As election date draws close, security has become a prime concern, especially in the wake of the attempted murder of CPN-UML Bara-4 candidate Mohammad Alam.
What are the main security challenges in the lead up to the November vote? How can they be overcome? Umesh Prasad Mainali, who served as Home Secretary during 2008 CA election, shared his insights with Mahabir Paudyal and Kosh Raj Koirala. [break]
What major threats do your foresee for the upcoming election?
They mainly have to do with security threats to election candidates, which can be classified into two broad categories: real and perceived. Real threat arises out of enmity of certain groups with certain candidates. The perceived threat is more psychological.
BHASHWOR OJHA/Republica
What are the real threats? Could you elaborate?
There are many. First, the underground armed outfits operating in Tarai districts and eastern hills. Such outfits may launch violent movements targeting the candidates in order to come to the limelight. They could try to harm, even murder, candidates just to draw the attention of the state and to spread terror.
Only in February the leader of an armed outfit called Nepal Rastriya Mukti Morcha (Che Guevara) was apprehended from Sindhupalchowk. Second, bhagauda (deserter) police and army from insurgency era and the ex-PLA combatants who had been labeled “incompetent” in UMNIM verification also pose serious threat. They are well trained in weaponry and can produce home-made explosives. Political outfits can hire them to serve their interests.
Third, cross-border criminal gangs which are readily available for hire. They can enter Nepali territory, shoot people and abscond across the border in a very short time span. Fourth, youth wings of political parties themselves. Big parties are all set to mobilize youth in hundreds in each polling station in the name of candidate security. Even a small misunderstanding among such youths of various parties can stoke violence.
Why do you not consider Mohan Baidya-led alliance a threat?
I do not think legitimate political forces with clear ideology will come to the level of killing candidates. I don’t believe they will resort to any anti-political and what could be potentially suicidal moves.
Do you think our security bodies are efficient enough to identify and tackle security threats?
The current security strength should be able enough to avert all such threats, if they work proactively. We have a small number of security personnel. These personnel are dispersed a week before the election date to guard 10,000 polling booths across the country.
This will leave us with a small reserve force, which might not be enough to tackle unforeseen events. Yet if we coordinate with security agencies of India and start the work to contain cross-border crimes right now, the current strength of security forces will be enough to detect and control criminal elements.
But does not the attempted murder of Mohammad Alam suggest otherwise?
Like I said before, our security mechanisms can avert such incidents only if they work proactively. The Bara incident shows the security bodies were not proactive. Perhaps they were not expecting something like that so early in the electoral cycle.
The security bodies should have kept close watch on candidates from Parsa to Saptari in the south, which is considered the most security sensitive area, and provided them personal security officers (PSOs) right after candidate nomination concluded. Now the unthinkable has happened, sending a troubling message to the people about security threats to poll candidates. If security agencies do not get proactive now such incidents could be repeated.
Is it possible to provide PSOs to all of around 6,000 election candidates?
It’s not easy. We will need 6,000 armed security personnel and 6,000 constables to guard these candidates. Some senior leaders like UCPN (Maoist) chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and others will need a platoon of 16 security personnel. Yet the state cannot evade the responsibility of providing security to candidates.
But won’t that kind of concentration of security personnel make overall security situation even more vulnerable?
It could. But if the past is any guide, it won’t be very difficult. In 2008 we deployed 45,000 civil police and 17,000 armed police. We conducted the polls successfully, despite some shortcomings. Back then we could not use Nepal Army. Now about 61,000 Army personnel are going to take over some of police duties.
How do you compare security challenges now to those of 2008?
Some Tarai districts are as sensitive as they were in 2008. The underground elements could harm candidates if they perceive any loophole in security arrangement. An armed group can kill a candidate to foil the election.
But current challenges are a little different. Back in 2008 armed outfits in Tarai were more in number and more aggressive. There are fewer such radical forces now. Back then we all were bound by the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
We could not control cantoned PLAs even if they created havoc, nor could we use the Army. Now we can use the Army and the PLA has already been integrated into national army. The only problem now is a legitimate political force (Baidya alliance) which is out to disrupt polls. The nature of challenges is different but there are big challenges even now.
What should be done to overcome these challenges?
The government should not rely exclusively on security bodies. It should take the initiative to form all-party dispute resolution committees with fair representation of civil society members at the local level and assign these committees the responsibility of resolving cross-party differences and disputes at the local level. Security bodies should be summoned to intervene only when such committees fail to resolve disputes. The government should direct Chief District Officers (CDOs) to form such committees.
This will solve many problems at the local level. Second, to dispel the perceived threat and psychological fear, the security bodies should heavily patrol the country with Armed Police Force and Nepal Army, at least ten days before election date. Their visibility will ensure voters that election is going to be conducted in free and violence-free atmosphere.
Third, if the government cannot provide adequate security to candidates it can give legitimacy to personal security personnel of election candidates. Say that a candidate hires security personnel from a private security provider like Group 4.
In that case, the government can amend the Police Act and give legitimate status to such hired security for election period. But hired personal security should not be granted right to open fire. In that case, the state needs to provide only one security guard to each candidate who hires personal security guards; that will greatly relieve the burden on security bodies. After all, many candidates keep personal security personnel in Nepal.
It is still not too late for the home ministry to try this option. Fourth, district police chiefs and CDOs should launch an awareness campaign for election candidates and they should make it mandatory for candidates to inform the local security bodies where they are travelling and conducting door to door campaigns. Finally, EC and Home Ministry should organize a meeting with poll contesting parties and ask them to discipline their youth wings.
Could EC have done more to engage the youth in election?
Elsewhere there is a practice of engaging youth volunteers for election. The government pays them certain allowance for their services. If the Election Commission had done this it would have discouraged the youth from working for vested interests. But EC missed this opportunity.
How will patrolling work? Baidya-alliance has announced a ten-day general strike starting November 11.
The very fact that they have announced a 10-day strike highlights their defeatist mentality. Such a lengthy general strike won’t be successful. People will surely defy it, as they have been doing in some places in the past. But I believe the alliance will withdraw the strike.
How do you evaluate Baidya alliance’s objection to Army mobilization?
Army is the last resort force. It is going to remain as a backup force in the election. It will be used for providing security at vital government installations. The Army will be visible but won’t interfere in controversies among parties at the booths.
So far as I understand the Army is being used only for these purposes. And let me inform you Nepal Army has been used for such purposes in every election in the country’s history, except 2008. There is nothing to fear about Army mobilization.
Related story
Way to solve India-Nepal border dispute
