As February 8, the date for the commencement of the municipal elections, is approaching, the mercury of political atmosphere is soaring. The government clamped down night curfews in all municipalities for a week where elections are to be held. The peaceful mass meeting had been planned by the seven-party alliance in Kathmandu for January 20 to protest against the government for not restoring the popular government and against its decision to hold municipal elections at this juncture where the insurgents have control over most parts of the rural areas and are capable of hitting any target even in Kathmandu. But the curfew was imposed in the valley on January 19 from 8 pm to 4 am the next day and was almost extended from dawn to dusk for a week. Some political leaders of the highest echelons were put under house arrest. Some of them have been released and some are still interned. Some human rights activists and leaders of the movement for peace and democracy were also put behind bars. Other senior political leaders and workers are arrested and lathi-charged every day for organising peaceful protests.

The daytime curfew not only disrupted the normal life in the valley, but also paralysed the working in government offices. The imposition of curfew could not be justified by any means. There were so many other ways to disrupt that peaceful meeting. It seems that the government was very nervous as it resorted to the ultimate and the most stringent means to attain its goal. A peaceful meeting being organised by the seven-party alliance cannot be compared to the looting of property of some manpower supplying organisations caused in Kathmandu by some disgruntled people after the killing of 12 innocent Nepali workers in Iraq in September 2004.

In the last quarter of 2005, it was hoped that the bloody phase of the insurgency would gradually decline and would be over in due course with the agreement reached between the Maoists and the seven-party alliance and after the unilateral ceasefire declared by the Maoists. It seems that the establishment misconstrued it as a token of weakness of the insurgents. The government eventually based its decision to hold municipal elections on February 8, 2006 on a miscalculation though it may have considered it a strategic and shrewd decision.

It cannot be denied that an election is a democratic exercise. It alone establishes the popular view regarding candidates who contest any election. But it cannot be a substitute for democracy. We all have experienced the 30-year regime of the Panchayat system in which periodic elections were held on the basis of adult franchise in the latter period of the regime. But it was never a democratic regime as the sovereignty was vested in the king. The king used the executive power of the kingdom. People were never sovereign. Their wishes were never final. Hence there was no democracy.

The present issue of municipal elections has been propagated in such a way by the government that it is blurring the vision of the masses to see restoration of democratic rights in holding elections. It is trying hard to confuse the real issue of democracy with the trivial issue of electing mayors. One can easily see the futility of the exercise. The government is bent upon holding elections, as it is under tremendous pressure from within and outside to restore democracy as early as possible. To buy time, it has adopted the delaying tactics. Sooner or later it has to bow down before the wishes of the people, who are the real sovereign.

The advisors, who have made the king adamant in holding municipal elections, are pushing the establishment to a very awkward situation. It is feared in the political sphere that if the electoral process is disrupted for want of candidates as would-be candidates are getting killed, then the whole effort would be meaningless. It would be difficult to provide security cover to all the candidates. The elected representatives will also require security, as they would have ignored the Maoist warning against offering candidature in the election. Even if the elections take place with marginal voting in spite of the use of unfair means, the results will have no credibility before the people and the international community, under whose pressure the government is hastening to hold elections.

It is, therefore, advisable to postpone the elections and start serious dialogue with the political parties and with the insurgents for ceasefire that they have called off recently to avert more unwanted killings (in the context of the elections too) of innocent people and armed personnel engaged on both sides. It is to be remembered that in seeking a military solution, there is 50 per cent chance of getting defeated, whereas in negotiated settlement there is no chance of defeat. On the contrary, no conflicting sides are defeated and both sides win. It may be hoped that good sense will prevail at the earliest in the best interest of all sides, including the peace-craving people.

Prof. Mishra is ex-election commissioner