After Maoist Protests, Nepal Faces a Murky Future

Not long ago, unprecedented change seemed to be sweeping the mountainous nation of Nepal. Following the end of a violent civil war in 2006 and a historic election in 2008, the Himalayan kingdom, ruled for decades by the almost divine right of its monarchs, became a secular republic. Maoist rebels, who once preached armed struggle and proletarian revolution, donned suits and went about promoting capitalist industry. But since then, Nepal's fortunes have hardly improved. Indeed, for many Nepalis, the country's dream of transformation has turned into an interminable nightmare.

Last week, traffic in Kathmandu was bullied off the streets as tens of thousands of Maoist protesters hoping to topple the current government barricaded stretches of the capital's main road on May 4. Countless businesses were forced to shutter, costing Nepal's meager economy an estimated $300 million over the six days of the demonstrations. The strike was only lifted on the night of May 7 after widespread anger and counter-protests — as well as reports of dysentery and diarrhea among tired Maoist activists — apparently convinced the Maoist leadership to back down.

But the way forward is as uncertain as ever. After waging a decade-long war against the royalist state that saw the deaths of over 13,000 people, the Maoists became the driving force of a peace process meant to usher in a new democratic era for Nepal. In a landmark April 2008 election, they won the majority of seats and formed the government that would, in theory, draft a new constitution and steer Nepal away from the great inequities of its monarchical past. Yet little was achieved in a country riven by political factions and feudal enmities; last May, the Maoists backed away from power when their firing of the country's army chief, a longtime foe, was blocked by other parties in government.

Opponents have questioned the Maoists' ability to truly renounce their militant past — a fear made all the more real by recent fiery proclamations of Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the Maoist leader better known by his nom de guerre, Prachanda, meaning the "fierce one." On Saturday, the day after lifting the general strike, he thundered to a mass rally in Kathmandu that the strike that had crippled the nation for a week "was only a dress rehearsal... We will put on the real show in the days to come." Since the strike has been called off, there have been reports of fresh protests and disturbances.

The Maoists have refused recent overtures to sit down to talks with the government, an ungainly coalition of 22 parties patched together to replace the Maoist-dominated administration. Critics, the Maoists chief among them, say the present regime is weak, corrupt and lacks a popular mandate. Dinanath Sharma, a Maoist spokesman, calls it "unnaturally formed. It's undemocratic and against the spirit of the peace process." Many Maoist supporters who flocked to the capital to participate in last week's lockdown have no intention of disbanding. "I will stay in Kathmandu as long as the movement continues," says Ashok Shrestha, a Maoist party worker from the west of the country, now camped out with colleagues in the corridors of a shopping complex in the capital.

Key to the conflict has been the fate of thousands of Maoist soldiers still housed in U.N.-monitored cantonments across the country — according to various agreements, they are expected to integrate with the same Nepali Army they once bitterly opposed. The deadline for the process has passed and it has yet to happen. Both sides accuse the other of having their own agendas for delaying this vital step toward political unity: the Maoists see themselves arrayed against an old guard eager to return to the royalist era; opponents think the Maoists ultimately do not want to shed their fatigues for civilian life and democratic politics. Pradeep Gyawali, a prominent politician within the government, speaks darkly of the Maoists' intentions. "This strike was a trial run for an urban uprising," Gyawali says, adding that Prachanda's cadres received inspiration from the success of the recent mass agitations in Thailand and Kyrgyzstan that convulsed the politics of both countries.

Meanwhile, the country teeters toward a precipice. Nepal's elected assembly was supposed to have ratified a new constitution by May 28. But the parties, including the Maoists, are nowhere close to an agreement by that date, after which the interim charter that in essence underpins the whole state of affairs in the fragile nation will expire. It's a surreal and unsettling prospect for most Nepalis, who had high hopes for the much-vaunted peace process. "The political parties are steeped in petty interest," says Lokraj Baral, a leading Kathmandu-based commentator. "They have all forgotten the crucial task of drafting a constitution. They lack commitment to the larger interest of the country."

Nepal is in desperate need of broad-mindedness. Sandwiched between rising economic giants in India and China, the country is one of the poorest and worst performing in the world, with chronic food and power shortages and a steady drip of its 28 million population departing for menial jobs in the Gulf countries and Southeast Asia. It's not surprising that, with such entrenched poverty and political dysfunction, the grandstanding Maoists have attracted so vociferous a following. "None of the political parties looked after us, but the Maoists seemed honest," says Tilak Sirali, a 42-year-old laborer who left behind six children in his destitute village in the east to join the strikers in Kathmandu. "I came here with the hope that poor people like me will not have to suffer anymore."

But the Maoists' actions have only deepened the sense of crisis gripping Nepal. Krishna Sitaula, a party elder of the centrist Nepali Congress, hopes that last ditch talks in the coming weeks "can bring back the country from the brink." Foreign governments, a host of international organizations and NGOs as well as Kathmandu's civil society are all applying pressure on the various parties. If this fails, darker days loom. Says Sitaula: "A full-fledged confrontation is very likely."

Source: Time Magazine

Nepal’s post-Maoist government falters

KATHMANDU, June 8, 2009 (AFP) - Two weeks after Nepal swore in a new prime minister following the fall of the Maoist government, analysts say the ruling coalition is looking decidedly shaky as it struggles to form a cabinet.

Maoist chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal – known as Prachanda – plunged the world’s newest republic into chaos in May when he resigned as prime minister just eight months into the job following a failed bid to fire the head of the army.

A group of rival parties led by the centre-left UML – the third-largest party in parliament – agreed to form a new ruling coalition, but have failed to agree on cabinet positions amid fierce political infighting.

On Friday one of the coalition partners withdrew its support, further weakening the already fragile grouping.

“Even if they do manage to form a full government, it will be highly unstable,” said Lok Raj Baral, political science professor at the Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu.

“The culture of mistrust among parties is so high that the government could fall at any time. The rangling for the ministerial berths in parties has made the country’s political future uncertain,” Baral said.

Prachanda and his fellow guerrillas fought against the army in a bloody civil war before emerging as the surprise winners of a 2007 general election with more than a third of the seats in parliament.

However, he resigned as prime minister after Nepal’s president blocked his government’s efforts to sack the head of the army, General Rookmangud Katawal.

On Friday, Maoist lawmakers tussled with police as they protested outside the president’s office, and they have vowed to disrupt parliament and hold street protests until Katawal is removed.

“We want the president to apologise and correct his unconstitutional move,” Maoist party spokesman Dinanath Sharma told AFP.

“We will continue to protest from streets and in parliament unless our demands are met,” he added.

The row between Prachanda’s government and Katawal was centred on the fate of 19,000 former Maoist rebel fighters, who are currently confined to United Nations-supervised camps.

Prachanda demanded that they be integrated into the national army to cement the peace process but the army refused, saying the guerrillas could never become non-partisan soldiers.

The current political uncertainty has cast a shadow over the fragile peace process launched when the 10-year civil war ended in 2006.

Rhoderick Chalmers, Nepal country director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), said the process was “close to collapse.”

“It is unfortunate to see political leaders fighting for petty gains and to fulfill personal ambitions,” he told AFP.

“Consensus was the key for all the parties, including the Maoists, to move forward.

“In order to take the peace process forward, the first thing parties should do is to rebuild consensus.”

A key task is the drafting of a new constitution after the 2008 abolition of the Himalayan nation’s 239-year-old monarchy.

But the process is already well behind schedule, and few now believe the government can meet its May 2010 deadline.

“The peace process will get delayed and at this point it doesn’t seem likely that the government will meet he deadline of writing the constitution,” said Tribhuvan University’s Baral.

Shankar Pokhrel, secretary of the UML party, told AFP discussions on ministerial portfolios were continuing, and expressed hope they would be completed within a few days.

“The biggest challenge is to bring all the leaders under one roof,” he said.

But Gunaraj Luitel, political columnist with the Nepali language daily Nagarik, said the latest crisis had exposed a “deep crisis of confidence” among the party leaders.

“The road to peace and stability looks rocky. Without a politics of consensus, Nepal will remain stuck,” he said.

Mr Nepal lucks out

But his country, of the same name, is struggling

ON MAY 23rd Madhav Kumar Nepal, the communist son of a Hindu priest, became Nepal’s new prime minister. He succeeds Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the country’s former Maoist leader—the main protagonist in a decade-long guerrilla war—who resigned on May 4th, leaving the government in limbo. Mr Nepal has the support of 21 of the 24 political parties in Nepal’s assembly; but this is scarcely democratic progress. The Maoists, who won 38% of the assembly’s seats in the country’s first post-conflict election last year, do not support him. Nor did Mr Nepal win either of the two seats he contested in the poll.

Among many threats to his new government, the Maoists loom large. Mr Dahal, who resigned after he was foiled in an effort to sack an old enemy, Nepal’s army chief, General Rookmangud Katawal, has said they remain committed to democracy. Yet the Maoists had until last week stopped the assembly functioning since their chief’s resignation. And they still demand that the president, Ram Baran Yadav, should reverse his decision to veto General Katawal’s sacking. Backed by Mr Nepal and his allies, who consider the army a last defence against the Maoists, Mr Yadav will not do this. On May 24th the Maoists spurned an invitation to join the new government.

With luck, it may survive for a while. It might even try easing the country’s severe power and fuel shortages. That would quell some of the growing discontent at the failure of any party to deliver on its election promises. But the early signs are not promising, with Mr Nepal’s coalition partners bitterly feuding over the division of cabinet spoils.

More important, there seems little prospect of this government making much progress on the assembly’s two main tasks—shepherding a complicated peace process and drafting a new constitution. Under Mr Dahal’s more solid government, including the Maoists, Mr Nepal’s UML (for Unified Marxist-Leninist) and other parties, these were daunting: the thorniest issue of the peace process, the fate of 23,000-odd former Maoist fighters, led indirectly to its demise. (Some of these fighters are to be recruited into the army; but General Katawal, to the Maoists’ fury, has resisted this.) And if Mr Nepal’s government cannot resolve these issues, it had better make way for one that can.