The Roles of Political Parties, Civil Society and International Cooperation in Conflict Resolution

Organised by Centre for Studies on Development and Good Governance (CSDG)

25 July 2004, Lalitpur

Spread over three working sessions, each dedicated to one of the three stakeholders whose roles were being discussed, the seminar was able to find a consensus on the need to have peace in the country. Obviously, the way to go about it has been in a lot of debate ever since public programmes started focusing on the need to restore peace in the country. Although positions appear to be narrowing down from the initial days, when discussions on narrowing differences were actually used to widen them, the role of each of the three actors appear to attract varied views even today. The discussions showed that the role of international cooperation in conflict resolution still has those who favour it and those who do not. But as the crisis lingers on, those calling for external assistance to diffuse the crisis appear to be on the rise. In fact, the first presentation of the day, which discussed the issue in some detail itself had come to the conclusion that international cooperation was needed to resolve the crisis.

The discussion on the role of civil society in the Nepalese context focused rather on the weaknesses it harboured rather than ways to use its strengths for conflict resolution. The partisanism seen in the civil society agenda was perhaps the hardest hitting criticism against it, making it appear as if the civil society was playing no less a role in exacerbating the conflict as have the political actors. While comments did come forth regarding the potentials of a vibrant civil society when other public actors fail, very few commentators raised the possibility of that potential being exploited to resolving the conflict in Nepal.

Perhaps the most confusing was the discussion on the role of the political parties in conflict resolution. Much of the debate was centered on the need to preserve multiparty democracy and criticizing the Maoists and the monarchy rather than finding a role for the parties in conflict resolution. But comments were made regarding the need for reforms in the internal structure and culture of the parties, unity among themselves and their orientations to make them more responsive to popular needs.

The seminar began with the Centre for Studies on Development and Governance executive director, Achyut Bahadur Rajbhandari welcoming the participants and introducing them to the theme of the discussion. He justified the need for the programme saying that the current political crisis faced by the nation was due to the negative attitude and irrational thinking embedded in the political parties, the civil society and even in international cooperation. He said that there are several questions that need answering for a resolution of the crisis: Is the conflict directed at achieving greater democracy, human rights or power? Does it leave any room for addressing the public desire for peace? What is the role of foreign aid during conflict?

In his keynote, Speaker of the House of Representatives Taranath Ranabhat said that nobody had opposed the 1990 Constitution when it was drafted and in fact even the Maoists had accepted the outcome then. He said that the lack of respect for dissidence by those in government and the disparities between the needs of the urban nodes and the rural periphery were the main causes for the Maoists to abandon the constitutional process and take up arms. Speaker Ranabhat said that the problem was being made complicated by public debates that were separating the people, the parties, the Maoists and the Palace from the constitutional process giving an upper hand to the Maoists in their quest for legitimacy. Even major questions like the setting up of a constitutional assembly had different views among the constitutional parties themselves, which was dependent on whether they were in power or out of it. He called on both sides to the conflict to give up arms and stop recruiting people to aggravate the conflict. Since all the demands of the Maoists were negotiable and even met through constitutional amendment, except the demand for a republic, it was time that everybody sat together and discuss. International assistance, he said, could be sought only if domestic attempts failed.

After the opening session, Bishnu Raj Upreti presented the first paper of the day on the role of international cooperation in conflict resolution. Yadav Kant Silwal, former secretary general of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation, was the designated commentator on the paper. He said that the roles of China and India have been dwelt upon by the author in an interesting manner. He said that he did not agree to the thesis that India can influence the Security Council in case we invite the United Nations for mediation in the Nepalese conflict.

Silwal said that the strategic partnership between the US and India is reviewed periodically by the two countries, but "I do not think that anything has changed in the partnership to warrant a different policy regarding Nepal. India considers Nepal within its backyard policy ambit and there is no change on that regarding both countries."
He also showed suspicion regarding the European Union's role as an effective mediator as they too have their own human rights interests to tend to.

