+ Nepali Politics in Flux
+ Munich Security Conference (MSC)
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Nepal: Presidential Poll Dominates Politics
It seems that the time and energy of all political stake holders in Nepal is currently dominated by the upcoming election of the President of the Republic.
There are basically two lines of thought [a third possibility floated in this journal last week has found no traction!].
The CPN-UML Chair K.P. Sharma Oli and his adherents are demanding that PM Pushpa Kamal Dahal-Prachanda should adhere to the agreement of the seven-party alliance at Oli’s residence on December 25, the day the new government alliance was formed.
This agreement laid down that a UML presidential candidate should be proposed and stand for election.
Dahal-Prachanda now considers that agreement to be non-binding.
It does seem that Nepal’s political parties make agreements only for the very short term – not long term, and pacts are made only to be broken. There is no respect for the doctrine: pacta sunt servanda.
And in the Nepali context: ‘there is no honour among thieves’!
PM Dahal-Prachanda and his party leaders are now insisting that the new president should be chosen through consensus so that she/he could rise above party lines and act in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
The implication is, of course, that the current president Bidhya Devi Bhandari’s words and deeds have not been above board, i.e. she has been a pliable instrument in the hands of Oli.
CPN-Maoist Centre leaders thus often cite the dissolution of the House of Representatives not once, but twice by Oli and its swift endorsement by President Bhandari.
She also refused to sign the citizenship bill into law.
Consensus may be defined as a set of parameters which bounded the set of policy options regarded by senior politicians and civil servants as administratively practicable, economically affordable and politically acceptable” (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, p.101).
It is clear that CPN-MC’s conception of ‘consensus’ [and that of the NC] does not meet the said parameters; it is rather ‘loaded’ and one-sided – a polemic tool to reach the stated end.
There is, of course, the valid argument that the elevation of a UML-candidate to the high [but largely ceremonial] post, would concentrate major state powers within the UML.
Strangely, the other political parties in the current coalition have not said a word about what they think about ‘forging a national consensus’ on this burning issue.
Role of the Nepali Congress
In retrospect, one can conjecture the unusual behavior of the NC as the main opposition party during the vote of confidence for the PM-elect and his government.
Instead of voting against Dahal-Prachanda as expected of the principal opposition in representative parliamentary democracy, Sher Bahadur Deuba and the NC stood the whole process on its head and voted for the PM-elect, legitimizing his government to the extent of 99 percent.
Deuba misused the democratic process to curry favour and make amends with Dahal-Prachanda – whom he should have offered the premiership in a coalition as per a previous agreement.
According to a CPN-MC source, Dahal-Prachanda must have received assurance from Deuba that the NC would now stand behind him if the current alliance collapses over the question of the new president (THT/The Himalayan Times, Feb. 17).
According to the same source, an understanding could have been reached between the two pals before the trust vote to elect a president who is not anti-communist or anti-NC.
Dahal himself wants a pliable president, or at least someone who does not create obstacles for him. He has a full agenda to fulfil and he has not forgotten his experience with the previous first President of the Republic, Dr. Ram Baran Yadav, which cut short his own tenure as PM.
The CPN-MC’s National Agenda
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Physical Infrastructure and Transport, Narayan Kaji Shrestha has placed the election and role of the new president in context:
“Just like the Prime Minister, if we get a president that enjoys the support of all sides, then the nation’s politics and unity will move forward properly” (TRN/The Rising Nepal, Feb.17).
Minister Shrestha has also said that the government was focused on four key national sectors:
- Safeguarding and strengthening national sovereignty.
- Protecting and implementing the federal democratic republican constitution.
- Achieving prosperity and social justice on the basis of the political changes thus far achieved.
- Completing the remaining works of the peace process and transitional justice.
On the face of it, these are indeed laudable objectives. But it remains to be seen to what extent they are actually implemented.
Above all, how quickly will the government address the overall demand for good governance – as reflected in the nation-wide political turmoil.
There is the general feeling that the nation is in crisis, and the government cannot really ignore the mega campaign started last week from Mechi in the east, in the presence of former King Gyanendra, seeking urgent redress (vide: The People’s Review, Feb. 16-22).
The government cannot ignore or even vilify this mega campaign as a royalist or monarchist retrograde or revisionist movement. They do so at their own peril, as the nation has had enough of the political establishment’s utter corruption and kleptocracy!
Former King Gyanendra Speaks Out
On the occasion of “Democracy Day” (Falgun 7/February 19), former King Gyanendra asked political parties to initiate cooperation, i.e. an end to confrontation between monarchist/royalist and genuine democratic forces.
King Gyanendra emphasized: “There should be no delay for the cooperation between political parties, which are indispensable for democracy and to save the country, and the monarchy with a long patriotic historical legacy with mutual trust” (my Republica, Feb. 19).
He also said that he cannot remain silent about the trajectory of continuous decline of the motherland – in both the domestic and external spheres:
“During these years, the country’s long-term peace, stability and international respect and sovereignty have begun to crumble.”
And most damning to the political establishment since 2008, although the reigns of government have regularly changed hands “our existing state system has not made any profound contribution to the happiness, peace and prosperity of the people.”
If concerted action in a coalition of the willing is not taken, this profound statement of the former king will just remain aspirational.
The fact is that the big established political parties do not consider former King Gyanendra a political threat – and, therefore, a worthy political partner in the preservation and development of the nation.
They will launch a two-pronged attack against the former king:
- Either belittle his initiative and dismiss it as not worthy of attention.
The chair of the country’s second-largest party, the CPN-UML, K.P. Sharma Oli has taken this line.
- And/Or, attack him frontally as ‘regressive’, and totally out of date in this time and age.
However, the unpalatable fact is that it is the Communists (of all colours and hues) and the Social Democrats (like the Nepali Congress) who have become outmoded/unfashionable/obsolete.
They do not have any answers to today’s burning questions and problems, nor are they willing to learn.
On the other hand, the former king is now on the right side of history. In the collective memory, his illustrious ancestors have made an indelible contribution to the establishment and sustainable development of the Nepali state [which by the way is a few years younger than the Great King Prithvi Narayan Shah’s unifying army!].
Former King Gyanendra has now indicated that he is willing to take on responsibility.
But will he be able?
This will now depend not only on him, but on thousands of concerned Nepalese.
After King Tribhuwan’s unique contribution in ushering in the modern age in Nepal and establishing democracy, there has been no political leader who has achieved ‘greatness’ — with the possible exception of B.P. Koirala – because they were unwilling or unable to shoulder responsibility.
As the great Churchill wrote:
“The price of greatness is responsibility”
The Economist Democracy Index
Former King Gyanendra’s assessment of Nepal’s current condition and predicament is corroborated by The Economist’s latest “Democracy Index”.
Nepal has been characterized not as a full democracy or even flawed democracy, but as a hybrid regime.
Out of 167 examined countries, Nepal was ranked at only 101 [Afghanistan last; Myanmar second last & Norway and New Zealand first and second respectively].
Out of a possible 10 points, Nepal barely reached 5 – therefore poor in
- Functioning of government
- Civil liberties
It was even below 5 in
- Electoral process and pluralism
- Political participation
It received an absolutely poor note of 2.5 in
- Political culture
What have the political parties and their leaders to show after 15 years of intensive Loktantra (People’s Democracy)?
There can be no divided answer: moral collapse and an utter failure of leadership!
Lowy Institute: Asia Power Index 2023
The Index measures the ability of states to shape and respond to their external environment and consists of 1. Resources and 2. Influence.
In the comprehensive Power Index for the Asia-Pacific:
- The U.S. and China ranked first and second (super powers)
The other countries of the region (out of a total of 26) were:
- India
- Pakistan
- Bangladesh
- Sri Lanka
- Nepal [second last, just before Papua New Guinea. Strangely, Afghanistan, Bhutan and the Maldives were not ranked!]
