Halla Sansaar (हल्ला संसार)

When Nepal said no || Nepal News

DEC 03 -

The Constituent Assembly II election result is a clear indication that the majority of Nepalis have rejected the agendas championed by the UCPN (Maoist), including ethnicity-based federalism. Despite some left-leaning intellectuals and self-declared stalwarts of democracy shamelessly suggesting (or covertly threatening) that the winning parties—the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML—not ignore the Maoist agenda, the need of the hour and the public expectation is that the winning forces stand their ground and not let the rejected Maoist ideology direct and define their stances on federalism, among other issues. Being considerate to the Maoist agenda would be quite contrary to democratic practices and something only the highly politicised Nepali intelligentsia is capable of coming up with. This would only suggest that the people’s verdict has no political meaning whatsoever.

Maoist leaders are wrong when they say that their defeat is not equivalent to the defeat of their agendas. In fact, this is exactly what their defeat means. Therefore, scholars and prominent civil society members have no reason to threaten us with doomsday scenarios in case the defeated party’s agenda is not taken seriously. NC and UML leaders need not put out statements promising that they will work toward forging consensus with the very party (its agendas and therefore, its candidates) that the people have rejected or that they will negotiate on taking turns to lead the government. This would be the exact opposite of what the Nepali voters want from their newly elected political leaders.

No more consensus

This is not to say that the Maoists’ valid demands/opposition should be totally ignored. Rather, it is to suggest that the winning parties should not appear wishy-washy in their dealings with the Maoists and should be able to deal with their political opponents from a position of strength. This is the only way to democratise the Maoists, as it will teach them how to play the role of a responsible opposition. In a democracy, the role of the opposition is often more significant than the role of the party that forms the government as it ensures that the government does not deviate from constitutional and democratic norms and spirit.

The majority’s aspirations and expectations shouldn’t be compromised just because a defeated party threatens to boycott the democratic process or resort to violence. Such hollow threats should not be taken seriously by the winning forces, if they really trust the public. The NC and UML should call the Maoist bluff as the latter is now neither capable of going back to the jungle nor able to dissociate itself from parliamentary politics. Both options would confine the Maoists to the inglorious dustbin of history as the people—evident from the latest CA election result—are highly politically aware.

Moreover, this CA election result is also an indication that the people want to see real a democratisation of Nepali politics and do away with the highly undemocratic practice of consensus. If the leaders still opt for consensus politics, which in our case means appeasing all disgruntled forces even when they are rejected by the people, it will not only lead to political instability and a weak state that is incapable of carrying out its responsibilities. It may very well lead to the people being disillusioned with the very idea of democracy, opting for something more radical and derailing the whole democratisation process. Continuing with consensus politics will also give the parties rejected by the people enormous power over those chosen by the people, making a mockery of the people’s democratic verdict.

Polls in vain?

Instead of talking about consensus, our leaders and scholars—if they are serious about the democratisation process—should ask the defeated and disgruntled forces to accept the election results and act responsibly. Any failure on the part of the NC and UML to make the Maoists understand the changed dynamics of politics or their overestimation of the Maoists’ strength would be interpreted by voters who voted for the NC and UML as a humiliation. If the winners of the election don’t act accordingly, chances are that the NC and UML too will go ‘the Maoist way’ in the next election.  

Although consensus sounds nice and may seem like a panacea for all of Nepal’s problems to those not familiar with our political system, the way our leaders understand the word—fostering petty personal interests—has led to all sorts of problems in the last five years. Those advocating consensus should be prepared to convincingly answer this simple question: if consensus among the top leaders of the major political parties is what matters, then what was the whole point of spending billions of rupees in holding a second CA election?

To conclude: the people have made their decision and it is for all parties to respect the people’s decision. That is, if the parties now represented in the CA are even half as democratic as they claim to be.

Tags: Politics