Last On The List But Still…

Having been rubbished after they first surfaced a couple of weeks ago, there is renewed talk that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh may visit Nepal soon.
Before dwelling any further on the matter, Maila Baje thinks it would be worthwhile to paraphrase S.D. Muni, who recently contended that India’s Nepal policy has not always been the outcome of rational choices but of its interests which, at any given point in time, is shaped by the balance of forces among multiple stakeholders whose positions are often mutually incomprehensive.
Within those parameters, it may just be that Singh’s travel intentions hit a wall somewhere and someone just jumped the gun. Then others jumped in to keep the hope alive.
There is much to commend for a Singh visit. A luminary in the annals of Indian premiership, Singh is the only full-term head of government of his country not to have arrived here. (It’s doubly vexing that he has avoided us during his two consecutive terms.)
For many Nepalis, Singh has been the driver of our political changes. How much the Indian prime minister was really involved in the day-to-day policy making on Nepal remains unclear. His own role in the transformation of Nepal from a monarchy to a republic is murkier. The bet India placed on the mainstreaming of the Maoists seems to have paid off, especially after the second constituent assembly election.
To be sure, there are some in the Indian establishment who want to see state-to-state relations between India and Nepal further erode and would hope Singh stayed away for that precise purpose. Then, there are others who favor a restoration of a more traditional relationship with Nepal, perhaps even the kind that existed with Singh’s arrival at the helm.
Clearly, India’s Nepal policy, much like Nepal’s own political evolution, remains in a state of flux. Still, from the cacophony illustrated by Muni, Singh has been able to craft a policy coherent enough to be implemented by Nepalis.
Doubtless, Singh’s successor will retain the ability to shape events in Nepal – both in perception and reality. Whether he/she will be able to do so with similar elan remains in the realm of the unknown. Soft spoken yet erudite, Newsweek once described Singh as “the leader other leaders love”. Forbes said he was “universally praised as India’s best prime minister since Nehru”.
For all the praise, Singh has been castigated for being “weak”, a “puppet” and even a mere “seat-warmer”. Still, it’s hard to deny that he has earned a special place in the hearts and minds of many Nepalis. As finance minister, Singh epitomized India’s emergence as a rising economic power. Then, as prime minister, he capped India’s advent as a strategic partner of the sole superpower. In recent years, Singh has managed to all that without alienating the other Asian giant. If Singh’s successors manage to stay the course, Nepal, India and China might just be able to do business together.
For a country whose prime minister is expected to make India his/her first foreign destination, it is surely galling that India’s head of government should make Nepal his last. But, then, look at the upside. Singh would find it hard to erase the memories of his last foreign trip in power, wouldn’t he? When your guest has such lasting memories – if little else – you have shown yourself to be a good host. Now, don’t say that doesn’t feel good.

Politics Of Marginalization And Relevance

Sujata Koirala barely had time to sulk satisfactorily before Mohan Baidya stepped up with assurances that the country was not about let her dad fade into oblivion.
Her deputy prime ministerial aspirations having been quashed in the latest cabinet expansion, Sujata warned against what she considered a creeping tendency toward marginalizing the legacy of Girija Prasad Koirala. Mindful of the political ground that had shifted under her feet since the Grand Old Man’s departure, she vowed to keep the banner alive through social work.
The Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist leader, for his part, reminded Sujata that that was absolutely unnecessary. By reviving the decades-old Tanakpur controversy, the hardline Maoists have brought Girijababu squarely to the centre of the national discourse.
Although the proximate cause of Baidya’s ire was Prime Minister Sushil Koirala’s purported assertion that Tanakpur lay entirely on Indian territory, the apparition of Girija Prasad was immediately apparent.
We can technically contend that the late premier’s engagement in the subject was restricted to whether the Tanakpur accord was an understanding or a full-fledged, and not to ownership of that piece of real estate. Yet we have enough history to establish that anything of that order inevitably touches upon the issue of national sovereignty. Marginalization also remains the prime peeve of Madhav Kumar Nepal. Despite having won the last elections in both constituencies he contested from, the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist senior leader hardly wears the countenance of a double victor. Instead, he has emerged as the principal anti-establishmentarian in that party.
With the K.P. Sharma Oli-Bam Dev Gautam alliance having seized much control of the UML parliamentary faction – and set to capture the party organization in the upcoming convention – the former prime minister has started using banter to batter his rivals. Still, anguish is at the core of his appearance.
No, he did not play double after his return from New Delhi and spark the Home Ministry controversy that delayed the cabinet expansion, he clarified the other day. Forget whether Nepal really whispered to Sushil Koirala India’s purported unhappiness over the mercurial Gautam’s taking charge of that vital ministry. The fact that the former prime minister felt it necessary even to try to dispel the impression was remarkable.
Minendra Rijal of the Nepali Congress, too, started railing against double games. His focus was on erstwhile patron Sher Bahadur Deuba, whose private albeit pernicious haggling every step of the way has ostensibly served to undermine Prime Minister Koirala. With Ram Chandra Poudel itching to fully act out the role of party chief, Rijal may have to contend with much more than his ministerial responsibilities.
During all of this, the extreme left and extreme right have sought to burnish their credentials as responsible stakeholders. The relegation of Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s Maoists to the deputy speakership has not sparked much vitriol from the Furious One. Dahal has been calmly insisting that the full focus should be on the drafting the new constitution. Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal’s Kamal Thapa, whose continued No. 4 rank in the assembly is fully contingent upon the chemistry of the Madhesi parties, has gone a step ahead: he has mapped a fast track to constitution-building.
That task would require a modicum of camaraderie between the two principal coalition partners. Their common focus on local elections may be well intentioned but still perplexing, especially with all the bad memories associated with Gautam serving as deputy premier in charge of home affairs during the last elections the UML swept.
And the constitution? Nothing against Subash Nemwang personally, but didn’t he symbolize the last assembly’s utter apathy. So what makes his return to the job so inspiring?
Perhaps that he’s unlikely to convene crucial meetings in his hospital room or flash his frequent-flier card to disguise every political emergency as a medical one.

Flashback: Consensus By Any Other Name

For starters, can we dispense with the Great Myth?
No, Nepalis, in their collective wisdom, did not elect the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML) as the two largest parties in a fractured constituent assembly so that they might work together to achieve some amorphous consensus on our behalf.
The electoral verdict was a mere reflection of that weird amalgamation of the fluid popular mood, mixed electoral system and disparate appeals of candidates and parties in the common consciousness.
So if the UML wants to put the presidency to a new test against the new realities of the day and the Nepali Congress doesn’t, all this should be seen as pure politicking. If the UML demands an equal share of power and privilege, in view of the narrow gap between the Big Two, the Nepali Congress is well within its rights to say no.
Few scholars, scribes or citizens had divined the imperative of a second constituent assembly and enjoined the rest of us to prepare the paraphernalia. The peace process was no elaborate road map brilliantly conceived or flawlessly executed. Let’s not forget that the whole thing began with a 12-point agreement between two principal signatories who actually did not deem it necessary to affix their signatures jointly on a piece of paper.
It has long ceased to defy the imagination why the international community would want to continue legitimizing a march toward some nebulous newness where the destination is hazier than the road. Yet this is where we stand at this juncture of history.
The presidency is just the beginning of a plethora of questions that must be addressed in light of the new political dynamics. On drafting the new constitution, should the assembly start from scratch or resume from where its predecessor had left off? The Maoists want to preserve every iota of what they believe is their legacy and build political capital for the future. Those in the mainstream counseling that the presence of the royalist Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal must be taken into account are equally preparing for the prestidigitations ahead.
As we proceed, we can pretty much write off constitutional niceties at every turn. The politics of it would be more defiant. And let’s not even consider how profoundly popular acceptance of the final document will come to rest on the political realities of that day.
Nevertheless, those who won the most seats in the assembly have the greatest responsibility to smooth the way ahead. And, rest assured, they will find a way to do so. Last-minute late-night numbered agreements mediated by shadowy foreign hands have become standard operating procedure. Sure, Nepalis will continue to grumble and grieve. If we can’t do anything about it, as they say, we’ve learned to enjoy it. At a minimum, this default mode allows us to detach ourselves from the process, blame our politicians, and then keep electing them.
It seems our politicians, too, are learning to enjoy the gig. The party that boycotted the election and vowed to sabotage it is now signaling its acquiescence to a respectful presence in the assembly and government. The victors give that sentiment a sympathetic hearing. Everybody gets something to get on with their lives.
Come to think of it, it’s consensus by any other name.

Originally posted on December 1, 2013

Let’s Pass The New Statute To See What’s In It

Forget what’s precisely behind the tussle over the home ministry between the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML). It’s but the latest manifestation of our collective cluelessness vis-à-vis the newness of Nepal.
Surely, Nepalis – leaders and the led – are entitled to celebrating as long as they want their arrival in the midst of world’s civilized mainstream, having overcome their monarchical/oligarchical legacy. But the partying eventually has to stop for the real job to begin, doesn’t it?
Consider the record so far. Inclusiveness remains a noble endeavor up to the point where it gets bogged down over who is most aggrieved and who is most economically endowed to ensure oneself in, say, the new constituent assembly.
Federalism is an ideal that must be pursued at all costs, but nobody seems to be able to figure out how many sub-units we require or can afford. A presidential system would instill some stability in leadership. Yet it also raises the risk of an individual’s monopolization of power, a feature of old Nepal we’re determined to cast aside.
An elected president and prime minister, on the other hand, would be the apotheosis of popular legitimacy, not to speak of collective action toward a common goal. But the possibility of perpetual institutional conflict remains a menace that is not too difficult for us to comprehend.
We have a polity fractured into dozens of parties, not to speak of the countless groups masquerading as apolitical enablers and the well-oiled external sponsors of a thriving grievance industry. And we’re not even counting the accumulating list of the newly aggrieved around us. Yet we’re constantly barraged with pleas for consensus.
Our much-reviled partyless system, in spite of its coercive character, couldn’t foster a culture of consensus. (The endemic liberal-hardliner fissures within the Panchayat system, anyone?). Are we not merely chasing a mirage in the maze of pluralism and free will fueled by an abiding individualism?
Perhaps not. Infuriated by the ostensible betrayal of the Nepali Congress, some UML leaders are suggesting that it might not join the government of Prime Minister Sushil Koirala even if their party got the home ministry.
Instead of relenting, much less conceding that that was the eighth unwritten point of their much-hyped agreement, Koirala almost effortlessly turns to United Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist (UCPN-M) chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal for support.
The Maoist chief, having overcome the latest internal challenge to his waning leadership, obliges, saying he wants the country to finally begin drafting the constitution. But Dahal’s magnanimity has a price tag. He wants the speakership for his party as a demonstration of the dignity with which the UCPN-M will continue to be treated.
Where it really matters – i.e., outside the political boundaries of Nepal – keeping Bam Dev Gautam out of the home ministry might be worth it all. Gautam, to his credit, has come out with a chronological record of negotiations buttressing the accusation that the Nepali Congress did indeed renege on its pledge. What’s he to do when he has adversaries right beside him?
So be prepared for the UML (at least the aggrieved faction) to start touting more energetically the prospect of leading the government after Koirala’s customary 100-day honeymoon.
In this convoluted climate, you would think our politicians would have the good sense of not putting a time-frame on their primary task. Yet everyone everyday goes about promising the promulgation of a new constitution within a year.
There may be method to this madness. Caught between conflicting and uncontrollable external variables and fuzzy albeit intensifying popular expectations, the political class has reached halfway across the world to devise an escape hatch: You have to adopt a new constitution to understand what’s in it. So let’s do it quick, but not that quick, either. A year sounds about right, doesn’t it?

Managing Transitions Within The Transition

The question arising from the six-point agreement between the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) ostensibly pertains to the steadiness of the new government expected to take shape this week.
With Nepali Congress president Sushil Koirala preparing to assume the premiership, and the UML’s Bam Dev Gautam set to serve as his principal deputy, implementation of and adherence with the new agreed framework would probably be subsumed in matters of day-to-day governance.
However, the real question thrown up by the political developments of the past two weeks will persist: how long will it be before the UML’s K.P. Sharma Oli steps into the top job?
The realignment of forces in the UML galvanized a political process that was almost moribund since the election of the new constituent assembly in November. Granted, the Nepali Congress, by dint of its being the largest party in the assembly, was required to sort out its leadership tangles first. Given the factional deal-making that preceded it, Koirala’s election as parliamentary party leader, Maila Baje thinks, offers enough pointers to kind of battles he will have to face within the party. All this while striving to fulfill the grandiose promise of bringing out the new constitution within a year.
The spectacle in the UML, though, is far more substantial. Oli won the parliamentary party leadership by reaching a stark if not entirely sensational compromise with Gautam and Ishwar Pokharel. If anything, the perception that Oli’s triumph over Jhal Nath Khanal as leader of the party in the assembly represented more of his victory over Madhav Kumar Nepal will drive the narrative ever more strongly.
With Gautam ensconced in government, Oli can be expected to use the next few weeks to consolidate his hand for the real prize: the UML’s chairmanship. The parliamentary party’s leadership alone positions Oli as a serious contender for the premiership, should that opportunity arise. But he comes from a tradition where the party towers above everything else. Moreover, he has conceived a course that extends beyond winning the UML chairmanship during the party convention in April. In a succession plan worthy of our northern neighbors, Oli has anointed Gautam and Pokharel as second- and third-line leaders in the hope of consolidating his own claim to the premiership.
Having endured the initial shock of defeat, Oli’s rivals in the UML are rising to respond. Here, too, Oli seems to have preempted things. By offering Khanal the presidency, he has sought to isolate Nepal. Among the fiercest critics of the Maoists in public, Oli has also made conciliatory gestures towards the former rebels, in which effort Gautam should prove a valuable ally.
But all to what effect? Politically, the notion of ‘new Nepal’ has been mangled so mercilessly that each Nepali is now free to conceive of it in his or her own image. Simply put, it’s not about us – at least not yet.
As the dominant external stakeholders have enhanced their power and influence with the election of the new assembly, they are still struggling to determine how best Nepal could serve their respective interests in a fast-evolving global context. In this sense, our politicians have crafted a new role for themselves: managing transitions within that transition.