As the Nepal’s election
result unfolds, the sudden setback to ‘progressive forces for Change’ is
surprising. The Madhes movement of 2007, which invoked federalism, gave rise to political
parties from Madhes, drew into the national discourse and garnered support to
institutionalise the nation as the ‘Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal’.
While Madhesi parties (region-based) performed well in the Constituent Assembly
(CA) I election, they have not been able to make the same impact in the CA II
election, especially since in CA I, they were perceived as ‘king-makers’ in
national government formation or alliances. What has changed in Madhesi
politics? What will be the direction of Madhesi politics in the future of
Nepal?
Burden of Proof vs. Benefit
of Doubt
Since 2008, Madhesi parties have been in the national government
with key cabinet positions. However, they have not able to perform as per the
expectation of the Madhes people. The political parties were unable to deliver
their agenda, and the failure of CA I is considered a major setback for Madhesi
parties, leading to overall disenchantment.
Moreover, while contesting
for the CA II election, Madhesi parties have divided into many groups to
represents the Madhesis. This also contributed to their unpopularity.
Interestingly, after 2008, Madhesi parties’ splits were expedited to join successive formations of
the national government.
In such a scenario, the
election campaign for CA II raised serious concerns about the ability of
Madhesi parties to represent the Madhesis. In addition, the national parties
have put forward Madhesi candidates in the heartland to appeal to the Madhesi
electorate by reaffirming that federalism is now their agenda too.
National parties have
therefore placed the burden of Proof on Madhesi parties, that is, since they
failed to deliver the agenda of the Madhesis the first time around, what is the
likelihood that they will succeed the second time? This gives national parties the opportunity
to ask the Madhesis to allow them to represent their concerns if they are voted
in.
Election of ‘Constituent
Assembly’ vs. ‘Parliament’
There was widespread
understanding among the people that apart from ‘federalism’ and ‘forms of
Government’, CA I resolved issues of constitution-making. Technicalities of
federalism are no more an issue as identity is ensured along with economic
capability as understood across political parties. The CA II election has more
to do with development politics, and hence, CA II is also seen as a normal
parliamentary election in which basic amenities of the people matter. In this
context, CA I could not deliver and therefore the overall uneasiness with
Madhesi parties was strong as they were a part of national government holding
key cabinet positions.
Divided Madhesi Parties vs.
Division of Votes
The division of Madhesi
parties from four parties during the CA I election to nearly thrity (including
old and newly registered parties) has severely damaged the credibility of
Madhesi politics. This led to a division of votes among the Madhesis. National
parties too fielded Madhesi candidates to galvanise Madhesi votes so as to make
use of the way Madhesis vote, which is on the basis of their
identity/region/caste or language.
Direction of Madhesi
Politics
Although Madhesi parties
have suffered a serious setback, the emergence of Madhesi politics has raised
some major political concerns that have already introduced them into the
national discourse. There is a fair chance that they will be able to pull in
Madhesi sentiments towards inclusive/representative democracy, distribution of
resources, doing away with a monolithic hill-centric nationalism to inclusive
citizenship, devolution of power from caste of high hills elites (CHHE)
under a centralised system to a
decentralised form of governance under identity-based federalism, rights of
self-determination etc. Hence, even if Madhesi parties do not make it to the
formation of government/ cabinet bargaining, Madhesi politics would find a way
ahead until the CA II does not address the demands of Madhesis, who feel they
have suffered emotional discrimination in Nepal.
Challenges for the
Constitution-Making Process
At this point, it is
extremely difficult to analyse the people’s verdict of the CA II election.
Madhesi parties are alleging that the overall process of the CA II election was
rigged and are demanding proper investigation to establish the truth. However,
this could also be a tactic to buy some time to decide their future course of
action. Nonetheless, the political presence of Madhesi parties is inevitable,
as is their alliance with progressive federal forces like Janjati’s group and
UCPN-Maoist. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the Nepali Congress
and CPN-UML to reconcile with other political players.
Historically, Nepal has made
numerous mistakes in framing the idea of a nation. At this critical juncture,
Nepal cannot afford any failure in making an acceptable constitution. The
nation as a whole should also learn from past experience that the culture of winners
imposing on losers in the name of ‘people’s mandate’ has detrimental effects on
achieving national consensus. This is even more so if the constitution-making
process is at stake.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें