Shobhakar Budhathoki

(Ed. note: The author, based in Kathmandu, worked as a human rights officer with the U.N. mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea in 2002 and 2003. This article originally appeared on the International Nepal Solidarity Network [INSN] web site at www.insn.org.)

The agenda of restoring peace in Nepal has been abandoned and sidelined with King Gyanendra's usurpation of all executive powers on Feb. 1, 2005. As a result of political instability and increasing violence, the country now falls under the category of a "failed state" because of the total absence of the rule of law and democratic institutions as well as the growing militarisation of the country and the military's influence and heavy involvement in the functioning of government.

Although political entities, including the king, have expressed their commitment to end the violent conflict, their approaches are drastically different. The undemocratic forces, including the appointed cabinet and the Nepalese army, believe in a military solution and are committed to marginalising the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-Maoists) by labelling them as "terrorists" and, therefore, a group that cannot be engaged in dialogue. Conversely, the political parties intend to achieve peace through a political process, even holding a Constituent Assembly that includes the voices of the CPN-Maoists in the mainstream political system, through dialogue and methods of inclusion. Based on the recent unofficial understanding between the political parties in Nepal and the CPN-Maoists to resolve the crisis through a peaceful process, the application of a political solution has been encouraged and justified. In addition, civil society supports the idea of achieving peace through political dialogue, led by a democratic regime that has demonstrated a sincere commitment to democracy and human rights.

Nepalese police arrest a professor during a demonstration on Sept. 20, 2005, near the royal palace in Kathmandu in support of the alliance of seven political parties calling for the restoration of democracy in the kingdom.  At least 100 professors were arrested during the rally.  (Photo: EPA)

There is little doubt that the country faces numerous obstacles to achieving political stability though due to the power struggle between the democratic powers and autocratic forces. The autocratic forces remain dedicated to establishing a dictatorial regime and aim to rule arbitrarily and without accountability. Meanwhile, the CPN-Maoists are also staunchly committed to establishing a republican system and defeating the royal regime. However, the political parties are attempting to find a peaceful and sustainable solution through an agenda that includes the restoration of Parliament, an interim government and an election to a Constituent Assembly in order to establish a complete democracy. In addition to the country's democratic forces being thwarted, human rights violations have been massively increasing since the royal takeover as well. The human rights organisation Informal Sector Service Centre (INSEC) reported that the number of killings has increased by 75 percent compared with the previous government. Both the security forces and rebels have seriously undermined the minimum standards of human rights and humanitarian laws. In this context, any form of amnesty or impunity is not acceptable. Human rights violators, regardless of the side of the conflict they are on, must be brought under the authority of the judicial system. As Nepal has learned from its experiences, due to its lack of implementing the findings of the 1990 Mallik Commission Report, a commission formed during the 1990 peaceful movement to identify and bring to justice human rights abusers and those who abused authority during the Panchayat era, impunity encourages perpetrators to continue creating political instability and to commit further human rights abuses that affect the mission to achieve sustainable peace. This regime, however, has not demonstrated its commitment to human rights or democracy. Instead, the regime has established parallel institutions that undermine constitutional bodies and the country's democratic infrastructure. For example, the Royal Commission for Corruption Control (RCCC), formed through a royal ordinance after Feb. 1, was granted investigative and judicial authority that challenges and potentially replaces a constitutional body, the Commission for the Investigation of the Abuse of Authority. The RCCC's actions thus far indicate that its creation was to use its anti-corruption mandate for political purposes, such as its decision on July 26 that former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and others improperly awarded a contract for the Melmachi drinking water project to an unqualified bidder that inflated the cost of the project by an extra US million. After an intensive investigation, however, the primary donor of the project, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), found that no corrupt or fraudulent practices had taken place.

In addition, the new membership of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was appointed undemocratically by amending the National Human Rights Commission Act of 1997 via a royal ordinance. The appointment of these members violates the Paris Principles on national human rights institutions adopted on Dec. 20, 1993, by the U.N. General Assembly that calls for autonomy, independence, impartiality, efficiency and professionalism in human rights institutions.

The undemocratic policies of the regime are also apparent through several other measures it has taken, such as its introduction of draconian media laws and efforts to shut down the private media institute Communication Corner. Furthermore, the undemocratic behaviour of the regime is clearly evident by the illegal demand by the administration, military and district monitoring committees in Banke and Jumla Districts for the financial records and programme details of civil society organisations, actions which were recently made public through amendment of the Non-Governmental Organisation Act. The regime has also replaced the authority of the civil bureaucracy through the royal appointment of regional and zonal administrators mandated to carry out the king's directives and ordinances. These administrators are loyal to the palace and do not have any accountability to the people. Similarly, the militarisation of the country can be seen through the royal appointment of retired military generals as ambassadors to the United Nations, France, Thailand and Burma.

The king's Feb. 1 move was made under the pretext of achieving peace and security. In reality, however, it was a politically motivated initiative that had been planned for a long time by the ruling elite since they lost power due to the 1990 peaceful democratic movement. The regime's actions since Feb. 1 also demonstrate its intention to establish an autocratic regime to permanently hold power. The regime has been systematically creating obstacles to the legitimate activities of human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists and obstructing news reports that are against or even question the regime and its actions. In the meantime, the regime has established and trained "anti-Maoist" groups called "village defence committees" in the countryside, comprised or led by criminals, and is openly providing arms and ammunition as well as encouraging them to carry out brutal attacks. These actions and the regime's blatant disregard for many court orders are clear indications that the regime has no intention of maintaining law and order and instead aims to rule Nepal in the name of trying to secure the country while only politely exhibiting a skeleton of a democratic system.

Durable peace though can be achieved only through guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms of Nepal's citizens, such as freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of association and freedom to peaceful assembly. Peace can only be established by ensuring the rule of law and guaranteeing public participation in the nation-building process, not by spreading fear. Such a peace process can only be introduced and carried out under a democratic, rights-based and representational system. If public participation is ensured, particularly of all sectors and marginalised groups, the conflict could easily deescalate, leading eventually to the process of demilitarisation, disarmament, reintegration, reconstruction and reconciliation. The peace process will be considered illegitimate, however, if it is set in motion by the current undemocratic and autocratic regime that is accountable, not to the people, but to an elite class, including the military. Therefore, the peace processes should be initiated by establishing a people's democratic governance structure, even if it is a temporary or interim institution, as laid out in the alliance of political parties' agenda that gives assurances of democratic rights and freedom.

There is no replacement for democracy, and only a democratic polity can promote the people's aspirations and include the people in decision-making processes. The undemocratic and unconstitutional political move of Feb. 1 by the king must be withdrawn, and, seeing as this is an unlikely scenario, it is left up to the political parties, civil society and ultimately the general population of the country to call for peace and human rights through the establishment of democracy. If appropriate political steps are not taken in a democratic manner and if inclusion and confidence-building are not supported, the peace process will be derailed, and the country could easily witness the escalation of civil war. Therefore, an inclusive democratic process should be immediately begun for sustainable peace in Nepal by promulgating the rule of law, democratic rights and freedom and by pursuing an election to a Constituent Assembly to bring the CPN-Maoists into the non-violent, political mainstream.