Nepal: Sustainable Peace and Change?

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP – NEPAL ADVOCACY PAGE

UPDATED SEPTEMBER 2008

1. The current situation

Nepal’s constituent assembly (CA) elections were a major step forward in the peace process, but has also opened up a difficult new transitional phase. The 10 April 2008 elections delivered a surprise result, with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist, CPN(M)) emerging as the single largest party with over a third of all assembly seats. The Maoist-led coalition government finally formed in August 2008 must now address significant remaining challenges. These include those related directly to completing the peace process (in particular, writing a new constitution, reforming the security sector, restoring law and order and dealing with the return of seized land and land reform) and broader needs of economic development and building an inclusive state which minimises the likelihood of new conflict.

The CA elections, held after two postponements, were largely peaceful and well managed, although tainted by some violence and disruption. The Maoists did use intimidation and coercion but in this they were not alone; they also showed considerable restraint as fifteen of their activists were killed during the campaign.

The outcome of the elections has reshaped Nepal’s political landscape. The CPN(M)’s victory marks a further step forward in its transformation from an underground insurgent group. The traditional mainstream parties Nepali Congress (NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist, UML) finished a distant second and third to the Maoists, and have had difficulty digesting the result. Parties representing the Madhesi people of the Tarai plains emerged as genuine political actors, in particular the Madhesi Jana Adhikar Forum (MJF). Thanks to a variety of quotas, the elections also produced a remarkably inclusive body, far more representative of Nepal’s caste, ethnic, religious and regional diversity than any past parliament. One third of its members are women, catapulting the country into regional leadership on gender representation.

In its first sitting on 28 May, the CA ended the 240-year old monarchy and gave birth to the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. Negotiations over a new unity government were drawn out, as the NC and the UML were only willing to participate in a Maoist-led government under certain conditions, despite a constitutional commitment to maintain a consensus-based administration. On 15 August the CA elected Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal “Prachanda” prime minister. Only the NC voted against him; it stayed out of government while Prachanda announced a coalition cabinet including UML and MJF ministers.

The new government now faces major challenges, the critical problem being the security sector. The continuing existence of two standing armies—the National Army (NA) and the Maoist People’s Liberation Army (PLA)—is inherently destabilising. The widespread concerns over the Maoists controlling both forces are understandable, but the situation is a result of the NA and the mainstream parties refusing to discuss the security sector for the past two years. The NA today remains outside meaningful democratic control, and hence without checks and balances to safeguard a smooth handover of power. Preliminary talks between the new Maoist defence minister and army officers suggest it may be possible to find a way forward through dialogue.

Beyond the security sector, many issues previous agreements promised to address remain unresolved. There has been no movement towards returning land seized during the conflict, nor to tackling wider issues of equitable land reform. A consensus is also yet to be formed on reviving local government, without which basic services cannot be delivered. Despite the well-observed ceasefire, the state of public security and rule of law is tenuous, especially in some Tarai districts.

For more information see the two companion reports Crisis Group released on 3 July 2008, Nepal’s Election: A Peaceful Revolution? and Nepal’s New Political Landscape.

2. What should be done?

In its most recent June 2008 Policy Report Nepal’s New Political Landscape, Crisis Group made the following recommendations for the post-election period:

• The Seven Governing Parties and the Other Major Parties Represented in the Constituent Assembly should form a consensus-based government under CPN(M) (Maoist) leadership, with as broad participation as possible. It is urgent to start discussing the future of the PLA and the NA, and to move forward with other elements of the peace process, such as implementing the 23-point agreement signed in December 2007. Steps should be taken to pave the way for the eventual constitution writing process, and towards ending the culture of impunity currently prevalent in Nepal.
• The CPN(M) should end the use of violence, intimidation and extortion and make a clear commitment to democratic practice. It needs to dismantle parallel governance structures set up during the civil war, and bringing the Young Communist League (YCL) under control. The NC and UML should accept the results of the CA elections, and recognise the need for structural and policy reform to reconnect with voters. The Nepal Army should fulfil its repeated commitments to democracy by staying out of politics, and assisting in steps towards meaningful democratic control of the security sector.
• The International Community, in particular India, China, the U.S., EU and UN, should assist in the post-election period by urging and supporting the formation of a powersharing unity government, and offer technical and financial assistance to ensure public participation in the constitutional process.

3. Crisis Group analysis

Select Crisis Group’s publications on Nepal:

• Nepal’s Election: A Peaceful Revolution?, Asia Report N°155, 3 July 2008
• Nepal’s New Political Landscape, Asia Report N°156, 3 July 2008
• Nepal’s Election and Beyond, Asia Report N°149, 2 April 2008
• Nepal:Peace Postponed, Asia Briefing N°72, 18 December 2007
• Nepal’s Fragile Peace Process, Asia Briefing N°68, 28 September 2007
• Nepal’s Troubled Tarai Region, Asia Report N°136, 9 July 2007
• Nepal’s Maoists: Purists or Pragmatists?, Asia Report N°132, 18 May 2007
• Nepal’s Constitutional Process, Asia Report N°128, 26 February 2007
• Nepal’s Peace Agreement: Making it Work, Asia Report N°126, 15 December 2006
• Nepal: From People Power to Peace?, Asia Report N°115, 10 May 2006
• Nepal’s Crisis: Mobilising International Influence, Asia Briefing N°49, 19 April 2006
• Nepal: Electing Chaos, Asia Report N°111, 31 January 2006
• Nepal’s New Alliance: The Mainstream Parties and The Maoists, Asia Report N°106, 28 November 2005
• Nepal’s Maoists: Their Aims, Structure and Strategy, Asia Report Briefing N°104, 27 October 2005

Click here for a full list of all Crisis Group Nepal reports. Many of our reports have also been translated into Nepali, they are available here: www.crisisgroup.org/nepali.

For a month-by-month report on developments in Nepal since September 2003, see Crisis Group’s CrisisWatch database.

For more background on the situation in the country, see our Nepal conflict history.

Other Crisis Group resources:

• Opinion piece by Rhoderick Chalmers (Crisis Group), “Nepal: Now for the Hard Part”, CNN Online, 27 April 2006
• Opinion piece by Rhoderick Chalmers (Crisis Group), “Let People Power Prevail in Nepal”, Financial Times, 25 April 2006
• Opinion piece by John Norris (Crisis Group) and Kanak Dixit, “Taking a Stand for Democracy in Nepal”, Los Angeles Times, 21 April 2006
• Opinion piece by Rhoderick Chalmers (Crisis Group), “Is History Repeating Itself in Nepal?”, The Indian Express, 23 January 2006
• Opinion piece by Rhoderick Chalmers (Crisis Group), “Nepal on the Brink”, The Indian Express, 12 October 2005
• Testimony of John Norris (Crisis Group), “The Nepal on the Wrong Path”, before the U.S. House of Representatives Human Rights Caucus, 25 May 2005
• Comment by John Norris (Crisis Group), “The Nepal Problem”, The Asian Wall Street Journal, 23 May 2005
• Crisis Group statement, Nepal: Hold the King to His Promises, 9 May 2005
• Presentation given by Nick Grono (Crisis Group), “The Present Human Rights Situation in Nepal”, Panel discussion at the Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, 29 March 2005
• Comment by Gareth Evans (Crisis Group President), “Media short-sightedness is truly staggering”, AlertNet, 9 March 2005
• Comment by Rhoderick Chalmers, “External powers must act to save Nepal”, Financial Times, 24 February 2005
• Comment by John Norris (Crisis Group, Special Adviser to the President), “With a Royal Push, Democracy Falls Off the Roof of the World”, Los Angeles Times, 4 February 2005