Disturbing Admission Of Failure

By Sanjay Upadhya

In their eagerness to cede power to a ‘non-political’ election government, the architects of our headlong plunge toward a ‘new Nepal’ have admitted failure. That is a disturbing development on multiple levels.
Sections within the erstwhile Seven Party Alliance and the breakaway Maoist group -- representing the ideological core that drove the ‘People’s War’ -- have denounced the move as having been driven by foreign hands. The fact that the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninists seemed to have wilted overnight after ridiculing the idea lends credence to the critics.
Within both major parties, moreover, there are constituencies strongly opposed to the idea of the chief justice leading the government. A section of the Madhesh-based parties, too, has opposed the move from a different direction.
These critics deserve greater attention than those questioning the constitutionality of the move. After all, many of those criticizing the development from a constitutional vantage point are willing to accept it as a needed political outlet. Constitutionalism, in any case, has long ceased to govern the political process.
A political outlet that departs from the parties’ familiar shenanigans may be more attractive to the general public. And this is where things get scary. The foreign elements influencing our affairs hitherto got to shoot from the shoulders of traditional politicians. A ‘non-political’ government runs the risk of providing cover to both the foreign hand and the political parties.
It is hard to believe that the parties advocating such a government would be ready to cede the initiative. The prospect of political brinkmanship by proxy is real, especially when the parties can now consider themselves a step removed from direct responsibility.
The road-blocks to the promulgation of a new constitution will not have been removed by a mere change in the nature of the government. A ‘non-political’ government may be better able to hold credible elections. Yet the parties will have incentives to delay such elections if they perceive adverse conditions to their individual organizations. The parties that were not part of the April 2006 Uprising may see a better chance of earning the trust of the electorate. New realignments could underscore the shifts the public has undergone in these seven tumultuous years. In such a case, political stakeholders other than the principal parties might seek a say in the mechanism overseeing the election government. That would be more than enough to the currently predominant parties to stave off elections. Clearly, a prolonged transition is not in Nepal and Nepalis’ interests. Who, then, stands to benefit?
Unfortunately, the principal political parties seem to have absolved themselves from the responsibility to provide an honest answer.