Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Nepal’s Future: In Whose Hands?

 Printable version

Nepal’s peace process, which has always been predicated on a fragile political consensus, is in danger of collapse. This paper, published by the International Crisis Group, discusses political and regional factors that threaten the 2006 peace settlement that ended the ten-year civil war. Averting a return to conflict requires cooperation between parties to address their differences, and international backing of the process, including a decisive lead from India.

Nepal's peace process rests on the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that depends on interlocking commitments which neither the government nor the Maoists entered into wholeheartedly. Parties to the peace talks were not the same as the parties to the conflict.

The CPA was also not as comprehensive as its name implied. It was vague on the future of the two opposing armies and silent on the question of militias and demilitarisation. There was little in the way of a sustained process. Inter-party committees met only sporadically; there were no effective mechanisms to monitor the commitments that held the deal together.

The following factors have contributed to the current fraying of Nepal’s political consensus:

• While in office, the Maoists refused to assure their commitment to pluralism and non-violence. Party ideologues have given credence to the argument that they are pursuing state capture and de facto totalitarian rule.
• The fall of the Maoist government in May 2009, caused in large part by its own bungling, was followed by a new government led by the centrist communist party.
• The new government has yet to take full form; its major constituents are internally divided. Many party leaders are openly sceptical of the new government.
• The army has adopted a more overt, assertive political role and is supported by many who see it as the only credible opposition to the return of the Maoists to power.
• While India framed the CPA and acted as its de facto guarantor, it was never able to digest the Maoist victory. It has pursued increasingly interventionist tactics through Nepali political party proxies.
• The new government has begun to flout demands for consensus; it fails to consult with appropriate parties on major policies. While the United Nations (UN) mission is unpopular, it is essential to the maintenance of Nepal’s fragile security environment.

In order to diminish the chances of further political polarisation:

• All parties should recognise that consensus and a broad-based government is essential.
• Government should commit to the constitutional requirement that important decisions be made by consensus among parties, including those not in government.
• The Maoist party must give solid guarantees of its support for political pluralism.
• The international community must publicly support the peace process. The UN Security Council should be more pro-active in its support of building consensus among Nepal’s political leadership.
• The Indian government must support Nepalese government policy and use its influence constructively.

Access full text