Confounding everyone except themselves, Nepal’s hardline Maoists have taken a commanding role following the country’s landmark elections. The people of Nepal have more than one reason to celebrate.
The first nationwide poll in nearly a decade passed off relatively well and was endorsed by Nepali officials as well as the hundreds of international election observers. According to former US president Jimmy Carter, the election was the most “transformational” of the many polls he has observed around the world. The high voter turnout, coupled with the relatively peaceful manner in which the election took place, is a testament to the Nepali people’s desire to cement the peace process and contribute in determining the political future of the country.
The Maoists, former rebels who until two years ago were waging a brutal “people’s” war, will soon lead the next government in Nepal. The former rebels have received the maximum number of seats in the constituencies where counting is complete.
Surprisingly, both local and international analysts had predicted them to finish third, behind the Nepali Congress (NC) and the United Marxist-Leninists (UML), the two largest parties that have been at the helm since multi-party democracy was restored in Nepal in 1990. While experts are busy trying to explain the Maoists’ unprecedented triumph, much hope rests on the newly elected members of the 601-seat Constituent Assembly.
The Assembly’s first responsibility will be to draft a new constitution that can help reunify Nepal’s disparate communities. A second priority will be to decide the fate of Nepal’s centuries-old monarchy. The Maoists ran on an anti-royalist platform, and it is widely anticipated that the first meeting of the Assembly will abolish the monarchy and declare Nepal a “people’s republic.”
But the king still has some support, though clearly far short of a majority. Nepal has had a long history of monarchy, spanning close to two-and-a-half centuries, and bringing an end to this tradition might prove to be more difficult than expected.
The Maoists’ willingness and ability to display a degree of sympathy and respect for their opponents will go a long way toward determining their success in office.
It would certainly behoove the Assembly to give serious and immediate consideration to the country’s deplorable socioeconomic conditions. Nepal is one of the world’s poorest countries, ranking near the bottom even in the South Asian region. The incoming members of the Assembly therefore must address everyday issues — employment, healthcare, education, social justice, minority rights, security and so on.
Suffice it to say that Nepal faces a multitude of flashpoints, as well as a large number of detractors who would like to see this historic process derailed. The success or failure of the Constituent Assembly will rest on whether the presumptive winner, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists), will work collaboratively with the other parties rather than trying to push its own agenda exclusively.
The main challenge for the Assembly is to forge onward, keeping in mind that the road ahead is full of seemingly insurmountable challenges.
Nepal’s earlier experiments with democratic governance were not very successful; democratically elected governments (in the late 1950s and the 1990s) were unceremoniously replaced by prolonged autocratic rule.
So, leaving responsibility solely to political leaders and policymakers this time would be a grave mistake. Every Nepali has a role to play to ensure that the country’s dark political history does not repeat itself, and thus to help move the country in the right direction.
Voting for change has sent a clear message; making sure that Nepal’s leaders follow the will of the people is an altogether different challenge. It is to be hoped that Nepal’s newly elected Maoists have the wisdom to listen to their newly empowered electorate.
Sanjeev Sherchan is senior program officer for South and Central Asia programs at the Asia Society.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE/THE ASIA SOCIETY
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS