political federal can remove the power from the center and limited groups and provide it to the grassroots where people can feel more comfortable and equal to entertain opportunities to better their socio-economic, cultural and political status; only such structure can ease the way to a relatively just society.
One the one hand the country has to address the issues of such long dominated and discriminated groups so as to build sustainable peace, equality and social justice, one the other, it has to ensure its stability and unity within diversities. Although there are always not successful stories of federal structures around the world, federalism can be at least viewed, in the case of Nepal, as a road to enhance ethnic harmony based on mutual respect and reciprocity. To make federalism bring about positive outcome, major ethnic groups in Nepal need to agree on co-existence and strive to promote pluralist policies respecting all ethnic groups in the country as defined by Daniel J. Elazar, a renown scholar on federalism, who views federation as ‘self-rule plus shared rule’.
Some political leaders in the recent days have been expressing their centralist views against federalising the country along ethnic line; it is however a pity that they have not proposed any alternative models to addressing ethnic and regional grievances of the people seriously. Rather they only tirelessly speak about ‘potential danger of disintegration’. Dividing the country into federal units may not necessarily lead us to prosperity as many conflicts in the world tell us how fatal it can be if not handled properly. But then, what specific mechanism can be set up to address the problems and the grievances of the groups? We don’t get the answer in the speeches of our leaders, which only lead people like me wonder whether they are afraid of potential erosion of their existing political power and privileges they have long been holding.
There are always dangers and fears while setting up an appropriate federal structure that can successfully accommodate many ethnic groups in the system. The CA has a chance before it to create conditions conductive for the transformation of such ethnic nationalism to state nationalism, which is a necessary condition to leap forward as a prosperous country. In case of failure to manage it properly through new constitution, there are dangers of serious discontents spilling over, which will ultimately weaken the stability and sovereignty of the country.
No matter what sort of federalism will be adopted it is thus necessary to guarantee that the upcoming constitution gives the opportunities to different ethnicity and cultural groups to preserve their identity, respect and promote their culture and history, and to use and develop their languages. The discourses should be directed to how to ensure the representation of different ethnic groups as the head of the state, the prime minister, vice chairperson and secretary of the council, in the local, regional, national governments, bureaucracy and civil services on the basis of freedom, equity, fair as well as proper representation.
In the similar vein, their rights to exercise the rights to self determination, and strong legal framework in case of denial or abrogation of their rights should be ensured in the upcoming constitution. Since one of the basic norms of democratic system is people being free to decide what is best for them, it is meaningless to advocate for a prosperous Nepal in the absence of the constitutional and political setup whereby different ethnic groups can have the opportunities to dream of and decide their future.
There are different ideological orientations and political necessity in different countries in the world that support the multicultural federalism as a framework to resolve the issue of ethnic diversity and right to self-determination. Normative views are found to have been articulated about the desirability of cultural group rights and the politics of recognition in multinational liberal democracies. The views refer to a particular idea of asymmetry that enshrines vision of multiculturalism. There are constitutional protections of certain cultural group rights at the heart of federation and meet the assumed need of the groups for recognition of their national status.
While deciding the federal structure, the experiences from difference countries that adopted certain federal system to address the issues of marginalised and minorities should also be taken into consideration. In the west, countries like Switzerland, Belgium and Canada have formally recognised ethno linguistic units and allocated political power on the basis of ethno linguistic formula. And, countries like India and Nigeria are examples that seem committed to cultural and structural pluralism. In Nigeria, the federal system consists of three regions, each with a dominant ethnic group. It was possible as the ethnic groups are in few numbers and concentrated in a particular region; while the Nepal’s case is completely different.
Lessons can be learnt from the Indian experiences on how important constitutional asymmetry has been in enabling India to ‘hold together’ and how the federalism is significant as it has succeeded to accommodate groups with different ideas. While looking at the positive sides of their system, a militant separatist movement in the Kashmir Valley of 1980s should also be taken into account while debating on federalism structure in the light of managing minority conflicts in India. According to Frank S. Cohen, more than 100 countries have shown that federalism minimizes violence, insurgency where as unitary structure are more apt to exacerbate ethnic. However, it is not sure whether Nepal will be successful to be listed on that list.
While writing a new constitution in Nepal, it is extremely urgent that all ethnic groups in Nepal need to forge new constitutional arrangements where they can live with mutual respect and shared interests. But no space should be given in upcoming constitution where any ethnic groups oppose to the federal structure realizing that they can not make their own destinies within that structure.
By this moment, compared to others, Terai is a great challenge in front of both the CA and the government even in the constitution writing process from various points of views such as: whether to establish it as a autonomous region (with right to secession?); how to set up the mechanism for revenue sharing among federal states as more than 85%? Revenues are collected from that region; what would be the national and federal security system while the region has open borders with India and thus have Nepal’s security interests; what would be the trading system with other states and so on. It is however not to undermine the demands from other groups from other parts of the country, but, considering the complexities of Terai region, it is of more weight while writing a new constitution.
