|
In a remarkable
achievement after decades of turmoil, the Himalayan Nation remained
completely free of insurgency-related violence through 2013. Militant
violence has registered a constant decline
since the signing of the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2006, but it is for
the first time since March 2000, when the South Asia Terrorism
Portal (SATP) database commenced compiling data on insurgency-related
fatalities in Nepal, that the country did not record a single
insurgency-related incident during the course of a year. According
to partial data compiled by the SATP, the country witnessed 11
fatalities (10 civilians and one Jantantrik Terai Mukti Morcha
cadre) in six such incidents in 2012. At its peak in 2002, the
insurgency saw 4,896 persons, including 3,992 Maoists, 666 Security
Force personnel and 238 civilians, killed in a single year.
In a worrying development,
however, political violence did increase considerably during 2013.
Activists of political parties clashed with each other on at least
22 occasions resulting in four deaths and 167 injuries. There
were four such incidents resulting in seven injuries and no fatalities
in 2012. Further, activists of political parties clashed with
law enforcement personnel on at least four occasions in 2013,
with 14 persons injured.
Moreover, till
the fag-end of 2013, the political environment remained extremely
volatile, with a looming threat of violent escalation. Indeed,
the clouds of political uncertainty that had enveloped Nepal in
2012, after the dramatic
gains of 2011, had deepened, exasperating
the political class. Political developments thereafter have, however,
made freedom from insurgency-related violence sustainable, even
as they have resulted in a diminution in political violence itself.
The successful
holding of elections for the second Constituent Assembly (CA)
on November 19, 2013, was the critical development that transformed
the political environment of the country, despite repeated delays,
hiccups and rising bitterness in some political formations during
the run-up to the elections. Eventually, a voter turnout of 78.34
per cent conferred tremendous legitimacy on the process, and this
could not be undermined by the angry reactions of the Unified
Communist Party of Nepal - Maoist (UCPN-M)
who were smarting under the brutal electoral rebuff they received.
Under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, the Nepali
Congress (NC) won largest number of seats, 105; followed by the
Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML), 91;
with the UCPN-M getting just 26. The NC got an additional 91 seats
under the proportional representation (PR) system; the CPN-UML
got 84 PR seats and the UCPN-M, 54. The NC consequently emerged
as the largest party in the 601-member CA, with 196 seats; followed
by CPN-UML at 175 seats; and UCPN-M with 80 seats. The often
strident and disruptive Madhesi parties have, however, been substantially
marginalized, securing just 53 seats (12 under FPTP system and
41 under PR system).
On January 3, 2014,
the Election Commission submitted the list of 240 lawmakers elected
under the FPTP electoral system and 335 lawmakers under the PR
system. The remaining 26 members of the 601-member CA will be
nominated by the Cabinet, once formed. The submission was delayed
because of the UCPN-M’s earlier decision not to submit names for
its PR seats. The party had alleged that the elections were not
fairly conducted and had challenged the veracity of the results.
Significantly,
in the last CA elections held in 2008, the CPN-Maoist (the parent
party of the present UCPN-M) had emerged as the largest party
in the CA, securing 229 seats (120 FPTP, 100 PR and nine nominated);
followed by NC, with 115 seats (37 FPTP, 73 PR and five nominated);
and CPN-UML, with 108 seats (33 FPTP, 70 PR and five nominated).
Clearly, the UCPN-M
faced a rout in the recent elections. Party Chairman Pushpa Kamal
Dahal aka Prachanda's personal loss
from Kathmandu Constituency No. 10, would have been unimaginable
a few months earlier, despite the considerable weakening of the
party following the vertical
split in June 2012. Clearly, as of now, the
party has lost its pole position in Nepali politics. The Maoists
had emerged as the main political force in Nepal after the signing
of the CPA in 2006 and the subsequent 2008 polls for the first
CA.
Eventually accepting
the current ground realities, the Maoists, who had boycotted the
counting of votes, later retracted from their defiant position
and confirmed that they would cooperate with the new Government
in framing of the new Constitution. This is a major development,
since UCPN-M, in the past, had created many unwarranted obstacles
in the writing of the Constitution and had repeatedly threatened
to go back to the ‘path of revolution’. With diminishing influence
and its own willing participation in the electoral process, it
cannot credibly threaten the prevailing peace. In a more recent
setback, differences have emerged between Prachanda and senior
party leader and former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, in the
aftermath of the electoral debacle. The differences widened further
over the selection of candidates by the party leadership under
the PR system. As of now, however, Bhattarai has declared that
he has no intention of splitting the party, though he has warned
of 'serious consequences' if Prachanda continues with his "undemocratic
working style".
Crucially, the
failure of the Mohan Baidya-led faction of the CPN-Maoist to obstruct
the elections, or even to significantly impact on the process,
despite constant threats and full-throttle opposition, demonstrated
that this group is also a spent force, with little current capacity
to adversely influence the relative stability that prevails in
the country.
These developments
have thus created ample opportunity for the two main parties –
NC and CPN-UML - to complete the process of drafting the Constitution
to place Nepal squarely on the path of establishing a strong democratic
system. There are, of course, some contentious
issues that will need to be thrashed out,
including, inter alia, the question of the form of governance
and federalism. Given the appreciable political maturity these
two parties have demonstrated over the past few years, it is expected
that these issues may be solved sooner rather than later.
Initial hurdles,
however, remain. The first and foremost is the confrontation between
President Ram Baran Yadav and the Chairman of the Interim Election
Government, Khilraj Regmi, about who will call the first meeting
of the second CA. Though the President is reported to have now
agreed to allow Regmi to call the meeting, the final word on the
issue is yet to be spoken. According to Article 69 of the Interim
Constitution, the first meeting of the elected CA should be convened
within 21 days of submission of the final list of CA members to
the President. It is, of course, anticipated that this confrontation
will play itself out within a few days, and the meeting will be
called.
Nevertheless, with
no party securing a clear majority, the fractured mandate in the
CA elections is expectedly creating challenges in Government formation.
While the CPN-UML wants the issue of power sharing - including
a division of the top posts of President, Vice President, Prime
Minister, Speaker and Chairman of the Constitutional Committee
among the major political parties – to be decided first, the NC
is giving little importance to this issue. On January 8, 2014,
NC President Sushil Koirala, when asked to comment on CPN-UML's
call for a concrete proposal on power sharing, responded, “What
is a concrete proposal? I am not sure. I am not convinced why
some parties are unnecessarily propping up the issue of power
sharing. The Constitution drafting process is my top priority.”
Optimistically, he added, “Political developments are heading
in a positive direction and I am hopeful that the CA will convene
on time and gradually the government formation process will take
shape." He did, nevertheless, concede, "Without consensus
among the major parties, it is difficult to write the Constitution.
So it’s not a time to distrust any political force. No single
party can meet the current challenges before the nation by stonewalling
the other.” Again on January 10, 2014, NC leader Ram Sharan Mahat
claimed that leaders of both parties – NC and CPN-UML- had already
begun talks on government formation, and asserted that a new government
led by his party would be formed by the first week of February
2014.
The CA elections
have been a powerful lesson to all political formations in Nepal,
with a clear popular mandate against the fractious and obstructive
politics of the past. Any political party choosing to ignore the
public mood can only attract further, and potentially permanent
marginalization. While the mandate remains somewhat fractured,
it has created conditions that, with a measure of political sagacity
on the part of the main players, could result not only in stable
arrangements for governance, but, crucially, a final resolution
of the issues that have obstructed the drafting of the Constitution.
|
