Opinion The imperative of dialogue

No doubt,countries far and near have their own stakes. The US,in its nearly six-decade-long presence,has pumped in $1.3 billion and asserts that it is only concerned with development,democracy and human rights. In principle,an election will be the assertion of the people’s rule,with accountability and commitment to democracy. For India and China,stability in their neighbourhood is the necessary pre-condition for their own security. But politics is not convincingly moving in the direction determined by the diplomats.

With little more than 100 days left for the November 19 polls,the delimitation committee has not been able to define the basis for the mandatory reshuffle of existing constituencies. The international community and donors,nevertheless,are promising material support. Some parties favouring polls are sceptical about fairness,as the four major parties that have together formed the “High Level Political Committee” to advise the government enjoy an advantage over others.

But politics at times assumes unforeseen dimensions that affect the agreed upon course. Former PM Baburam Bhattarai’s resignation as vice chairman of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) has triggered an intra-party feud,weakening the position of party chief Prachanda,who harbours prime ministerial ambitions. Bhattarai’s insistence on not withdrawing his resignation,on the ground that he is “approaching 60 and believes that young leadership should be encouraged”,is a message to Prachanda to follow suit. Prachanda,however,is not one to give up easily. He is also prone to changing his line if he realises an election is not going in his favour. Last week,he told a group of ethnic leaders to crusade for increasing the component of proportional representation beyond the agreed 50 per cent in the mixed electoral system adopted for the election.

The UCPN-M is not the only pro-election party that is confused and divided. Shashank Koirala of the Nepali Congress,son of B.P. Koirala,dropped a bombshell when he told BBC Nepali that removing the monarchy was “not the demand of the mass movement in 2006,and that a time may come when we all have to rethink that decision.” B.P. Koirala,sacked in 1960 as PM by King Mahendra,spent eight years in jail and then moved to India to continue his crusade for democracy. But he kept insisting that Nepal would need the constitutional monarchy and democratic forces to work together for its survival as an independent country.

There are more introspective voices speaking up,as the country moves from hope to uncertainty to predictable anarchy. “The end of the Shah dynasty was engineered through a political decision of the parties rather than in consultation with the people. Mainly,it was pushed by the Maoist leadership’s need to justify before their fighters the abandonment of the people’s war,” wrote Kanak Mani Dixit,a republican. But a review of the situation,at a time when key leaders of the four big parties are perceived to be responsible for the current mess,may lead to a new kind of reconciliation.

Nepal’s failure to deliver a constitution was an outcome of the inability on the part of four parties to come together on key components. Throughout,the top leaders chose not to involve the people.

But the absence of a central authority,a partisan president,the erosion of the state’s authority and a politics of no accountability are haunting the public psyche. Only resuming the dialogue among all sides,including those excluded in 2006,can create the necessary conditions for fair and acceptable polls.

yubaraj.ghimire@expressindia.com