In the last week of August, top leaders from major political parties had committed in public that they would reach an agreement by mid-September on whether to reinstate the dissolved Constituent Assembly (CA) or go for fresh elections.[break]
But by Monday, the leaders haven´t made any headway toward resolving the deepening political crisis.
A meeting participated by leaders from UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress (NC), CPN-UML and Madhes-based parties on Sunday ended inconclusive and leaders emerging from the venue at Baneshwar told reporters that they decided to hold next round of talks on Tuesday.
On August 29, top leaders of major political parties at a meeting held at the International Convention Center Baneshwar had reached an understanding to settle the unresolved disputes in constitution writing and to decide the next course in a package by mid-September.
At a function organized by former lawmakers in Kathmandu later on the same day, UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and CPN-UML leader and former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, flanked by Nepali Congress President Sushil Koirala and CPN-UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal, disclosed the understanding.
Former Speaker Damannath Dhungana, who was present at the function, expressed doubt if the leaders would realize their promises in practice given their unimpressive track record.
Dhungana claims that the negotiations among the top leaders in Nepal often yield no result as they are held without any plan, homework and without following any system.
"It´s a deep-seated problem among our leaders that they never hold structured dialogues that would help make the talks systematic and yield result," Dhungana told Republica. "First, the stakeholders should agree on modus operandi of the talks. Sometimes, they should nominate a convenor acceptable for all sides."
Dhungana, who has many a time either observed or facilitated formal and informal talks among leaders, said that Nepali leaders often hold random talks. He finds lack of code of conduct, agenda identification, maintaining institutional memory and presence of facilitators or mediators to make the talks smooth. "It is high time that the political parties hold organized and systematic talks in the presence of some independent mediators or witnesses," he said.
Political Sociologist Dr Dinesh Prasai, who specialized in conflict management, observed a lack of serious analyses of the societal problems and aspirations that would help political leaders give a solution. "They never seriously delve into serious social and political issues in the talks," Prasai told Republica. "Talks often fail to yield long-term solution to the nation because leaders are mostly guided by their immediate personal interests."
According to him, the leaders are so individualistic that even top leaders participating in the talks don´t represent their political parties. "Leaders lobby in the dialogues as per their factional or individual gains let alone becoming serious to give a solution to the national or societal issues," he explained.
CPN-UML politburo member Surendra Pandey, who often attends inter-party negotiations, said the technical aspect was the secondary factor. He believed that the major reason behind the failure was top leaders´ weaknesses and a lack of will power. "We are badly in need of leaders with qualities of statesmanship. None of the leaders from all the major political parties have a strong command in their respective party let alone having stature acceptable to other parties," said Pandey. "The leaders can´t even enforce any decision within their own party."
Another leader who regularly attends inter-party talks said leaders can´t implement decision in their own party because all leaders run after getting the prime ministerial position. "While some express it overtly others work for it covertly. Their lust for power and position is reflected in formal as well as informal meetings," said a leader, preferring anonymity.
Related story
Revised interest rate corridor system introduced