Regarding the parallel drawn between Nepalese and Sri Lankan mediation, he said that the international mediators have been exchanging information with India raising the very issue of validity of non-Indian international mediation.

But the former SAARC secretary general wasn't against international mediation as, he said, in Nepal, the conflict suffers from extreme mistrust among the parties. He said, "I am for the UN to mediate in Nepal as the country has a good standing regarding the international organization. Nepal has been the most acceptable member for even those that are not too friendly with the UN, like Syria, as they have accepted Nepal's peacekeeping role. With more peacekeeping roles for Nepal in the past, the image became even better."

Citing the reasons for the UN's eligibility for the role, he said that the organization does not have strategic interests in Nepal like other external mediators might have, like setting up a military base here. Secondly, the Chinese won't object to it. "But regarding India, we need to be cautious as we are not dealing with the same India of the past. It is starting to have complexes because of the high growth rate of its economy and the like. We do not need to ask India for everything we do. We did not ask them when we established relations with Israel. Still, I do not think that the Indians will object to the proposal, especially if we continue with regular dialogue with that country in an honest manner."

Additionally, he said UN involvement ensures the funds for reconstruction and development so necessary for the post-conflict scenario.

Chairperson of the session and Nepali Congress spokesperson Arjun Narsingh KC opened the floor for discussion saying that the conflict has taken a sensitive dimension and although it may sound nice to advocate internal mediation, the reality is developing towards another direction.

Excerpts from the
FLOOR DISCUSSION

• The Chinese will not intervene as long as there is stability in Nepal and their stance is that Nepal is able to resolve its own problems.
• The United Nations is indeed the best option, but without building confidence of the big powers, that too might not be as good as it sounds. China will not vote against UN intervention. India is another matter. The Indian ambassador has just said that it is upto Nepal about the need for external assistance. He did not use the term 'UN'. We need to get the confidence of these big powers even if we want to invite the UN.
• The UN or the EU are not unified bodies, but a bundle of various opinions and interests.
• Among the mediators, the UN is the best option. On rights a MoU has already been signed between the government and the UN on supporting the National Human Rights Commission. If we implement that MoU and begin from that aspect of UN assistance we will be learning by doing and reach the destination with less risk.
• Ever since Nepal's unification, conflict has been the order of the day and armed conflicts have taken place during turning points in history. The present conflict has not been resolvable for the internal actors, hence, external or UN mediation is necessary,
• India has been signaling that there is agreement with Nepal regarding the conflict by handing over Matrika Yadav, but Mohan Baidhya's arrest and non-handover shows that they need not cooperate with Nepal. India is projecting several policies regarding the Maoist issue in Nepal. Until we bring in international involvement, we will not be able to do anything on our own as India would act as the hurdle.
• Indians will not want to repeat the mistakes they made in Lanka.
• Invitation of the UN needs to be studied carefully before we do that. But first, we need to initiate domestic efforts.
• When the Maoists had presented the popular 40 demands to the government the government should have taken it seriously. This is proof that governments are not serious about people's problems. Now the only way out is for all the parties to unite to resolve the problem. But the problem is that we are not willing to do that. If unity among parties is difficult, external mediation will have to be considered.
• Before Girija Koirala went to India, he wanted UN intervention and after his return he started saying that the UN could be invited only if we cannot resolve it ourselves.
• We see conflict at times among, the government, the King and the bureaucracy. We need to express that confidence of unity which is needed to hold negotiations. We need to look at the UN not with separate viewpoints.
• Parties may find their role diminishing after external involvement takes place. India may be afraid of its own actions being exposed with external involvement. But more importantly, what if the UN fails? Secondly, are the Maoists just trying to benefit from international recognition? How do we secure the guarantee that Maoists will abandon their arms, especially given the open border and free flow of arms?
• For UN involvement, we need to have a united voice for their involvement. We also need to be clear on the role of India and the US.
• The King will agree to the proposal to involve the UN. Secondly, the US does not want to let go of the influence on the Royal Nepalese Army and conflict is the right opportunity to expand it. Third, India has been finding it opportune to grab the Nepalese resources during crisis times and India will not easily let go this time around.
• External mediation needs to be sought when needed but no one should be excluded beforehand. While inviting the UN, we need to attend to the concerns of others like India as well.
• Nepal has not already failed in resolving the crisis. We should not be seeking external involvement because our efforts failed. We need to seek it while we are successful.
• External mediation is not a bad thing in itself. But we should not undermine the neighbours which the paper seems to be doing. What will the external mediation bring that will produce a miracle. In Sri Lanka, the government refused to budge during negotiations. Let Nepal not repeat the same.
• We need an environment for negotiations. How long must we wait for that?
• A lot of extrajudicial killings have taken place. How do we make the army accountable? Nobody seems to be dealing with this aspect of the question.
• The Nepali Congress (Democratic) is positive towards the assistance of both national and international bodies.
• The Nepali Congress is not going to accept mediation and facilitation of the UN, only its presence. The party has started its own homework. Professional organisations have been contacted for their advice. Should only the state negotiate with the Maoists or can other parties too initiate their own processes?
• We are getting engaged in philosophies and the like, rather than going to the people and finding out the ground realities. If the attempt does not include finding out the stances of the political forces beforecoming out with suggestions, then it is just an exercise in escapism.
• We are not united about what needs to be done. Nobody is in agreement with the other about mediation, let alone UN mediation.
• The civil society has been taken in a very positive light by the paper, but they are all entrenched in partisan politics. They are just an appendage of the party rather than a separate entity.
• How do we provision representation in the constituent assembly regarding the various minorities? There are also cases where such assemblies have failed. And the risk of the constituent assembly is such that it could lead to failure.

Reply by author Bishnu Raj Upreti

• I may be wrong about overwhelming Indian influence, but I am not a foreign relations expert.
• I am not involved with any party so the question of bias could only be a matter of coincidence in my way of thinking with that of the parties.
• The talks pass through various stages and should also take place at various levels simultaneously. And this should be a continuous process.

Arjun Narsingh KC, the chairperson, remarked in his closing statement, thus: The paper discusses various options. So, wide ranging discussions are necessary on them before coming to a conclusion on the modality of the option adopted.

The paper seems to be missing the part on the need for multi-party democracy while dealing with pre-negotiation concerns. The Maoists may want a constituent assembly, the King may want to be despotic, but the concern about multiparty democracy has been missing. Political parties are for universally accepted human rights norms and competitive politics.

We will not be able to resolve the conflict with arms. There needs to be negotiation. The British army, an army that was able to colonise the world, could not resolve the Northern Ireland conflict on its own. Nepal should not seek a military resolution, but negotiations and understanding. There are many cases where the UN has mediated in conflicts.

I am convinced that international assistance is necessary. That much I can say. India has its own concerns in its sphere of influence. The Chinese do not appear to be wanting external power involvement in the Nepalese conflict.

Although there is complication in involving the UN, including the need to deal with its huge bureaucracy, I still believe that the principles on which it operates is acceptable to all.

SESSION II

Presentation of Gauri Pradhan's paper on the role of the civil society was done by Subodh Raj Pyakurel who was also the designated commentator. After reading out the paper, he made his comments thus:

The paper does not include the complexities of party politics. Politicians are the most informed lot in the society as they are the ones who analyze the problems of the nation and then mould it according to the philosophies they adhere to. It thus helps them look for solutions at all levels. This is the general case, but Nepalese politics appears to be suffering from lethargy and its shortcomings have been obvious. The civil society should be contributing at such times. In that regard, the paper does not seem to be realizing this need in Nepal today. For that, the author should have been focusing on the rights perspective to provide guidelines.

The writer talks about a zone of peace in schools to free the education sector from violence. That is not enough. He should have expanded the suggestion for such a zone to include public infrastructure. Can a Track III approach help, here? Can we not appeal to the conflicting sides to exclude campaigns like the anti-measles campaign from violence? This is the Track III area. And, from there onwards, gradually, we can move on to Track II and then on to Track I.