Hence, the future of Nepal rests on how our political leaders, deferent ethnic groups, political parties and civil society of Nepal commit themselves to build ‘one common community’ based on the shared interests regardless of differences in ethnicity and cultures and work together for such destinies we share based on equal power sharing, equal rights, mutual respects and freedom as well as rights of independence.
(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
As often expressed, the Constitutional Assembly (CA) of Nepal is supposed to preserve and institutionalise the achievements made through many human sacrifices and sufferings over many years; and it is widely shared view that it will be possible only after a successful writing of a new constitution. Different views on various issues coming out from various sections of the society. Views on the issue of ethnicity, marginalised groups and minority groups are one of them.
The debate whether it is better to have federalism in Nepal or not is now no more an issue, for, most of the political parties have already vowed to establish a federal republican order. But the question regarding what kind of federal structure is suitable or what sort of federal state can provide opportunities to all citizens of Nepal with which citizens can live with equal dignity and respect, remain largely unanswered. The fact that the country is full of diversities with over 90 castes and ethnic nationalities, more than 80 languages spoken, about 10 religious groups makes drafting an all-inclusive constitution all the more challenging.
Arguments have been articulated by some that ethnicity-based federal system is the best way to address the issues of the marginalised and minority groups. They argue, supporting the idea that the state in the past attempted to dominate ethnic nationalism hindering the growth of a modern state, and now is the time they are set to fight for their rights. There are also counter arguments that ethnic or linguistic based federal line will not be viable for the country and that it will lead to the disintegration of the country.
Recent arguments from some constitutional experts also share this view and have advised the political parties not to take the path of ethnic federalism. If this path is seen vulnerable to breeding and sowing the seeds of instability and fragmentation in Nepal, it is also equally urgent to have a serious discourse on whether territorial or any other political federal can remove the power from the center and limited groups and provide it to the grassroots where people can feel more comfortable and equal to entertain opportunities to better their socio-economic, cultural and political status; only such structure can ease the way to a relatively just society.
One the one hand the country has to address the issues of such long dominated and discriminated groups so as to build sustainable peace, equality and social justice, one the other, it has to ensure its stability and unity within diversities. Although there are always not successful stories of federal structures around the world, federalism can be at least viewed, in the case of Nepal, as a road to enhance ethnic harmony based on mutual respect and reciprocity. To make federalism bring about positive outcome, major ethnic groups in Nepal need to agree on co-existence and strive to promote pluralist policies respecting all ethnic groups in the country as defined by Daniel J. Elazar, a renown scholar on federalism, who views federation as ‘self-rule plus shared rule’.
Some political leaders in the recent days have been expressing their centralist views against federalising the country along ethnic line; it is however a pity that they have not proposed any alternative models to addressing ethnic and regional grievances of the people seriously. Rather they only tirelessly speak about ‘potential danger of disintegration’. Dividing the country into federal units may not necessarily lead us to prosperity as many conflicts in the world tell us how fatal it can be if not handled properly. But then, what specific mechanism can be set up to address the problems and the grievances of the groups? We don’t get the answer in the speeches of our leaders, which only lead people like me wonder whether they are afraid of potential erosion of their existing political power and privileges they have long been holding.
There are always dangers and fears while setting up an appropriate federal structure that can successfully accommodate many ethnic groups in the system. The CA has a chance before it to create conditions conductive for the transformation of such ethnic nationalism to state nationalism, which is a necessary condition to leap forward as a prosperous country. In case of failure to manage it properly through new constitution, there are dangers of serious discontents spilling over, which will ultimately weaken the stability and sovereignty of the country.
No matter what sort of federalism will be adopted it is thus necessary to guarantee that the upcoming constitution gives the opportunities to different ethnicity and cultural groups to preserve their identity, respect and promote their culture and history, and to use and develop their languages. The discourses should be directed to how to ensure the representation of different ethnic groups as the head of the state, the prime minister, vice chairperson and secretary of the council, in the local, regional, national governments, bureaucracy and civil services on the basis of freedom, equity, fair as well as proper representation.
In the similar vein, their rights to exercise the rights to self determination, and strong legal framework in case of denial or abrogation of their rights should be ensured in the upcoming constitution. Since one of the basic norms of democratic system is people being free to decide what is best for them, it is meaningless to advocate for a prosperous Nepal in the absence of the constitutional and political setup whereby different ethnic groups can have the opportunities to dream of and decide their future.
There are different ideological orientations and political necessity in different countries in the world that support the multicultural federalism as a framework to resolve the issue of ethnic diversity and right to self-determination. Normative views are found to have been articulated about the desirability of cultural group rights and the politics of recognition in multinational liberal democracies. The views refer to a particular idea of asymmetry that enshrines vision of multiculturalism. There are constitutional protections of certain cultural group rights at the heart of federation and meet the assumed need of the groups for recognition of their national status.
While deciding the federal structure, the experiences from difference countries that adopted certain federal system to address the issues of marginalised and minorities should also be taken into consideration. In the west, countries like Switzerland, Belgium and Canada have formally recognised ethno linguistic units and allocated political power on the basis of ethno linguistic formula. And, countries like India and Nigeria are examples that seem committed to cultural and structural pluralism. In Nigeria, the federal system consists of three regions, each with a dominant ethnic group. It was possible as the ethnic groups are in few numbers and concentrated in a particular region; while the Nepal’s case is completely different.
Lessons can be learnt from the Indian experiences on how important constitutional asymmetry has been in enabling India to ‘hold together’ and how the federalism is significant as it has succeeded to accommodate groups with different ideas. While looking at the positive sides of their system, a militant separatist movement in the Kashmir Valley of 1980s should also be taken into account while debating on federalism structure in the light of managing minority conflicts in India. According to Frank S. Cohen, more than 100 countries have shown that federalism minimizes violence, insurgency where as unitary structure are more apt to exacerbate ethnic. However, it is not sure whether Nepal will be successful to be listed on that list.
While writing a new constitution in Nepal, it is extremely urgent that all ethnic groups in Nepal need to forge new constitutional arrangements where they can live with mutual respect and shared interests. But no space should be given in upcoming constitution where any ethnic groups oppose to the federal structure realizing that they can not make their own destinies within that structure.
By this moment, compared to others, Terai is a great challenge in front of both the CA and the government even in the constitution writing process from various points of views such as: whether to establish it as a autonomous region (with right to secession?); how to set up the mechanism for revenue sharing among federal states as more than 85%? Revenues are collected from that region; what would be the national and federal security system while the region has open borders with India and thus have Nepal’s security interests; what would be the trading system with other states and so on. It is however not to undermine the demands from other groups from other parts of the country, but, considering the complexities of Terai region, it is of more weight while writing a new constitution.
Hence, the future of Nepal rests on how our political leaders, deferent ethnic groups, political parties and civil society of Nepal commit themselves to build ‘one common community’ based on the shared interests regardless of differences in ethnicity and cultures and work together for such destinies we share based on equal power sharing, equal rights, mutual respects and freedom as well as rights of independence.
(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
Weakening Coaltion Culture and Imminent Dangers
By Jeevan Baniya
People of Nepal had spoken their words in the CA election making the Maoists as the biggest political party of Nepal. It may be argued that due to greed and irresponsibility with the political leaders of other parties helped in establishing the Maoists as a hope for prosperous Nepal. And, their petty grievances and promises during the campaign also enabled them to gain wider support from the people. The Maoists also promised total transformation, which is yet to be realised, of a new era and their transition to peaceful politics was one the most important factors behind their victory. But, a common citizen like me acknowledges that, most people rarely had concerns over what the ideals of different political parties were or are, rather they had trusted the Maoists for peace that they had lost for over 12 years. The truth is that people had voted the Maoists with the hope that the country would enter into the era of peace and socio-economic progress.
I put this historical reference here so as to link the reasons to look upon the present complicated political situation which has almost shattered the hopes of people for peace. People were somehow assured that the country would usher into the path of peace, uprooting the ills of our society and never giving chances to anything to sow the seed of conflict again. But, in contrast, people have lost their confidence as our political leaders have failed to find a common ground and reaffirm our national unity by putting aside partisan interests and animosities.
In this transitional period, the government is now facing strong pressure from various groups in the society. It is a very good aspect that all the marginalised and minority groups are coming forward and putting pressure to the government before writing the new constitution, seeking guarantee to their rights but, too much pressure and too much mobilisation can be counterproductive if these movements are not managed properly. Maoist-led government clearly lacks resources and favourable political environment to meet the pressing demands from different sections. Moreover, growing division within the ruling coalition, the pressure from hardliners for authoritarian communist regime and fear for further ‘marginalisation ’ of other political parties, have further complicated the situation in Nepal.
Much ink has been spilled over on criticising the Maoists for creating the present political standoff. Most pages of mainstream newspapers come up with stories and articulations portraying negative aspects of the Maoists as if they are waging a silent war against the former rebels. It is obvious that the Maoists should be held responsible to industrial and economic downturn to an extent but media reports do not seem to have considered the fact that only the Maoists are not the only decisive party of the present government. It should not be forgotten that other coalition partners as well as opposition party are and should be responsible, if not equally, for any kind of developments the country is witnessing. The political parties should not forget a fact that people of Nepal will judge them on what role they play in writing the New Constitution but not with what game they play on pulling down the present government. It is necessary to realise that no single party is in a situation to unilaterally determine the future frame of Nepal ’s social, economic and political system. If this government fails to address the aspirations of people of Nepal, it will be a collective failure of all the political forces.
