Moving debates to Parliament

One wonderful thing happened in Kathmandu this past week: a large mass of people from all walks of life gathered in the Basnatapur Square to defy the Maoists call for indefinite [break] strikes and banda. What’s more pleasing was the crowd carried Nepali flags instead of the party flags. I hope the message is also clear to those other non-Maoists parties who have used the streets to leverage power.



The larger message is this: If we are interested in building a prosperous and democratic Nepal, we need to be ready to put restrictions on ourselves and the way we behave. Successful democracies have done so by creating a debate chamber called the Parliament. So, I urge everyone to abandon streets in favor of the Parliamentary floor to debate our grievances.



Perfection is not what democracy is about. It is about giving everyone a fair chance to express their preferences without any threat of intimidation and bodily harm. This is the only good way to bring the people’s voice to the floor.



Being a role model of decency and civility, the party leadership will also teach the students and our youth –the future of our country- a way forward. Instead of wielding sticks and khukuris, our youth would be using their brains to acquire useful skills and innovative ideas to leverage Nepal’s comparative advantages. Experts have concluded that the Twenty-first Century belongs to China and India. With its vast potential in water, herbal industry, cultural, eco, and recreational tourism, and being a vital connecting nodal point between China and India, Nepal has all the elements to jump on the development bandwagon. Is the leadership ready to steer our youths to that direction away from Khukuris, Lathis, and communal hatred?



So, I have two suggestions.



First, an important side note. In all of these impasse and turmoil, we may have to take into account the role of India and UNMIN. The ball cannot be just laid in the courts of these Nepali players –the Maoists, the UML, and the NC. Even though it is our responsibility to take in charge of our affairs, I have hard time believing that the three are acting in isolation— unaffected by the “influences” of the other two.



The problems between the three parties is that they do not trust each other, and so the two external forces or the “referees” —India and UNMIN—must exercise their impartial judgment without any vested interest and or partisan prejudices. Unnecessary interventions and or shirking of responsibility and silence can both have devastating effect on the internal dynamics of Nepali politics. Creating a level playing field and transparency is what we need in Nepal. The idea of using the streets to bring about changes, the choice of convenience for all parties —on and off, or the behind the scene manipulative schemes should be avoided at all cost.



What’s lacking in our political process is the trust among the political parties, and the transparency and a process. Mistrust took roots when the Maoists showed signs of taking over the national army a year ago. The fiasco that followed has divided the nation ever since. One solution is to implement a sound security reform system with checks and balances so that the Nepal Army remains a professional wing of the democratically elected government, but not a political pawn. The idea is to make the army an independent organ not at the disposal of any party machinery, but under a transparent civilian rule and regulation and its own internal transparent professionalism.



This may stave off any fear of outright takeover. Perhaps, this should be the number one priority followed by some sensible resolution of the combatant integration issue to clear the cloud of suspicion between the Maoists and the non-Maoists factions. Many in Nepal and the Indian government are fear the take over of the Nepal Army by the Maoists. As long as Baburam Bhattarai keeps repeating the threat of state takeover, this fear will not go away. Thus, the security reform should be at the top of the agenda, so that such rhetoric would not have a chance of becoming a reality.



On transparency, instead of spending time parleying with various foreign diplomats and visiting embassies, the politicians should take their debate directly to the people and do away with the culture of making side deals to prolong their grip in the power. This should be done by taking the debate from Radisson Hotel or some foreign embassy to the Parliament. This would be a good starting point. Stopping behind-the-closed- door sessions and games are vital if we want to build transparency. Given the promise of Indian side to take a hands-off approach (recent news), an open debate on the CA floor may actually be useful to watch. Having a live TV camera broadcasting this debate would be beneficial in the long-run in building political character.



Let the parties make their cases in accordance to the Roberts Rule without any fist fighting and or grandstanding and or campaign style speeches. Manage the time appropriately with appropriate rebuttals and civility. It is far better that holding Nepali people hostage every time someone somewhere is unhappy about the political outcome in the power center. Then, let the chips fall where they may.



bohara@unm.edu

Related story

'Daring Debates' held for the first time in Nepal among college...