In Nepalese facilitation experience we have seen the facilitators themselves taking partisan lines. We find facilitators themselves advocating the constituent assembly.

A major task for the civil society lies in clarifying things for the ordinary people, especially regarding the responsibilities of the conflicting parties and whether they are doing their part honestly. The government should make its work transparent. Similar is the responsibility of the Maoists as they need to make their objective clear. The civil society should seek to clear up confusion when they arise. Otherwise, the Maoists would not be concerned about rights abuse. Similar is the case with government forces that have a tendency to be freed from the limits in the battlefield. They even find the human rights cells antagonistic to their needs. Only pressure from the civil society can make it possible for the rights concerns to be addressed.

The role of the civil society is to give meaning to the needs of the people and present it as an agenda. Parties do take up popular concerns but they are not very reliable as they have limits set by their partisan agenda.

We should promote the need for UN involvement in the peace process. The question of how to involve it can be addressed if we start doing so in a non-obtrusive way. The involvement should begin from minor tasks like monitoring of human rights. There is no problem with this task as there is already an MoU between the UN and the National Human Rights Commission. All, one needs to do is implement it. If the need arises we can involve them in bigger roles later on.

Excerpts of the
FLOOR DISCUSSION

• It has been 14 years since we started hearing about democracy, but we are yet to know what it is. In that light, the terminology 'civil society' is even younger than that. How will we understand it so quick?
• The civil society needs to have an authoritative definition otherwise confusion will always prevail.
• Looking at world experience, we see that social workers and their organisations have formed part of the civil society. But today, retirement from active public service makes people take part in the Nepalese civil society.
• No political party or civil society has been able to look at the conflict through the people's perspective. Parties are doing it to suit their own interests.
• Are only professional organisations part of the civil society or are individuals also a part of it? All organisations appear to be following their party lines.
• The civil society organisations are working as political party stooges. They do not have credibility. Hence, they cannot resolve the conflict.
• We need to demarcate the boundaries between civil society, human rights organisations etc. pressure groups and interest groups.
• Regarding human rights, perhaps, it is yet early for us to understand its implications. We are still suffering from a malaise of taking things personally when issues are institutional or value ridden.
• The civil society gains its legitimacy from the need to collectively present popular needs and sentiments. The state only looks after state interests. Balance of governance powers among all the governance agencies is needed for the state to provide direction. The civil society needs to diagnose the fissures of conflict and transmit the findings to the state. It also provides alternative means to resolve conflicts as all the state organs pursue only their own interests.
• The paper only talks of the civil society in positive light. It needs to be more objective, as that has become absolutely necessary in today's context.
• The main problem lies with the conflicting parties-the Maoists and the King. In the midst of this, comes the civil society. When talks started during Chand's government, did the Maoists actually have the idea that they would be able to snatch the crown away from the King? How do we make the Maoists responsible?
• The state, the market and the civil society work to fulfill their own responsibilities and if they do not, then problems surface.
• Noise alone will not achieve anything now. Successive steps after 1990 have shown that conflict was deliberately designed and planned. When Home Ministry officials are told to carry party flags, district security committees disbanded and political persecution of the minorities take place, one can safely assume that civil war was deliberately planned.
• Even now, we hear about national unification not being a unification at all, but a rule by the victor over the vanquished. This is taking things to the extreme. This is just creating noise, which is going to achieve nothing.
• The Maoists are a result of the conflicting views of the leftist parties.

Subodh Pyakurel's reply
The role of the civil society is to present popular needs and demands in a way that is understandable. In a democracy, it is a facilitator of democracy. Civil societies do get involved in politics. For example, in Korea, an anti-presidential campaign resulted in the massive wipeout of the presidential party that was in power. But party politics is not their domain.

