Conditions of Dialogue

By Dr. Poorna K. Adhikary

(Dr. Adhikary is the Managing Director of Communication and Management Institute and has more than two decades of experience in facilitation and training works worldwide including Nepal in more than five hundred events in the field of development and socio-political works. He is also a Trainer of UN Staff College, Turin, Italy on Early Warning of Conflict and Preventive Measures).

Tri-Polar Conflict

Intensification of the Maoist insurgency and King's firing of the elected government of Sher Bahadur Deuwa in October 2002, when he suggested postponement of the pre-scheduled parliamentary election in November 2002 by one year, has created a tri-polar conflict in Nepal. The King, who took the executive power, has come down into the active power politics as a new player together with the ones in the parliament and the jungle. The whole spectrum of political parties, which still believe in the constitutional monarchy, multi-party and parliamentary democracy belong to the second party to the conflict and the Maoists, who have carried out the insurgency to establish dictatorship of the proletariat, are the third one. Since the country is now without elected representatives both at the local and national level, the political battle is now being fought outside the parliament. The National Assembly has not found much role to play in this conflict.

The biggest problem the country is facing presently is the Maoist insurgency. Without resolving this problem, nobody can think of holding any election in a free and fair atmosphere. The pressures are already mounting both from within and outside the country on holding both the local and national elections in the earliest date possible. In the context of the political parties being sidelined for the time being, the King has to confront the Maoists face-to-face.  The question arises here, what trump card does he hold to resolve the Maoist insurgency so that he, as the executive head, can lead the nation beyond the current constitutional stalemate.  The competency of the King will be demonstrated by the use of this trump card, if he has any, while dealing with the Maoists. 

Characteristics of the Parties of Conflict

The political parties or the power centers are the people's institutions, whose existence depends upon their own relevance to people's needs for their social transformation. The political power centers are both the immense resources, which can lead the country to prosperity or the ones that can destroy it by engaging themselves in severe conflict. Since they are engaged in conflict in Nepal, it is essential to understand their strengths and weaknesses, and motives and interests. 

a. The King

Prithvi Narayan Shah, Tribhuvan and Birendra are remembered as the Nepali Monarchs, who have played significant role in the making of the country as well as in modernization and democratization of governance. Nepali Monarchy after 1990, until the King's action last month, has been credited of faithfully practicing the constitution, which safe guarded constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. As a result of which, late King Birendra had reached a new height of popularity among the people. After the unfortunate palace massacre event of June 2001, King Gyandendra ascended to the throne and brought the country into his grip. He has been very well regarded as a very self-assertive, intelligent man, who had the qualities of a well groomed statesman, politician, businessman, manager and environment as well as development activist blended all into one with a very wide experience right from the grass-roots to the international level. It is natural for many people to have high expectations from him to lead the country to prosperity. Although he has reiterated his commitment for constitution and multi-party democracy, his interpretation of the use of the Article 127 of the constitution, which allowed him to fire the elected Prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuwa and appoint Lokendra Bahadur Chand has raised severe criticism and doubts.

The questions come here why did a person like King Gyanendra act the way he did, which has put himself voluntarily in the center of such a conflict. People are asking: what trump card does he possess in the game of the present crisis? Is he motivated to return to autocratic monarchy? Even if he is, he will have to ask himself: Is Nepal of 2002 the same as Nepal of 1960? What policies and programs does he have to offer to the people so as to lead them through the twenty first century? Some people also suspect whether his action is directed by his conscious or sub-conscious desire of taking the power back that was lost to the people in 1990. There have been attempts by some to compare his action to that of his father's coup in 1960. Having assumed the executive power and being a player in the present conflict scenario, it is but natural that the King cannot escape such criticism.

b. The Political Parties in Parliament

Of the broad spectrum of the political parties subscribing to the constitutional monarchy and multiparty parliamentary democracy, united Nepali Congress and Nepali Congress (Democratic) together (NC + NC-P) and United Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Nepal (CPN -UML) are the main forces. However, the other parties like Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP), Samyukta Jana Morcha (SJM) and Nepal Peasant and Workers Party (NPWP) have demonstrated their own relative strengths in the parliament in the making and unmaking of the governments.