The ongoing blame game within coalition government and the opposition parties, their narrow political interests and some worn out dogmas on the part of some leaders clearly indicate that they are not seriously about improving the fate of Nepal. All the political parties in Nepal need to judge their strength and weakness and come close thus making transitional politics easier.
It is necessary to seriously keep in mind what once Abraham Lincoln said, ‘a house divided against itself can ’t stand ’. The Maoists ’ threatening to wage another war and capture power and other parties threatening to bring down the government, is sure to worsen the situation, which will not only dampen people ’s hope, it will also alienate them from the people.
When our leaders have devoted, at least in words, themselves to democracy, individual freedom and peaceful coexistence, it is worth acknowledging that peace, economic development and sustainability of democracy are correlated. People will support them as long they show willpower for transforming the country into more peaceful, industrialized and a modern economy.
At last, I have borrowed these words for our Prime Minister Prachanda from Gabriel Almond ’s truth: ‘Great Leaders are Great Coalition Builders. ’
(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
People of Nepal had spoken their words in the CA election making the Maoists as the biggest political party of Nepal. It may be argued that due to greed and irresponsibility with the political leaders of other parties helped in establishing the Maoists as a hope for prosperous Nepal. And, their petty grievances and promises during the campaign also enabled them to gain wider support from the people. The Maoists also promised total transformation, which is yet to be realised, of a new era and their transition to peaceful politics was one the most important factors behind their victory. But, a common citizen like me acknowledges that, most people rarely had concerns over what the ideals of different political parties were or are, rather they had trusted the Maoists for peace that they had lost for over 12 years. The truth is that people had voted the Maoists with the hope that the country would enter into the era of peace and socio-economic progress.
I put this historical reference here so as to link the reasons to look upon the present complicated political situation which has almost shattered the hopes of people for peace. People were somehow assured that the country would usher into the path of peace, uprooting the ills of our society and never giving chances to anything to sow the seed of conflict again. But, in contrast, people have lost their confidence as our political leaders have failed to find a common ground and reaffirm our national unity by putting aside partisan interests and animosities.
In this transitional period, the government is now facing strong pressure from various groups in the society. It is a very good aspect that all the marginalised and minority groups are coming forward and putting pressure to the government before writing the new constitution, seeking guarantee to their rights but, too much pressure and too much mobilisation can be counterproductive if these movements are not managed properly. Maoist-led government clearly lacks resources and favourable political environment to meet the pressing demands from different sections. Moreover, growing division within the ruling coalition, the pressure from hardliners for authoritarian communist regime and fear for further ‘marginalisation ’ of other political parties, have further complicated the situation in Nepal.
Much ink has been spilled over on criticising the Maoists for creating the present political standoff. Most pages of mainstream newspapers come up with stories and articulations portraying negative aspects of the Maoists as if they are waging a silent war against the former rebels. It is obvious that the Maoists should be held responsible to industrial and economic downturn to an extent but media reports do not seem to have considered the fact that only the Maoists are not the only decisive party of the present government. It should not be forgotten that other coalition partners as well as opposition party are and should be responsible, if not equally, for any kind of developments the country is witnessing. The political parties should not forget a fact that people of Nepal will judge them on what role they play in writing the New Constitution but not with what game they play on pulling down the present government. It is necessary to realise that no single party is in a situation to unilaterally determine the future frame of Nepal ’s social, economic and political system. If this government fails to address the aspirations of people of Nepal, it will be a collective failure of all the political forces.
The ongoing blame game within coalition government and the opposition parties, their narrow political interests and some worn out dogmas on the part of some leaders clearly indicate that they are not seriously about improving the fate of Nepal. All the political parties in Nepal need to judge their strength and weakness and come close thus making transitional politics easier.
It is necessary to seriously keep in mind what once Abraham Lincoln said, ‘a house divided against itself can ’t stand ’. The Maoists ’ threatening to wage another war and capture power and other parties threatening to bring down the government, is sure to worsen the situation, which will not only dampen people ’s hope, it will also alienate them from the people.
When our leaders have devoted, at least in words, themselves to democracy, individual freedom and peaceful coexistence, it is worth acknowledging that peace, economic development and sustainability of democracy are correlated. People will support them as long they show willpower for transforming the country into more peaceful, industrialized and a modern economy.
At last, I have borrowed these words for our Prime Minister Prachanda from Gabriel Almond ’s truth: ‘Great Leaders are Great Coalition Builders. ’
(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
Remodeling Democracy in Nepal
By Jeevan Baniya
The country already facing confrontations is also waiting for a tough fight among different political parties ahead especially on the right form of federal structure and the issue of autonomous Terai while writing a new constitution. This situation is also discussed as an opportunity to solve various other problems with the belief that, in the past, the central authorities had long dominated many of the other ethnic groups and castes of Nepal thus the federalism will remove the power from the center and a more fair distribution of opportunities and living conditions at the local level will improve. But, literatures are hardly found how and why federalism can be capitalised to solve the problems; at least, I am not assured whether the upcoming constitution can protect, promote and ensure participation and the best interests of Nepali people, for, no preparations are visible.
One thing is, however, clear that major political parties have consistently speaking about establishing sustainable peace and better form of democracy in the country through new constitution (I assume here that the Maoists will not move to one-party authoritarianism and stick to their commitments they have made towards democracy). To realise this goal first it is necessary for them to assess and evaluate why democracy couldn ’t function well in Nepal; what went wrong with it and why it is under much scrutiny. Without making unbiased and serious evaluation of already existing democracy, it can not be expected that designing right form of upcoming democratic structure is going be successful.
Nepal, which adopted western form of liberal democratic system in 1990, is standing at the historic juncture, looking for a better form of democracy. But questions regarding what, why and how a better form of democracy can be installed remain unanswered by political parties.
Samuel P. Huntington once argued that the end of the cold war seemed to create the conditions for what became known as the ‘end of history ’ and the triumph of western versions of democracy and believed that liberal democracy model will flourish given the right conditions and right implementation and timing. But, the narrow version of liberal democracy proposed by liberal perspectives in the aftermath of cold war has been under strong criticism by many social scientists. The critics claim that liberal democracy is not delivering on its ideals and therefore requires challenge. Furthermore, they argue that the democracy imported from the west is not appropriate to other cultures and societies around the world; and the same has been in the case of Nepal, on which I also share with my belief.
When we adopted liberal democracy in Nepal, we were assured that given the power of economic globalisation there is no alternative to neo-liberal markets. Bur what resulted (except some good aspects) is a low intensity democracy, and politics remained the only game in town. It can also be considered that the initial optimism with the liberal democratic project had diminished as the conflict between the government and Maoists intensified soon after the country had entered the democratic era, but only this phenomenon can not explain failure or weakness in the past.
The state failed to address the problems of poor, marginalised and indigenous groups and the power politics was scaling up without addressing the problems, there was, and still is, much skepticism about the capacity of conventional democracy to involve ordinary citizens in shaping and implementing the public policies. Our elected representatives decided everything themselves, without broader public participation on the issues related to their life and society. Interests groups prevailed rather than people in decision making process. Consequently, the issues related to equity, political autonomy, responsibility, economic opportunities remained as they were.
Of course, there are good aspects of liberal democracy such as separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, free and fair elections and free political parties, and free association of institutions within a developing civil society. But in a country like Nepal, the very understanding of democracy should move away from democracy understood as elite power politics and should ensure popular control of public affairs on the basis of political equality for the wider interest of the marginalised people, minority groups, gender-related issue and so on.
On the one hand, we are at the time when we have to evaluate democracy in terms of policy implementation and institutional reform carried out in the past; on the other, we need to undertake an assessment whether the already existing democracy itself is appropriate for the country or if not what kind of democracy is appropriate. It is also noticeable that we are, however, not the only country readdressing ideas and form of democracy; this trend is underway in various countries in the world, which is called as rethinking or radicalising democracy.
In Nepal, it should be ensured that there is broader participation in public decision making and on the direct role of citizens on public issues so that democracy can be deliberative and sustainable. Even though our previous concerns were focused on elite power politics and issues of implementation and identification of preconditions for democracy, we hardly paid attention on ensuring maximum citizen participation on issues related to their lives. Therefore, one of the fundamental problems about democracy, development, equity and peace in the country remains on the culture of practicing democracy.
Our understanding of democracy in Nepal has mostly been conceptually and normatively limited as the focus has been on problems of implementation of democracy and on identifying the right preconditions for a specific and limited model of democracy which has led to problems over identifying correct conditions and ignoring alternative approaches to democracy. To establish the genuine democracy, our political and academic pundits had better identify the factors and dynamics of alternative tools to broaden and consolidate democracy.
Despite complexities it can be expected that a highly mobilised and active base created by People ’s Movement II can be capitalised to socialise democracy in Nepal. Now a discourse on this agenda, with participation of political actors, civil society, academia, media and other stakeholders, is essential for establishing the foundation for a genuine democracy in the country.
http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2009/others/guestcolumn/jan/guest_columns_05.php(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
The country already facing confrontations is also waiting for a tough fight among different political parties ahead especially on the right form of federal structure and the issue of autonomous Terai while writing a new constitution. This situation is also discussed as an opportunity to solve various other problems with the belief that, in the past, the central authorities had long dominated many of the other ethnic groups and castes of Nepal thus the federalism will remove the power from the center and a more fair distribution of opportunities and living conditions at the local level will improve. But, literatures are hardly found how and why federalism can be capitalised to solve the problems; at least, I am not assured whether the upcoming constitution can protect, promote and ensure participation and the best interests of Nepali people, for, no preparations are visible.
One thing is, however, clear that major political parties have consistently speaking about establishing sustainable peace and better form of democracy in the country through new constitution (I assume here that the Maoists will not move to one-party authoritarianism and stick to their commitments they have made towards democracy). To realise this goal first it is necessary for them to assess and evaluate why democracy couldn ’t function well in Nepal; what went wrong with it and why it is under much scrutiny. Without making unbiased and serious evaluation of already existing democracy, it can not be expected that designing right form of upcoming democratic structure is going be successful.
Nepal, which adopted western form of liberal democratic system in 1990, is standing at the historic juncture, looking for a better form of democracy. But questions regarding what, why and how a better form of democracy can be installed remain unanswered by political parties.
Samuel P. Huntington once argued that the end of the cold war seemed to create the conditions for what became known as the ‘end of history ’ and the triumph of western versions of democracy and believed that liberal democracy model will flourish given the right conditions and right implementation and timing. But, the narrow version of liberal democracy proposed by liberal perspectives in the aftermath of cold war has been under strong criticism by many social scientists. The critics claim that liberal democracy is not delivering on its ideals and therefore requires challenge. Furthermore, they argue that the democracy imported from the west is not appropriate to other cultures and societies around the world; and the same has been in the case of Nepal, on which I also share with my belief.
When we adopted liberal democracy in Nepal, we were assured that given the power of economic globalisation there is no alternative to neo-liberal markets. Bur what resulted (except some good aspects) is a low intensity democracy, and politics remained the only game in town. It can also be considered that the initial optimism with the liberal democratic project had diminished as the conflict between the government and Maoists intensified soon after the country had entered the democratic era, but only this phenomenon can not explain failure or weakness in the past.
The state failed to address the problems of poor, marginalised and indigenous groups and the power politics was scaling up without addressing the problems, there was, and still is, much skepticism about the capacity of conventional democracy to involve ordinary citizens in shaping and implementing the public policies. Our elected representatives decided everything themselves, without broader public participation on the issues related to their life and society. Interests groups prevailed rather than people in decision making process. Consequently, the issues related to equity, political autonomy, responsibility, economic opportunities remained as they were.
Of course, there are good aspects of liberal democracy such as separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, free and fair elections and free political parties, and free association of institutions within a developing civil society. But in a country like Nepal, the very understanding of democracy should move away from democracy understood as elite power politics and should ensure popular control of public affairs on the basis of political equality for the wider interest of the marginalised people, minority groups, gender-related issue and so on.
On the one hand, we are at the time when we have to evaluate democracy in terms of policy implementation and institutional reform carried out in the past; on the other, we need to undertake an assessment whether the already existing democracy itself is appropriate for the country or if not what kind of democracy is appropriate. It is also noticeable that we are, however, not the only country readdressing ideas and form of democracy; this trend is underway in various countries in the world, which is called as rethinking or radicalising democracy.
In Nepal, it should be ensured that there is broader participation in public decision making and on the direct role of citizens on public issues so that democracy can be deliberative and sustainable. Even though our previous concerns were focused on elite power politics and issues of implementation and identification of preconditions for democracy, we hardly paid attention on ensuring maximum citizen participation on issues related to their lives. Therefore, one of the fundamental problems about democracy, development, equity and peace in the country remains on the culture of practicing democracy.
Our understanding of democracy in Nepal has mostly been conceptually and normatively limited as the focus has been on problems of implementation of democracy and on identifying the right preconditions for a specific and limited model of democracy which has led to problems over identifying correct conditions and ignoring alternative approaches to democracy. To establish the genuine democracy, our political and academic pundits had better identify the factors and dynamics of alternative tools to broaden and consolidate democracy.
Despite complexities it can be expected that a highly mobilised and active base created by People ’s Movement II can be capitalised to socialise democracy in Nepal. Now a discourse on this agenda, with participation of political actors, civil society, academia, media and other stakeholders, is essential for establishing the foundation for a genuine democracy in the country.
http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2009/others/guestcolumn/jan/guest_columns_05.php(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
The Issue of Army Integration and the Peace Process
By Jeevan Baniya
Recent development in politics of Nepal clearly indicates that the growing political polarization between political parties has threatened the main agendas Nepal has to focus on. If the political parties fail to work with consensus and cooperation, it is almost sure that the agendas like writing a new constitution, bringing the peace to a logical conclusion and pitching the road for prosperous and peaceful Nepal will be overshadowed.
Despites the articulations from various political leaders about taking the peace process to a logical conclusion, differences and disagreements on whether to integrate of former Maoists combatants into Nepal Army (NA) has further complicated the process.
While the Maoists are trying to make collective integration of the UNMIN-verified combatants, Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (UML) and other political parties have been stressing on the rehabilitation and adjustment rather than integration in the NA; some leaders even completely oppose the idea of integration of politically indoctrinated Maoists cadres. Although these kinds of expression have been humming around, their views seem to have come out of the increasing mistrust and rifts developed over the period.
It is a pity that leaders neither from the Maoists nor from the other political parties, a few like Gagan Thapa might be an exception, have ever attempted to understand the seriousness and sensitivity of management of Maoist combatants in the ongoing peace process. Very few literatures can be read about the issue being analysed with a serious consideration. It is however a bitter reality that no political party can run way from the issue if they are to craft a sustainable peace in the country in a real sense.
In the pretext when the Maoists have not got the decisive victory through the war although they sound as if they have, the issue of Maoists army integration stands as the issue to be addressed by political consensus. Many things need to be taken into account when undertaking integration and adjustment of the combatants. If the political leaders fail to introduce a holistic approach soon, which can facilitate the sustainable peace in the country, it will undermine the whole contributions and achievements the Nepali people have made till now. It is therefore the time for developing a pilot project to settle this issue. Imagine the scenario of lack of consensus in formulating a comprehensive strategy to manage the Maoists cadres in the peace process; it would be fatal not only for the political parties but also for the country itself.
According to Johan Galtung, an expert on conflict, conflicts are generally not solved. “What survives after a conflict has disappeared from the agenda is conflict energy reproduced and produced by the conflict.” This articulation is also supported by the emergence of many armed groups in Terai region. We can not imagine Nepal with the Maoist cadres returning to conflict in any form; thus their settlement remains a major part of the peace process. Nepal’s peace process which has passed the disarmament and demobilisation phases of Disarmament, Demobilisation, Reinsertion and Reintegration (DDRR) process, is now urgently in need of entering into other two phases. We must learn from conflict management experiences of various countries like South Africa, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Colombia and El Salvador where poor management and insufficient programmes after disarmament created further conflicts and the combatants got remobilised.
The Maoist army issue and its settlement is thus an integral part of the whole peace process and needs their reintegration no matter whether in security sectors or in any other areas. For this, it requires micro level to macro-level institutional changes for facilitating the sustainable peace. Among 32,250 Maoist cadres registered in 28 cantonments across the country and only 19,692 of which are eligible to be treated as combatants and have been living with their future uncertain. It is an urgent task to make a comprehensive decision on their integration, adjustment and rehabilitation by dismentaling the cantonments which are not benificial to be continued from finincial as well peace prospective. In the transition from war to peace the successful implementation of DDRR process and peace are strongly connected and can be counterproductive in case of failure to do it properly.
It should be seriously acknowledged that, if sent back to their societies empty handed, the situation will be more deteriorating. Although the slogan ‘bringing peace process into a logical conclusion’ is popular among political arena, it is evident that the political parties have been trapped in the vicious game of power politics and have failed to come up with best alternatives to tackle the issue. The leaders need a comprehensive consideration on the issue on its future social, economic, cultural and political implication. At the present situation, a number of alternatives, rather than a single idea of integrating them into the security forces, can be best applied to settling them.
One way of them as often discussed, employing some of the cadres in Nepal Police, Armed Police Force and in NA can be possible but they after that they must give up their membership from the party and agree on rules and regulations of the state force/s.
Similarly, giving choices to the Maoist cadres to go back to the community and then providing them with reinsertion assistance such as education, financial supports, food and health facilities can be an important solution. It is also necessary to place them into employment, provide them with skill development training to stop them from being remobilised.
A sensitive but rarely discussed issue would be those of child soldiers, women and injured cadres while undertaking the adjustment and rehabilitation. It is said out of the disqualified PLA members around 1,000 are young mothers and teenagers. What do we do for them? Those who have been unable to qualify for integration are very vulnerable people to be supported in the process with the right alternative. It is thus important to consider the social, cultural and psychological impact of the integration issue; reestablishing them into their respective societies is another challenging task. The state also needs to create proper environment so that the societies accept and support the former combatants. In the case of women in the country like Nepal, the issue is more serious as the women are the most vulnerable group; thus in need of special consideration for enabling them to lead a normal life in the societies.
If irresponsible comments on the issue of management or reintegration of the former Maoists combatants continue in the current fashion, and if it is not handled with serious consideration by the political parties, the country will enter into the darkest era of history.
May the God enlighten our political leaders and thereby well manage the issue soon.
(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
Recent development in politics of Nepal clearly indicates that the growing political polarization between political parties has threatened the main agendas Nepal has to focus on. If the political parties fail to work with consensus and cooperation, it is almost sure that the agendas like writing a new constitution, bringing the peace to a logical conclusion and pitching the road for prosperous and peaceful Nepal will be overshadowed.
