The UN Secretary General (SG) is supposed to submit his quarterly report to the Security Council about the progress made

by the UN missions involved in different countries for fulfilling its obligations. On October 26, 2009, the

SG submitted his report to the Security Council on “the request of Nepal for United Nations assistance in support of its peace process”. It reviewed the progress of

the peace process and the implementation of the mandate of UNMIN since his report of July 13, 2009 to the SC. It was presumably based on the report prepared by the chief of UNMIN. The whole report consists of 59 paragraphs covering eight topics discussing in detail the state of the peace process and the prevailing conditions of the country to acquaint the members of the Security Council thoroughly.

The last topic is related to his observations in which through paragraph 57, he states, “Nepal is on the path of major political and social transformation. A government of national unity remains desirable for timely promulgation of the country’s new constitution and for the successful integration and rehabilitation of Maoist army personnel.” The report, however, carries the minutest details of the Human Rights violation by the then Royal Army, it misses the reference of the killing of Ram Hari Shrestha by the alleged killer Kali Bahadur Kham,”vividh”, a Maoist cadre who has been promoted to the central committee, living in a cantonment. It appears that the UNMIN chief might have missed the reference to this case in his note to the Secretary General and also about the violation of the constitution by the then Maoist Prime Minister while dismissing the Chief of the Army Staff directly overlooking the constitutional procedural binding for the PM to channel his decision through the president.

There is no doubt about the sincerity of the Secretary General’s assertion on the desirability of national consensus for timely adoption of the new constitution and meaningful adjustment (not integration) and rehabilitation of Maoist army. For achieving consensus, he appears to have suggested his preference for having a national unity government in the country. However, he has left it solely upon the parties to have their decision on the formation of any such government. They can come together for attaining a major breakthrough even without sharing power with each other. There may be four options for any national unity government. First, if the present government, which has the majority support of the members of the House representing 22 parties out of 25 parties

represented in the CA is broadened with the inclusion of the Unified CPN-Maoist, the single largest party with more than 240 members, and the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum with about two dozen members with just and proportional representation, can be easily turned into a national unity government. Secondly, the UCPN-Maoist, can again lead the government participated in by all the parties. Thirdly, the present leadership is changed

within the existing coalition allowing parties like

UCPN-Maoist to join it. Lastly, a totally neutral government is installed with the approval and support of all parties, which in turn, should concentrate only on drafting the constitution.

With regard to the second option, there is a difference of opinion. Some argue

that since the UCPN-Maoist Prime Minister resigned when there was no demand for change of leadership / government either from outside or from inside the coalition, the UCPN-Maoist has forfeited its claims to head the government again on five counts.

First, despite the stiff opposition from ministerial colleagues of all the other parties, it behaved like one party rule sticking to its decision of dismissing the CoAS. Secondly, it

overlooked the procedural provision of the constitution to execute its decision through the president (Art.-144(3). Thirdly, the Maoist Prime Minister resigned without any consultation with the other partners, as if it were a single party government. Fourthly, it has raised a bogey of “civilian supremacy” and “correction of presidential move” when the president was left with no other constitutional way-out but to correct the constitutional abrasion carried out deliberately by the then Prime Minister. Lastly, it ignored the necessity of political consensus regarding any action initiated for and against the Nepal Army, at the transitional phase when the constitution drafting could have been given prime importance.

It is commonly felt that an exhaustive report of the Secretary General, depicting the existing situation in Nepal and his general observation about the peace process, has been under severe criticism of the government and some parties in the coalition. It was under fire in some media as well. As a matter of fact, it was not considered in the right perspective as consensual politics was chosen as the only path to reach the final goal of lasting peace, development and democracy above all. It can be attained only through an all -party government, which may be called a national unity government.

Prof Mishra is former Election Commissioner