Why did the Maoists reach such a harsh decision to issue an ultimatum? There could be several reasons. First, this may be a tactic to compel coalition members for more concessions. Second, it could also be a strategy to rally the confused and divided cadres of the Maoist party who really don’t know whether the leadership will go for a compromise or opt for a serious protest program. Third, unable to resist the pressure from the radical factions within the party, who have since long called for a rebellion, Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal may have actually made up his mind to go for a protest until the party holds its general convention early next year.
Unfortunate as the Maoist’s decision is, it’s also going to be counterproductive to them in the long run. Having bungled, the Maoists are stretching the president’s issue a little too far. By not taking consent of the president, who is the Supreme Commander of the Nepal Army, on the dismissal of former army chief and appointment of a new one, the Maoists technically violated the constitution. And by ignoring the suggestions and warnings of other coalition partners, they also violated the spirit of the coalition government. The president stayed the sacking of the former army chief only after 18 parties, who hold majority in the Constituent Assembly, knocked on his door for his intervention. The same parties cannot, in anyway, yield to Maoists’ demand that the president erred in staying the then army chief. It would, therefore, be in the interest of the parties and the country that they reach a compromise and put an end to this stalemate.
Related story
Tourism department gives five-day ultimatum to three casinos to...