Despites the articulations from various political leaders about taking the peace process to a logical conclusion, differences and disagreements on whether to integrate of former Maoists combatants into Nepal Army (NA) has further complicated the process.
While the Maoists are trying to make collective integration of the UNMIN-verified combatants, Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (UML) and other political parties have been stressing on the rehabilitation and adjustment rather than integration in the NA; some leaders even completely oppose the idea of integration of politically indoctrinated Maoists cadres. Although these kinds of expression have been humming around, their views seem to have come out of the increasing mistrust and rifts developed over the period.
It is a pity that leaders neither from the Maoists nor from the other political parties, a few like Gagan Thapa might be an exception, have ever attempted to understand the seriousness and sensitivity of management of Maoist combatants in the ongoing peace process. Very few literatures can be read about the issue being analysed with a serious consideration. It is however a bitter reality that no political party can run way from the issue if they are to craft a sustainable peace in the country in a real sense.
In the pretext when the Maoists have not got the decisive victory through the war although they sound as if they have, the issue of Maoists army integration stands as the issue to be addressed by political consensus. Many things need to be taken into account when undertaking integration and adjustment of the combatants. If the political leaders fail to introduce a holistic approach soon, which can facilitate the sustainable peace in the country, it will undermine the whole contributions and achievements the Nepali people have made till now. It is therefore the time for developing a pilot project to settle this issue. Imagine the scenario of lack of consensus in formulating a comprehensive strategy to manage the Maoists cadres in the peace process; it would be fatal not only for the political parties but also for the country itself.
According to Johan Galtung, an expert on conflict, conflicts are generally not solved. “What survives after a conflict has disappeared from the agenda is conflict energy reproduced and produced by the conflict.” This articulation is also supported by the emergence of many armed groups in Terai region. We can not imagine Nepal with the Maoist cadres returning to conflict in any form; thus their settlement remains a major part of the peace process. Nepal’s peace process which has passed the disarmament and demobilisation phases of Disarmament, Demobilisation, Reinsertion and Reintegration (DDRR) process, is now urgently in need of entering into other two phases. We must learn from conflict management experiences of various countries like South Africa, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Colombia and El Salvador where poor management and insufficient programmes after disarmament created further conflicts and the combatants got remobilised.
The Maoist army issue and its settlement is thus an integral part of the whole peace process and needs their reintegration no matter whether in security sectors or in any other areas. For this, it requires micro level to macro-level institutional changes for facilitating the sustainable peace. Among 32,250 Maoist cadres registered in 28 cantonments across the country and only 19,692 of which are eligible to be treated as combatants and have been living with their future uncertain. It is an urgent task to make a comprehensive decision on their integration, adjustment and rehabilitation by dismentaling the cantonments which are not benificial to be continued from finincial as well peace prospective. In the transition from war to peace the successful implementation of DDRR process and peace are strongly connected and can be counterproductive in case of failure to do it properly.
It should be seriously acknowledged that, if sent back to their societies empty handed, the situation will be more deteriorating. Although the slogan ‘bringing peace process into a logical conclusion’ is popular among political arena, it is evident that the political parties have been trapped in the vicious game of power politics and have failed to come up with best alternatives to tackle the issue. The leaders need a comprehensive consideration on the issue on its future social, economic, cultural and political implication. At the present situation, a number of alternatives, rather than a single idea of integrating them into the security forces, can be best applied to settling them.
One way of them as often discussed, employing some of the cadres in Nepal Police, Armed Police Force and in NA can be possible but they after that they must give up their membership from the party and agree on rules and regulations of the state force/s.
Similarly, giving choices to the Maoist cadres to go back to the community and then providing them with reinsertion assistance such as education, financial supports, food and health facilities can be an important solution. It is also necessary to place them into employment, provide them with skill development training to stop them from being remobilised.
A sensitive but rarely discussed issue would be those of child soldiers, women and injured cadres while undertaking the adjustment and rehabilitation. It is said out of the disqualified PLA members around 1,000 are young mothers and teenagers. What do we do for them? Those who have been unable to qualify for integration are very vulnerable people to be supported in the process with the right alternative. It is thus important to consider the social, cultural and psychological impact of the integration issue; reestablishing them into their respective societies is another challenging task. The state also needs to create proper environment so that the societies accept and support the former combatants. In the case of women in the country like Nepal, the issue is more serious as the women are the most vulnerable group; thus in need of special consideration for enabling them to lead a normal life in the societies.
If irresponsible comments on the issue of management or reintegration of the former Maoists combatants continue in the current fashion, and if it is not handled with serious consideration by the political parties, the country will enter into the darkest era of history.
May the God enlighten our political leaders and thereby well manage the issue soon.
(Baniya is a research fellow at Democracy and Social Movement Institute (DaSMI) Sungkonghoe University, Seoul, South Korea. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com )
This article was originally published in online news portal of nepal: www.nepalnews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
