King Gyanendra’s actions that eventually led to his takeover of total authority of the state in February 2005 was against the very fundamentals of the democratic process and the Constitution of the nation. Instead of bringing stability as he had expected, under his leadership, the royal coup united the people of Nepal against him and galvanised the ongoing movement aimed at his ouster and for restoration of democracy. The 12-point Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of November 22 the same year, between the seven political parties that led the peaceful Jana Andolan II and the Maoists who had waged an armed struggle, was the natural sequel to King Gyanendra’s blunder.

It took some time for the people at large to digest the message of the MOU and for the eight parties to work out a modus operandi but the movement gained momentum slowly at first, spread throughout the country and rose to a crescendo in the streets of Kathmandu. The unprecedented mass of humanity surging from all directions forced the King to surrender back the powers he had usurped from the people. This well-documented chain of events needs to be repeated here to drive home the relevance of the MOU as a document akin to a Charter for the People of Nepal. The governments that have followed claim rightly that their legitimacy is derived from the will of the people as expressed by the successful culmination of the Jana Andolan II, but at the same time they must accept the MOU as a mandate within which they should function — a social contract they cannot neglect.

The basic goals set by the MOU reflected the aspirations of the people for peace, a democratic system of governance and restructuring of the state with a view to empowering the marginalised sections created by the feudal society. The constituent assembly (CA) was seen as the instrument or mechanism to bring about these changes. It appears some of the leaders of the eight parties are either confused or trying to confuse the people by loud claims that postponement of the CA elections destroys the fundamental aims of the people’s mandate. Means or mechanism to reach the end is being confused with the goals. Indeed, by acting in haste to set totally unrealistic deadlines, whether be it the inclusion of the Maoists in the parliament, or in the government, for adoption of the Interim Constitution, or the date of the CA elections, they have created confusion and administrative chaos that could and should have been avoided through more mature decisions. Within less than two months since the Interim Constitution came into being, more than 60 amendments have been made.

By not involving the marginalised and neglected sections of society in the decision-making process, the rulers, new and old, have lost the trust of the very people whose ‘inclusion’ was one of the main motivational forces of Jana Andolan II. Dissatisfaction turned into violent eruptions in case of one such group, the Madhesis. Other such movements by, for example, Janajatis and Dalits cannot be ruled out. The Maoists have not been able to change their mindset or pattern of behaviour and continue activities of coercion, destruction or forceful occupation of public or private properties and use of force. They are doing so despite their comrades holding ministerial posts in the government.

The Prime Minister could have refrained from proclaiming that the elections will be held under any condition within the stipulated date. The government should have concentrated on preparing the prerequisite laws. Preoccupied with the self -imposed deadlines, the government has failed to address the more urgent and important aspects of process and procedure, which influence the quality of the end product.

The Election Commission had no option but to recommend the inevitable postponement. Commonsense would suggest that the eight parties should have sat together to determine a more realistic new date and then set about the task of implementation and creating a conducive atmosphere for CA polls. But instead, the rhetoric of blaming each other or the vague ‘external forces’ or the ‘regressive elements’ is in full flow. The parliament cannot function as legislators disrupt its normal working. Lawlessness prevails within and outside the parliament. Indeed it appears to the public that it is the political parties that are hell bent on creating the impasse and confusion.

There is talk of ‘Left unity’. Not an unnatural process in the normal course of events, but a perilous move that would break the eight-party unity, the very basis for the process of peace and the roadmap set by the MOU. At all costs, such misadventure should be avoided. If the leaders fail the people, they will face their wrath. The regressive elements can rise again, foreign powers may be more active in the country and the people will rise again if the parties fail to unite and deliver.

Rana is CWC member, NC(D)Uday Lama

An individual’s standing is judged by his contributions to society. There is no other yardstick of measurement or evaluation of performance, as far as being with it in the mainstream of activities is concerned. Not the means by which he achieves the end or the methods employed in keeping busy.

As a member of society, he is expected to give in a manner befitting his position and status to share his know-how, experience and expertise so that others may benefit. This enables him to carve out a niche and make possible a return of the investment in relationships though setbacks cannot be envisaged. What he does to act as an entity marks him out and accords self-esteem and self-worth which are values to be inculcated through personal sacrifice and hard work. Thus acclaim can be had and given due place by way of reckoning, though a self-seeking person may forsake recognition for cheap popularity and short-term gains.

An effort at socialising proves the individual’s mettle; not the ones that are avowed but those that are judged by others. To communicate on a relationship based on respect is the only way to develop and avoid a compromise. Thus a fellow-feeling is brought about.

The true test is in realising how far he can go in seeking the consent of others in agreements and contracts. Only a nod of approval will pave the way for future actions taken on behalf of vested interests. Not the least is the due process in which it is undertaken.

The social ladder determines who is going to be up there in the top echelon or occupy the lower rungs. In between are the majority of middle class households and their dependants. There is no indicator of what makes a person a social success. Personal attributes are of course required. Next come contacts which make it possible to reach out to those whose good offices can be relied upon. To a socialite nothing is so important. Perhaps a chance word here or a little chit-chat there can settle matters.

One can channelise energy and the urge to do better to gain promotion, or acquire other perks and privileges in line with one’s social standing. Colleagues are responsible for seeing how these should come about. And their goodwill necessary if one is to forge ahead.