Hard Part Begins: Going Beyond Revolutionary Rhetoric
By M.R. Josse
Predictably, no discernible effort is being made to cool passions, patch up differences and heal wounds of the recent
tumultuous past. Is all this part of a carefully choreographed scenario to push the nation irremediably over the brink?
Or, is it merely the inexorable result of a movement that had more than one driving force or inspiration?
In any case, it is anyone's guess where such an uneasy fluid situation, if prolonged indefinitely, will lead this
nation.
Evidence of the tumult, confusion and contradictions that still prevail on the political front is there for all to see.
There would seem to be unanimity among the SPA constituents in as far as eliminating key personnel of the former regime
is concerned. Yet, consensus is seemingly as elusive or intangible as the morning fog where other, far more significant,
issues are concerned.
THE HARD PART
In other words, the easy part is over; the hard slog now begins. A vivid manifestation of the obtaining difficulties and
problems is provided by the fact that the SPA government of seven members has, as of this writing on Tuesday morning,
not been enlarged to a normal level. According to all indications, that is due to fierce conflicting claims and demands
among SPA constituents who are, in theory, solidly united.
Quite aside from that, there is also the spectacle of the prime minister being largely invisible: perhaps that is due to
his reported ill health. Given the immensity of the problems at hand, such a situation is, in any case, certainly not
the most reassuring.
There are then discordant voices that are being heard regarding ownership of the 19-day mass movement that resulted in
the reinstatement of the House of Representatives. While some members of the SPA claim that the movement was the
singular contribution of the SPA, that is hotly contested both by members of civil society that were involved, as well
as by the Maoists themselves.
At some point this controversy will need to be settled. Before then, it is worth noting that the Maoists are still
insisting that the just reinstated House of Representatives, be dissolved and that the government, not yet fully formed,
be replaced by an interim one in which they too would participate.
How this knotty tangle is to be unloosened remains to be seen.
It is also uncomfortable to note the degree of divergence and confusion that seemingly exists on the issue of a
constituent assembly. Although all now declare their commitment or fealty to that ideal, clear differences are
discernible about its pace and procedure.
Should it be endorsed by a simple or two-thirds majority of the constituent assembly? Should it be put to the whole
nation for endorsement in a referendum, or not? While some wish to rush full steam ahead in that direction, others
caution patience and careful preparation.
Moreover, at the popular level, judging by a spate of write-ups in the media, there is even confusion about what it is
really all about. A common point in many of such articles is the need for a public awareness campaign on the subject
before going ahead. That, to me, seems commonsensical given the gravity of the issues concerned and the need for all
citizens to be clear what they are voting for.
Also, while members of the restored House reportedly want to declare it "supreme" – or, in other words, above all
existing laws and regulations of the land – it would hardly go down well with the Maoists who roundly reject the House
whose dissolution they have been demanding. According to one SPA stalwart: "Laws give rise to confusion."
Demands for the sacking of all service chiefs and related moves are being made every day, with scant thought going to
the possible adverse impact of such rhetoric on the morale of the armed forces. They, after all, will still be needed in
the future as long as Nepal continues to be an independent, sovereign state.
There are also discordant voices being ventilated on the issue of blanket release of Maoists, under trial or under jail
sentences. Care should obviously be taken on this question, related as it is to the question of law and order if not
national security itself.
Even today, let it not be forgotten, reports are coming in of acts of violence, including abductions and torture, by the
Maoists. If the situation were, once again, to get out of hand would the state not need the armed forces? Can it
therefore afford to treat them the way that they presently are being doing? It is wise?
CONSTITUTION: ALIVE OR DEAD?
Another vexing issue is whether the 1990 Constitution is alive or not. If it is not, are we then in a
legal/constitutional vacuum at present? What could be the implications of such a state of affairs, now and into the
future? Since the constitution is the basic law of the land it is legitimate to question whether there can be a
democracy without the rule of law?
Indeed, since the nation is now poised for elections to draft a new constitution, what is the justification of an
interim constitution when we are to go for full-scale elections for a constituent assembly to draft a brand new one?
That has not been fully explained to the people. Perhaps some qualified independent legal eagles can, or should, provide
the necessary illumination on this point.
Thus far, for example, the government has not come out in the open, one way or another, on whether it will seek
international assistance in ensuring free and fair elections for a constituent assembly. That is essential, apart from
all else, given the open Nepal-India border and the imperative to ensure that only eligible Nepali citizens are allowed
to vote.
There is, then, as all know, the most difficult issue of arms management prior to holding elections for a constituent
assembly. Who is to ensure, for example, what the total inventory of arms and related equipment that the Maoists possess
is? Without that, what sense does it make to say that all their arms/weapons are under supervision – of whatever sort is
eventually agreed upon.
Here it may be salutary to note what a leader of a Maoist-affiliated student body has recent stated. As reported in the
Himalayan Times, he said that the "Maoists cannot surrender arms unless asked by the people." What exactly does that
mean?
To be noted, too, is that, as the same individual explained, the Maoists have only agreed to have their arms
"supervised" not for them to be "surrendered." Would those arms be taken back if the results of the constituent assembly
were not in their favour?
Moreover, let it be noted that a UN official on tour in Nepal presently has pointedly ruled out the UN's role in such a
process. Interestingly, this government has ruled out UN mediation for conflict resolution. That was precisely the
position of the past government, even in the face of stiff opposition including that by the Maoists!
DAY-TO-DAY GOVERNANCE
Finally, the government needs to come to grips with the myriad day-to-day problems of the people, including that of
providing adequate essential commodities at reasonable prices, of ensuring that educational institutions are not
subjected to abrupt closures any more, as well as to tackle multifarious and urgent problems on the employment, public
health, trade and services sectors.
It must also ensure that the past tendency of wholesale sacking and replacement by party cadre must be resisted in the
greater cause of public welfare.
In short, the hard part is only just beginning.
ENDS