Disentangling the On-going Conflict
From tri-polar to bipolar
After the Royal coup in Feb 1, 2005 in the pretext of quashing the armed rebellion in the countryside the legitimate parties who won more than 90 percent of the votes in the last legitimate election were sidelined. Many supporters and leaders of the parties were kept in detention for more than three months. Despite international condemnation, including the UN, the King remained in his position. He tried to rule the country directly assuming all the executive powers. He had claimed the he would conduct elections to restore “meaningful multiparty democracy.”
However, due to the repressive tactics used by the regime the last municipal elections was rendered a “hollow exercise” by the US and “non representative” by the EU and UN because the main political parties boycotted it. As there was increasing reluctant to change his stance and engage the parties to return to democracy, not only the international community but the parties themselves, who have earlier condemned the rebellion, forged an alliance with the rebels. After a string of negotiations in the Indian capital New Delhi, both of them agreed on a 12-point understanding, which was unveiled on November 22, 2005. Among others, they have agreed to find a peaceful solution of the crisis through an election to Constitutional Assembly, restore multiparty democracy and fight from their respective positions to topple the repressive regime. They further added that the people would decide whether to end monarchy or make it a ceremonial one.
In this backdrop, two school of thoughts have surfaced in Nepal regarding the power holding (By power holding we imply that in an armed rebellion ultimately the ones with guns command more power. However, in a democratic society political parties have the greatest power because they represent the public). One school of thought believes in tri-polar power structure (Parties, King and the Maoists) whereas another school of thought believes in bipolar power structure (King and the Maoists).
People who believe in the tri-polar theory argue that still the parties, King and Maoists yield power and can influence each other from their own position. The international community, mainly the US and the EU subscribe this theory. Some hardcore royalists-turned- democrats also buy and advocate this theory.
The EU is headstrong with its perception about attaining peace in Nepal and the conflict being a triangular one. Dr. Gunther Baechler, a senior official with the Swiss Foreign Ministry and the special advisor for peace-building in Nepal, recently presented a paper entitled- “Peace in Nepal is Triangular” , which highlights his views on the present situation. He presented a model, which tries to clarify the power hording and division between the King, the Maoists and the agitating Political parties. His paper touted the following diagrammatical analysis of the situation.
Source: Peace in Nepal is Triangular. www.nepalnews.com
The other school of thought argues, especially after the 12-point understanding between the Maoists and the parties, that there are now two distinct power structures, both having guns. Though the parties have not taken up arms, they have been able to convince the rebels to express commitment towards multiparty democracy and peace. The parties and the Maoists, after meeting in New Delhi in March 2006, expressed commitment towards the pact reached earlier. This proves that they both now have clear common points and have expressed commitment to cooperate with each other. This makes the argument of the tri-polar theory futile because there is agreement on two sides to strive for a common goal.
Abiding by the pact the Maoists have promised not to attack any political party activists and civilians. They have made it clear that their armed rebellion is against the Royal government. Meanwhile, the parties have vowed to fight peacefully. Here it should be noted that fight does not necessarily means that the parties have to take up arms. They would organize street protests through peaceful means. Moreover, the Maoists repeatedly expressed commitment that they would not obstruct any parties activity meant for restoration of multiparty democracy. They would use their arms only to fight against the Royal regime. This proves that in the end it is a battle between two powers who have guns. Hence, the struggle is bipolar rather than tri-polar. This can be displayed diagrammatically as follows.
So, the conflict in Nepal is between two gun wielding parties. The Royal government has the guns of the Royal Nepalese Army, Armed Police Force and the Nepal Police, and the Maoists have their own People Liberation Army. Ultimately the Nepalese conflict is between two forces who are hostile to each other and reject flexibility to find a negotiated solution to the protracted conflict. The dotted line above shows the power to influence both the warring factions. The SPA and the international community here are acting like an exogenous force yielding some power to influence both the warring parties.
