Opinion An elusive consensus

The consensus-based politics that they pledged to follow after the successful mass movement of April 2006 has broken down,almost beyond repair. UCPN-M chief Prachanda and his comrade-in-arms Baburam Bhattarai have fallen out. Without the Maoists (the largest party with 238 members in the 601-member constituent assembly),neither the peace process nor constitution writing seems possible. What’s more,these political parties and their leaders stand discredited. For the Maoists,other parties are merely “puppets” and “collaborators”,in the hands of “hegemonic and imperialistic forces”. So any alliance with the Maoists is bound to be a power-driven arrangement,on Maoist terms. On the other hand,no alliance without Maoists will be a stable proposition — a classic Catch-22 situation.

Madhav Nepal was a weak and uninspiring prime minister. The main reason he was tolerated for 13 months by his coalition partners was because he was gullible and never came in the way of any minister’s actions. Each party and cabinet minister was fully autonomous,with Madhav Nepal’s smile-and-ignore approach. In Prachanda’s words,which not many disagree with,this has been the most corrupt government in Nepal’s history.

Yet Madhav Nepal was lucky. He lost the election to the constituent assembly in April 2008,but came to the house as a nominated member and headed the most crucial constitutional committee,responsible for drafting the constitution. Within weeks,Prachanda resigned as prime minister and the mantle fell on Nepal as he was favoured by almost all parties except the Maoists.

However,later the Maoists adopted the rigid stance that they would support the peace and constitution making process only if Prime Minister Nepal resigns. Last week,they announced they would not allow the government to present the budget and let the president address the house,without the resignation coming first. As the new financial year begins on July 15,and the government was not in a position to fulfill both the constitutional obligations,Nepal found himself cornered. He had called the house on July 5 hoping that the Maoists would support him in the passage of the budget. But instead,his party chief Jhalnath Khanal and speaker Subhash Nembang — also from the UML — sided with the Maoists and publicly demanded the prime minister’s resignation.

Prime Minister Nepal was,certainly,under obligation to resign under a three-point agreement that the chiefs of three major political parties had signed on May 28. Through the midnight agreement,the three parties had decided to extend the constituent assembly tenure by a year,although it failed to meet the May 28 deadline to deliver the new constitution. To explore the revival of consensus-based politics and pave the way for a national unity government,Madhav Nepal was to resign “without delay”. The UCPN-M had also undertaken to implement all past agreements and transform the Young Communist League (YCL) and the UCPN-M itself into a civilian outfit,dispensing with their military character. Nepal quit without securing any success on that count,which only means that the Maoists,as in the past,will be selective in implementing their promises.

Despite the internal squabbling,the Maoist military character remains intact. Its cadre has not stopped their extortion or surrendered the property they confiscated during the years of conflict,a pledge renewed in the May 28 agreement. They refused to implement these promises when they were in power. Even today,the Maoist claim to lead the government makes no reference to this pledge,they simply wield their parliamentary numbers — far below the majority mark — and their military muscle.

Much will depend,however,on how the faction-ridden Nepali Congress — the second largest party in parliament — with its acceptability among pro-democracy masses,addresses both internal rifts and emerging challenges. Nepali Congress will be far more acceptable than the Maoists who have so far used the peace process as a ladder to power and a means to destroy democracy from within,or even the UML which failed to deliver when it led the government. But a mere compromise for the sake of power,without clarity on a common programme and the will to implement it,will only worsen the chaos,uncertainty and anarchy in the nation.

yubaraj.ghimire@expressindia.com