We would like to see the whole civil society unify, but that has not happened and that is partly because of specialization of the organisations themselves. For example, lawyers' organisations want the constituent assembly which is a partisan agenda in the political sphere. But on the issue of national unity, we are all one.

I would be happy if an ex-policeman joins the civil society and works to reform the police force, I would welcome it indeed.

Minendra Rijal, the Nepali Congress (Democratic) leader remarked for the chair saying that the problem with our civil society is that their agenda is too broad for it to have any impact. "The International Committee for the Red Cross only has humanitarian concerns to look into. If your civil society organization is interested in conflict, you can focus on only one particular aspect of it like looking at the victims of the conflict and so on instead of doing everything under the sun including human rights monitoring and the like," he said.

Rijal also said that the two black clouds of conflict both have their silver lining. "Violent politics, the first cloud, has resulted in our resolve to do away with centuries of discrimination. The second black cloud is the King's Oct. 4 step which has made us look into the 12 years of misrule," he said.

SESSION III

Shiva Hari Dahal made his presentation on The Role of Political Parties and Nilamber Acharya, a constitutional expert and former minister made the following comments:

The parliamentary parties are divided and have conflicting agendas. Regarding the difference between a political force and political party, I do not think that the army or the foreign powers are political forces. Political forces are those organised forces who have a popular base. The powers now lie in the King's hands, who does not represent a political force. This is the problem in Nepal, but the situation has changed in the past three months or so. For example, although the Iraqis are being ruled by foreign forces, the foreigners are not a political force in that sense.

We need to look at the contribution of the parties for the past 12 years before paving a way for them for the future. We should point out the responsibility of each actor that was not involved in carrying out restructuring in the past 12 years. They had the opportunity to do so. And they did not do it. Now, we see that without restructuring there will be no resolution. In spite of the contribution that the parties have made, the same party structure, working style and decisionmaking will not do for the future. They will need to change.

The Maoists movement is present in almost every country, but it found the opportunity to expand in Nepal. What was the role of the parties here? Parties did not heed to the need for the development of democracy itself. They transformed competitive politics into enmity. Factionalism became rife within parties. We need to look at these aspects while planning for the future and also see why the King had to take the step he did.

I do not believe in the King's commitment to multiparty democracy, especially in the light of what he has been saying to his own constituency and the Time magazine interview. This has made me suspect whether the palace itself was involved in intensifying the Maoist conflict.

The paper says that the Constitution was drafted by experts. No, it is not so. There were political party representatives and several lawyers who also belonged to the parties.

Regarding Sri Lanka, I have reached the conclusion that the two largest parties there have always been using the conflict for their own advancement. And, unless the two are united on resolving the conflict, it will not happen.

In Nepal, the Nepali Congress (hopefully it will unite), the UML, the RPP and if possible the Nepal Sadbhavana Party (if not the party the notion behind the party) will be able to represent the political forces and hence be successful in resolving the conflict. If they cannot stay in government, they should at least form a peace alliance. The state needs to include all these forces, even if they do not form part of the government, for conflict resolution.

Parties need to restructure themselves and start acting as a party, particularly by the Nepali Congress. The era of a one-man show must end.