Nepali Congress carried out both armed and peaceful struggles throughout thirty years of Panchayat regime for the restoration of democracy. It is also the party that has been in the government mostly during the last twelve years of democracy in Nepal. Out of the three national elections it secured majority seats twice in the national parliament. During the first local election, it secured more than two-third seats in the local government posts. Three of its leaders have been prime ministers for several occasions during the last twelve years. Its ideology of democratic socialism has been both the center of attraction for its friends and followers, and point of envy for its opponents. The party has also been bestowed with a rich background of struggle for democracy, almost unparallel around the world, led by persons like B.P. Koirala, Subarna Shaumsher, Ganesh Man Singh and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai.

Such questions as the following can be asked to both the factions of the Nepali Congress: How was your practice during the last one decade of parliamentary democracy? Have you faithfully served the people, after being elected by them? How are you managing your own party affairs? How is the behavior of the current leaders as compared to that of the above personalities? What policies and programs do you have for the people so as to take them through the twenty-first century? One should not forget that the unhealthy internal power struggle that took place within the party during the last one decade, the climax reaching in May 2002 leading to the break up of the party has contributed significantly to bring about the present conflict in the country. 

Nepal Communist Party, which was founded in mid twentieth century, has demonstrated tremendous growth, despite its several ups and downs as characterized by its unions and disunions. Initially it pleaded that the 1951 revolution was an incomplete one, which only handed power back to the King. It had secured only four seats during the 1959-60 parliament. United Left became the major partner of struggle for the restoration of democracy in 1990 and one of the parties to frame the present constitution. Later CPN-UML emerged as the largest party in the 1994 parliamentary election and local election of 1997. Although a minority, it had the single party government during 1994-95 and partnership in the several coalition governments during the hung parliament of 1994-1999. There is a feeling that had the party not split then; it had the possibility to win the majority seats in the 1999 parliamentary election. The Communist Party of Nepal has been bestowed with such leaders as Pushpa Lal Shrestha, Man Mohan Adhikary and Madan Bhandari, who also have demonstrated long history of struggle for the restoration of democracy. However, people also tend to believe that it is the pain of losing single party government in 1995 and aspiration to lead the majority government, the CPN-UML has acted at times in an unhealthy manner to fuel the internal conflict of the Nepali Congress, that has also contributed to bring about the present conflict in Nepal.

Both RPP, party of the former Panchas and NSP, Tarai based party, established only after the restoration of democracy in 1990 have gone through their ups and downs as characterized by their unions and disunions. During the hung parliament, they made their huge gains by siding one against the other when two other bigger parties NC and CPN-UML were struggling for power.  Two RPP leaders, Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Surya Bahadur Thapa, both former prime-ministers of the Panchayat regime, even managed to become the prime-ministers during the hung parliament, which was not even thinkable during the first half of 1990s. RPP and NSP have their own behavior in power politics, they are also contributing in their own way in the present tri-polar conflict in Nepal. Both SJM and NPWP are smaller communist parties in the parliament. The following questions can also be asked to all these parties including CPN-UML: How have you behaved as the opposition force as the shadow government in the parliamentary system? How have you acted while you were in power in providing good governance?  How are you managing your party affairs? What are the reasons of your break ups and unions again?  What policies and programs do you have to offer to the people to come out of the misery?

c. The Maoists

Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is the breakaway faction of the SJM, which was the third largest party in the parliamentary election of 1991. The party got split in 1995 after losing the legal battle for its identity, the faction put up a forty point demand to the government and went underground to pick up arms. The Maoist insurgency found a fertile ground in Nepal due to prevalence of centuries' old exploitation and marginalization of women as well as rural ethnic, remote and dalit communities, and a large number of unemployed youth, who did not find much relevance of their school education nor the newly acquired democracy. The political parties, which came to power after 1990 contributed further from their bad governance as they failed to look into adequate means to mitigate the sufferings of the common people as well as meeting their raised expectations after the restoration of democracy.

