"War is bad in that it produces more evil people than it destroys"--- Greek Saying

Why peace still appears as a paradox of Nepalese political life? Cannot human rights, democracy and rule of law, independent judiciary, free press and justice committed by the leaders of Nepal's major political parties in various accords foster same political culture of democratic peace? Are not these conditions sufficient to nurture the maturity of Nepalese leaders and citizens so that they can mange conflict in a non-violent manner and foster civilized life? How can yet-to-be- made constitution serve as a bridge for the ends and means of politics in Nepal?

Context

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) marked an end to large-scale hostilities. But in no way has it abolished either "conflict-like condition" or the structural causes of future conflict or even lingering political transition The perpetuation of political deadlocks and crippling strikes point that CPA was used merely as a face saving devise than exit strategy of conflict as its principles, processes and institutional mechanisms are subordinated to the imperative of coalition politics. Lack of mutual accountability among the parties of various hues continues to breed fear of each other. The Constituent Assembly elections have further marked a shift from consensus to competitive politics and revived historical fear of each other's intention, capabilities and strategies despite the popular mandate for the nation's shared future. The power of tradition haunts the Maoists. The increasingly radicalization of society's future through aspiration-fuelled politics haunts the non-communist parties including the NC. Faced with Maoist threat of revolt and NC's search for a national government, the coalition led by CPN-UML feels insecure to take any national initiative. In this context, the rights-based social movements and the activities of 109 non-state armed actors continue to offer "bargaining environment" for the new actors. These tendencies have fragmented political power and eroded the geopolitical writ of state to create public security, rule of law, provide justice and service to the needy. So long as the state operates under the partial imperative of major parties it cannot perform core governance functions.    

Neither the fragmented knowledge of conflict experts nor the rationalistic and scientific insights is capable of healing the wound of Nepalese society as they are rooted in reason and interest of holders of power than human feeling and emotional common bond. A sense of empathy and spiritual energy rooted in the connectedness of human beings is central to overcome the selfish human tendency inherent in human nature, the nature of society that victimizes the powerless and the continued existence of the state of "international anarchy" due to the absence of effective global sovereign. Integration of three domain of human knowledge-- biological, rational and spiritual—and the correspondingly socialized action is central to achieve durable peace, the highest public good. 

Resolution of Paradoxes

The formulation of CPA bears many conceptual ambiguities which have become a source of discord among various political parties. It promises "positive peace" by resolving all "existing class, ethnic, regional and gender problems," through the restructuring of Nepali state and inclusive social transformation. There is, however, a lack of political will and requisite economic progress to sustain it. The dilemma between conflict management and conflict resolution, dissolution of feudal land system versus recognition to property rights, provision of social security versus weak tax base of the state to subsidize welfare benefits, commitment to universal values of democracy versus old political culture of patronage, rights-based discourse on democratization versus militarization of society, etc exposes the manifest gap between promise and practice of Nepalese political leadership. Other critical issues, such as rehabilitation and adjustment of Maoist combatants, federalism, model of democracy, economy, foreign policy, management of conflict residues, disappeared persons and non-state armed actors etc continue to serve as critical bottlenecks to both constitutional stability and good governance.

Bridging the End and Means of Politics

The transformation of discourse, contest, actors, rules and issues has made Nepal's politics society-centric. In this context, mapping of the existing and potential fault line conflicts is essential because it allows one to: understand the linkages of multiple actors, drivers and stakeholders of peace, identify common ground through the promotion of cooperative interests and work to fulfill legitimate interests through negotiation and compromise. This help to bridge the gaps in interests, perceptions, ideologies and identities of various actors. But, the bridging of legitimate interests in Nepal requires: first, institutionalization of the high level political mechanism and building its capacity in three areas: constitution making, turning the peace process inclusive even for the potential, left out and marginalized ones and execution of common development concept. Second, formulation of integrated multi-track peace implementing and peace monitoring mechanism based on human rights code of conduct and strengthening the national integrity system of the governance. Third, work on building joint development projects beneficial to all sides for rehabilitation of conflict victims and reconstruction of damaged infrastructures. And finally, effective implementation of local peace committees for conflict mediation. Given the multi-layered nature of Nepal's conflict—geopolitical, structural, manifest, perceptual and latent—cooperation of drivers, actors and stakeholders under a constitutional system is essential to increase their stake in the polity. 

Culture of Democratic Peace

Durable peace requires integration of political ends of all significant groups and corresponding choice of means. The CPA underlines a hope in pacta sunt servanda and resolution of conflict through "dialogue, understanding and consensus." Hope is necessary but not enough to achieve peace. It requires cohesive strategic action, broadening the circles of peace and provisions for peace dividends. Positive peace embedded in the elimination of taproots of conflict requires the work of yet to be formed Justice and Reconciliation Commission. A peace policy requires a coalition of peace promoters. This means media, civil society, international community and civic groups as bridge builders have major responsibilities in knowledge building on peace, peace research and teaching, peace communication and peaceful collective action. As the culture of peace grows, actors move towards greater understanding over their differences and reverse the antinomy between morality and politics.

Comments (0)

Post Your Comment

* Name
* E-Mail
*
* Security code
* Comment