Excerpts from the
FLOOR DISCUSSION

• It is said that 70 per cent of the country is under Maoist control, the paper says two thirds. In fact, neither the Royal Nepalese Army nor the Maoists can remain on one spot for a considerable length of time. The two are said to be roaming around from one place to another. In many parts, the RNA patrols during the day time and when night falls the Maoists repeat the same feat. This is because both of them do not have enough manpower and logistics.
• The paper says that conflict resolution can take place only in a democracy. Again, the conflict is said to have been carried out with an objective to establish democracy. If it is so, how can the two statements be true at the same time.
• The Maoists rose during multiparty democracy. How will the resolution take place by calling on the Maoists to take part in multiparty politics. They had already taken part in it and won nine seats in the elections. Why would they come back to the system they left citing it as being unfair? The Maoists may in fact prefer to lengthen the conflict. Baburam Bhattarai had once said that he would not fight for that which can be had through dialogue. This statement needs to be understood..
• The Constitution had undergone change in the final draft and this had to do with provisions on amendment. Originally, the draft had provisioned major changes to be brought about through a referendum and other changes through the parliament.
• Of the three forces the paper talks about, which of them interact with each other and which ones do not?
• The paper talks of fears or concern of the forces. But the fact is that parties are scared of their own prospects of power rather than a fear of erosion in multiparty system. Just because some parties have gone and joined the government, and that they have said that regression has been corrected 50 per cent, does not mean that it has happened. This shows what stuff the parties are made of. The paper talks about the immediate plans of the forces and not the long term strategy of the political forces.
• Are the Maoists a party or not? Are they anti-government rebels or a bunch of terrorists?
• How can the constitution be changed, through the constituent assembly or through the parliament and endorsed by the King like before?
• The theory of exclusion seems to be in fashion. The paper has not mentioned some political forces. Does it mean that we are also practicing the theory now also?
• The pitfalls of the constitution were pointed out even then, when it was being drafted, for example regarding treaty endorsement. But such critics were silenced. Had the referendum provision been there in the Constitution, this conflict would not have been there.
• On the one hand reconstruction was not carried out by the parties on the other the rebels have been taking up the cause of the backward and the marginalised.
• The paper is a food for thought for the parties. Regarding the reconstruction that Nilamber Acharya talked about, we see anti-democratic forces being active every time there is democracy. We were never able to contain them. The future may also hold similar rise of such forces.
• The problem today is not the patrolling army men or the Maoist militia, but the breakdown of rule of law. The main role of parties lies here today. They should be focussing on how to establish the rule of law and gear towards peace.
• Nilamber Acharya said that we could not maintain the 1990 momentum of democracy. Secondly, we see that there is another democratic movement to achieve those elements that were not available in the 1990 constitution. The parties should have been sensitive to those concerns while they were in a position of power. The relevant structures were not devised when they were there.
• The opposition is always found to oppose for opposition's sake while the ruling party found it very convenient to neglect other voices. Nobody listened when we organized hunger strikes. Now, the Maoists have taken up arms.

Nilamber Acharya's reply
Mainstream parties should be able to include all streams including the minorities.
The first draft of the Constitution did have the referendum provision. It was later changed according to the advice of the Council of Ministers. We had also given some thought to local development, but we were not obsessive about it as we did not have time. We had left the Royal Palace to deal with provisions related with the King. We might have done it differently now. I myself was for secularism then, but I went for compromise so as not to complicate things with people going for hunger strike and all. We were concerned mainly with the initiation of basic democratic values.

The army is not under the King, but under a security council headed by the Prime Minister. He recommends the name of the army chief. The parliament passes the budget, so what type of parliamentary control of the army are we seeking? You need to be able to exercise your control before asking for more.

Regarding international mediation, India can play a crucial role. Also, if we start calling for international intervention it may create dependency in the future. It is indeed an irony that we ourselves cannot talk with each other, cannot unite among ourselves but ask the UN to tell us what to do. I am not for UN intervention, especially in the light of India's presence as our neighbour.

Reply by author Shiva Hari Dahal

• I have noted that state restructuring is needed. I have acceded to the fact that the parties have made mistakes, but I would not want to dwell on that. However, I have clearly called for restructuring of the parties. But the problem is such that the political forces in the country have not even diagnosed the actual problem in the country.
• I believe that the army and the role of the King are the main hurdle today.
• The Constitution of 1990 is good but the process of drafting was not.

Chairperson Ms. Urmila Aryal's remarks
Conflict alone is not bad, it could be used to promote a good cause. Mandela used conflict to attract world attention to his cause.

Indeed, while drafting the constitution, the younger generation's concern had not been included. It was exactly these things that we ignored which allowed the Maoists to grow.

The parties will need to make amends and start listening to the people. How do we tackle participation, the constituent assembly or other issues? I hope more discussion take place on these.