Compared to the previous year, Nepal was on a downward trend.
Nepal was definitely an underachiever – its overall resources far exceeded its external influence.
Thus, we have it from an independent and reliable authority that Nepal is punching far below its weight in external affairs.
Former King Gyanendra is absolutely on the right track when he considers the current pathetic state of the nation as a collective wake of call.
MSC: Leaders Focus on Ukraine War
The world’s leading annual meeting on geo-security affairs – the Munich Security Conference (MSC) – started last Friday, bringing world leaders together ahead of the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as Kyiv steps up urgent requests for more modern weapons (AFP/Agence France Press, Feb. 17).
In the major annual conference on international security policy, where Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has dominated the event after a complete year of war has produced worldwide repercussions.
About 40 heads of state and government, as well as politicians and security experts from almost 100 countries, including the United States, Europe and China, were attending the three-day Munich Security Conference in the capital of the southern Bavarian state in Germany [also the venue of the world-famous “Oktoberfest”].
For the first time, delegates from Russia and Iran – both pariah states in the international community – have not been invited.
Historical Antecedent
However, way back in 2007, Vladimir Putin himself was the star speaker at the MSC, when the theme of the conference was “Global Crises, Global Responsibilities.’
[In retrospect, neither Russia under Putin or the other great powers have shown ‘responsibility’]
Putin dis say – unknowingly prescient:
“When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”
This is in line with the “Purposes and Principles” of the Charter of the United Nations “to maintain international peace and security” (Art. 1).
Putin laid down a principle at the MSC which he disregarded time and again later:
“The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN.”
This again is in conformity with the UN Charter and the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security (Art. 28) and shall also decide on “such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security (Art. 42).
Putin was questioned whether Russia would use military force without the sanction of the UN and he answered categorically that Russia would “always operate strictly within the international legal framework.”
Putin forgot this conveniently in 2014 and again in 2022.
However, the U.S. and its allies are not completely innocent either.
“Putin’s Munich speech was an implied diplomatic warning to the U.S. and its allies that Russia’s patience with NATO’s encroachment [in Eastern Europe] was at an end” (CATO Institute, Jan. 24, 2022).
Primacy of Ukraine
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gave the opening address Friday and participated by video link.
Ukraine is depending heavily on Western weapons to thwart Putin’s ambition of securing control of large areas of the country, in what has become a test of Western governments’ resolve amid increasing financial costs.
Zelensky portrays Ukraine as defending Western values of freedom and democracy against tyranny, and argues that his country needs to be properly provisioned to fend off Russia’s much bigger military force.
Western countries have sided with him, but at times have been very slow to meet his requests.
Kyiv, after receiving Western pledges of battle tanks (mostly from the U.S., Germany and the U.K.) and more precision and long-range ammunition, is now hoping for fighter jets, but some countries – the U.S. and Germany – have balked at sending them.
In a BBC interview, Zelensky repeated his calls for more Western military aid: “Of course, modern weapons speed up peace. Weapons are the only language Russia understands.”
He also ruled out conceding Ukrainian territory in a potential peace deal with Russia, warning that giving up land would mean that Russia could “keep coming back”.
US Perspective
On Monday, US President Joe Biden made a surprise visit to Kyiv.
This was to document “unwavering” American support just ahead of the first anniversary of Russia’s infamous invasion.
At the Munich conference last year, held just days ahead before Russian President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Ukraine, US Vice President Kamala Harris had shared U.S. warnings that Russia was about to attack its neighbor and said: “Not since the end of the Cold War has this forum convened under such dire circumstances.”
On Saturday, the vice president laid out what’s at stake in the war and why it matters, to bolster the case for maintaining U.S. support for Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Germany’s Viewpoint
Western officials and analysts say the armed conflict is approaching a critical phase as it enters its second year this week.
German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius said the war is “not merely a European conflict” but has implications far beyond the continent.
(TRN/The Rising Nepal, Feb. 18).
Economies around the world have reeled from the war’s impact on grain supplies, energy prices and inflation.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment