These are being pushed without consensus at a time when there is no full-fledged government. Inability to elect a new prime minister even in the sixth round has added vulnerability in the existing fragile nature of the state. Amidst this, there is growing apprehension on the drafting of the new constitution even in the extended timeframe. The integration and rehabilitation of the combatants, which is the key element of the peace process, is in a standstill. Institutionalizing the democratization process of the NA that is part and parcel of the CPA and the Interim Constitution has yet to be seriously initiated. Under such circumstances, why is the pressure to give UNMIN a limited mandate mounting?
Any assessment of peace process, including the role of the actors, becomes futile if major ingredients of the CPA are overlooked. CPA has covered inter-related short- and long-term dimensions of peace in Nepal. With the agreed role of UNMIN, many steps taken immediately after the CPA contributed to enhance peace process in which confinement of combatants in various camps and Constituent Assembly (CA) election were the major ones. But it must be accepted that integration and rehabilitation work of the combatants, a most important part of the peace process, could not be accomplished within the timeframe. Notwithstanding some weaknesses in the process, this cannot be considered in isolation as some parties try to make a big propaganda out of this.
Essentially, it was due to discarding the consensus process after the CA election. This resulted in the intensification of wrangling among the political parties leading to increased mistrust. The time-bound plan proposed during the UCPN (Maoist)-led government could not move ahead due to the same reason. The delay in taking the peace process to a logical conclusion during the Madhav Kumar Nepal-led government was also the outcome of the increased confrontation created deliberately. The blame, therefore, goes primarily to the process of forming a majority government for which the major parties have to take responsibility. Ignoring this truth and solely blaming the Maoists is completely unfounded. What is more surprising is that instead of exploring consensus based on mutual agreement, the way the preconditions related to combatants, seized property, Young Communist League, etc are being talked about are completely against the CPA and the peace process.
At a time when parties are at the height of mistrust and confrontation, there is no perceived mechanism to play an instrumental role in the peace process if the role of UNMIN is curtailed. Is not it a deliberate attempt at creating chaos in a very fragile situation?
On the other hand, UNMIN is performing the role as mandated by the CPA and apparently there are no bases for charging it. Generally, UN peacekeepers, throughout the world, employ the tactic of not offending the warriors in order to ensure that the peace process does not breakdown. How can this tactic be regarded as biased? The statement on the objection to the new recruitment by the NA is also in conformity with CPA. NA perhaps resorted to recruitment to jeopardize the entire peace process. Any one can raise the question: Why was such a move necessary when discussions are underway on completing the integration and rehabilitation of combatants within four months? The more objectionable aspect is the direct lobbying of the NA, which is totally against the spirit of the CPA and the Interim Constitution, to oust UNMIN.
A very crucial aspect of the CPA is associated with the institutionalization of durable peace. The Interim Constitution has also included a number of agendas associated with this. It is proven from world experience and our own that unless durable peace-related issues are dealt with, even the ensured short-term peace can be ineffective. To make the peace sustainable, addressing the roots of the social contradiction or conflict is essential. The most frustrating part is that the parties talking about preconditions related to combatants, etc and limiting the role of UNMIN hardly perceive peace from such a crucial angel. This is why they are ignoring the commitments made in the CPA and the Interim Constitution. In these, apart from political rights, the social and economic rights of the deprived perpetuated in the form of class, caste, gender, ethnicity, geography and remoteness, etc are committed. They demand wide-ranging policies, institutions and structure-related reforms. The CPA pledges new socio-economic transformation. The way the entire system is functioning now, it no where resembles that in essence we are in the process of big social and economic change or transformation.
Amidst such a status quo or worsening situation, there is complete uncertainty in the formulation of the constitution. There are too many differences among the parties. This is true in case of issues of federal structure, governance system and economic- and social rights-based issues. Equity-based inclusive development demands that a new orientation in the entire development course is reflected in the new constitution with a clear-cut catalyst and complementary role for the state, private and community sector, among others. For equitable and inclusive social structure, creation of a base at the ground based on new social and economic relations will be required. The rights on natural and other resources, redistribution of land assets, devolution of rights to the various government tiers under federal structure, workers rights, etc are linked to the base impacting the dominant social relations. This will require more overhauling approach in the course of framing the constitution beyond status quo line of thinking, which perhaps is not acceptable to the parties that are sideling the constitution-making process. Maybe, because of this, they want to resolve the issue of combatants first.
In the background under which the CA was formed, how can these issues be left untouched while talking about the peace process? Therefore, the way combatant-related issues are being talked about in isolation since the last few months added by new demands of curtailing the role of UNMIN coupled with a free hand to the NA before assurance of peace generates serious doubts on the real intentions of certain parties. In both the CPA and the Interim Constitution, democratization of NA has been clearly spelt out. For this, fixing NA personnel number, democratization of its structure, making its character national and inclusive, has been clearly stated in both the documents. Why is pressure being exerted to exclude the NA from the peace process by ignoring these aspects?
All these pose a big risk and threat of sabotaging the entire peace process form short- and long-term perspectives. At a time when parties are at the height of mistrust and confrontation, there is no perceived mechanism to play an instrumental role in the peace process if the role of UNMIN is curtailed. Is not it a deliberate attempt at creating chaos in a very fragile situation?
Therefore, in order to bring the peace process on track, minimum consensus among the parties is a must. The peace and constitution-making process are two sides of the same coin. In a given situation, the extension of UNMIN’s term with the same agreed terms is necessary. If a one-sided decision is made without taking into consideration the views of the other side, that too by a caretaker government, it would be nothing short of a historical blunder.
drkhanal3@gmail.com
Related story
NC leader Koirala and then UNMIN Chief Ian Martin hold meeting
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
