Is a new government in the offing?

Still in a state of flux?Photo: AFPZaglul Ahmed Chowdhury

NEPAL, the picturesque South Asian country, is once again witnessing political agitations and has caught the attention of the outside world. The nation is certainly at a political crossroads at present as the government of Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal is failing to provide the much-required stability even though a glorious chapter has embraced the Himalayan land following the abolition of monarchy not long ago.

The multi-party coalition government headed by moderate communist leader Madhav Kumar Nepal is crippled by a series of problems created by the biggest group in parliament -- the Maoists -- as the legislature is unable to transact any meaningful business since the radical leftists are paralysing the parliament by their non-cooperation. Unbelievable as it may seem, the ministers are not getting salaries as the parliament cannot approve the necessary measures in face of hostile opposition by the Maoists.

The government is virtually in tatters as the specter of political instability is haunting the nation.

It is against this background that Maoists supremo "Prachanda" has thrown a bombshell. He says a new government headed by his Nepal Communist Party (Maoists) will shortly take over the reins of the country. He even went to the extent of saying that this may happen as soon as within a week's time. The question that is now making the rounds in Kathmandu and elsewhere is whether a new government is really coming in shortly.

Madhav Kumar Nepal had taken over the reins in the South Asian country five months ago, ending three week's vacuum caused by the resignation of Prime Minister Pushpa Kumar Dahal -- better known as "Prachanda."

The new prime minister had assured his countrymen that he would spare no effort to bring back stability that has been eluding their new-found democracy. But doubts persisted whether the new government would really be able to give the nation a stable government since Prachanda and his hard line communist party were bent upon creating problems for the new administration that had replaced Maoists amid raging controversy on certain issues that have divided the nation.

As Madhav Kumar Nepal, the 56-year-old veteran of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), took oath from President Ram Baran Yadav, the Maoists, who form the largest single political group in the constituent assembly, vowed to continue their agitation till the "irregular act" committed by the president himself, when he overruled the sacking of the army chief by then Prime Minister Prachanda, was rectified.

Political bickering has been continuing since then and things have now come to a head. The moderates and the radical leftists are at daggers drawn over political supremacy, while polarisation among the myriad political parties -- mostly small and without much force -- is also taking place, heightening tensions in the country.

It is not long ago that Nepal came out of a long spell of violence and instability centering the existence of the monarchy that had ruled the impoverished country for 240 years. Major political parties like the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), of which the present prime minister is a senior leader, in collusion with the then underground Maoist outfit ousted King Gyanendra from effective power.

The subsequent elections for a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution saw a stunning victory for the ultra-left, who came out from their hideouts and joined conventional politics. They won 240 of the 601 seats in the house and formed a government led by Pushpa Kumar Dahal with the support of others, including Madhav Kumar Nepal.

But the tenure of the government was unfortunately cut short because of differences among the coalition partners on the issue of dismissal of the army chief by the prime minister and also over the vetoing of this decision by the president of the Republic.

Earlier, immediately after the assembly elections, all parties worked together to abolish the throne and turn Nepal into a secular republic in place of a Hindu kingdom. But the same political parties squabbled, and the government had to resign eventually when some allies, like Madhav Kumar's Communist Party, left the coalition while the Nepal Congress was already in the opposition.

As the heart of the crisis is the sacking of the army chief for what the government said his failure to abide by government instruction on the inclusion of about 19,000 former Maoist guerrillas in the armed forces, a component of the peace deal agreed upon earlier. While Prachanda's government was obviously keen to take them in the army other political parties, including the allies in the cabinet, were somewhat unwilling, fearing that Prachanda's strength would increase manifold once they were inducted into the army.

Controversy erupted on whether the president could overrule the decision of the prime minister and the cabinet. Prachanda said it was totally unconstitutional while his critics asserted that the president as the supreme commander of the armed forces could take such a decision. This debate continues to rage.

President Ram Baran Yadav, who won the largely ceremonial presidency as the nominee of the Nepali Congress and was supported by most others barring the Maoists, took a position contrary to the prime minister on the issue of the dismissal of the army chief. Consequently, the development that emerged did not come as a surprise since Prachanda's opponents were waiting to avenge their defeat in the polls, and they have certainly seized the opportunity.

The Maoists want president Yadav to "apologise" on the issue of the sacking of the army chief. It may be the height of folly to expect that such a demand will be met by a government which has come to power with a differing view on this crucial issue. At the same time, any government having the support of 22 parties but not of the largest single group in the house is hardly expected to provide a stable government, particularly when the Maoists have vowed to keep the pot boiling -- and that is what is happening now.

The constituent assembly is working as an interim parliament but is crippled by the non-cooperation of the Maoists, who say practically no government now exists in Nepal and this cannot continue. Nepal must complete the framing of the new constitution by June next year, and articles of the constitution must be approved by a two-third majority, which is impossible without the support of the Maoists.

This makes the fate of the new constitution totally uncertain. Prachanda has held talks with some political parties, including the Nepali Congress and Madhav Kumar's Communist Party. The partners in the coalition government are also at variance on many matters. The Maoists, when in power, provided some people-oriented programs and undertook several such projects, which the present government is finding it difficult to continue despite their protestations of working for the people. The government is evidently hamstrung by ineffectiveness.

Nepal appears to be on the verge of a change, although it is difficult to say in which form the changes may come. Political circles are agog with speculations like president's rule and dissolution of the parliament (the constituent assembly) and other developments. The claim by Prachanda that a new government headed by his party is in the offing is definitely a possibility, but not a certainty or near-certainty. Analysts are keeping their fingers crossed while the general impression is that the country is stalled and such a pass cannot continue for long. The Maoists are definitely a force, but they also have problems in dictating the terms.

All the parties involved must demonstrate prudence and sagacity at the current juncture so that democracy is not disturbed, and the country which has witnessed so much mayhem and lawlessness in recent times must not revert to the same phase since it badly needs political and economic stability. Nepal can ill-afford any further experiments or political instability and must end a spell where the people may slowly become disenchanted with the representative pattern of governance just because of the sheer lust for power or lack of responsible politics by the figures who matter for the nation.

Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury is a senior journalist and analyst of international affairs.