The Maoists have demonstrated their enormous capability to organize themselves to carry out such a massive struggle, which is almost unthinkable in to-day's geo-political context.  They have also mobilized sufficient human and material resources from both internal and external sources. They have very easily defeated police force and have given quite a challenge to the army as well. It is due to them, G. P. Koirala had to step down voluntarily, Deuwa not only dissolved the House of Representatives but ended up breaking up his own party and not holding the scheduled election in November 2002, that pushed the King into the active politics and created the present constitutional crisis. As such the Maoists seem to march from one success step to another by passing all others to confront the King directly. The unarmed people and their parties are being forced to face the cross fire between the two armies.

However, questions can also be asked to them: How can you justify the practicality and sustenance of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Nepal in today's geo-political context?  How do you justify the means you have taken to meet your end? How do you fare in the minds of the people and the friends abroad? Can the guns control the human mind for long and have people acted voluntarily? What policies and programs do you have to offer to the Nepali people to come out of the present misery? What model of development are you proposing after the destruction of the existing development infrastructures? Is maintaining the law and order and providing environment for progress through development is as simple as hit and run, which you are currently engaged in?

The Conflict Scenario

As mentioned above the tri-polar conflict is a reality in Nepal now, each party standing on its own strengths pulling the country in three different directions: traditional autocratic monarchy, multi-party constitutional monarchy and dictatorship of the proletariat. Naturally the parties in conflict do not possess only strengths; they also have some inherent weaknesses. Difficulties arise, when they tend to see their own strengths vis-à-vis others' weaknesses and overlook their own weaknesses vis-à-vis others' strengths. So the party, which commits an aggression with its strengths over the weaknesses of the others, then a gain-lose situation arises. When King Mahendra had a coup in 1960 with the support of the army, then a gain was there for the monarch. But this did not last long as the Nepali Congress fought back until 1990, when the democracy was restored as the movement was joined then by also the United Left. This was a loss for the autocratic monarch and gain for the political parties. Had the conflict continued further, the scenario could have been a lose-lose situation for both the monarch and the people? Since an agreement was reached then for constitutional monarchy with multi-party parliamentary democracy, it became a gain-gain situation for both the sides.  

The rise of the Maoist insurgency since the last six years has created a condition that led to the dissolution of the House of Representatives; break up of Nepali Congress and reluctance of the national democratic parties to go to the poll due to prevailing conditions that could not convince them for a peaceful election. This was a loss for the democratic parties and gain for the Maoists. Further loss came for the democratic parties when the King fired the elected Premier Deuwa. It seemed in the beginning that the King was in a gain situation. Not only him, even the political parties, which were engaged in dislodging Deuwa, thought that they were in the gain situation. But this did not last long as the democratic parties realized that the appointment of Chand cabinet has already eroded their common constitutional platform. So they have resisted the King's action and refused to collaborate, which has forced him to walk alone.

The present impasse has already created a lose-lose situation for the King and the political parties. Should they decide to take joint action to confront him, then the King will have to fight the battle in two fronts, one against the unarmed people in the streets and the other armed ones in the jungle. Having major political parties out of power, the King has to confront the Maoists directly, which they seem to have wanted as a part of their own strategy. The Maoist, despite of many losses, seem to gain in their battle as their attacks tend to grow with higher precision and strengths. The democratic parties, although may seem to have lost some right now, will definitely come back stronger later, as it is already demonstrated by mass gathering by these parties against the King's move. Just putting a few leaders behind the bar on corruption charges will not significantly reduce their strengths. They have already demonstrated their competence for coming back after thirty years of repression by Panchayat rule. The bad governance practiced by a few cannot be justified to discredit the democratic system and punish the sovereign people.

Dialogue, The Only Way Out

A meaningful dialogue is a means for peaceful solution of any conflict that can result with a gain-gain situation for all the parties concerned.  Unless all the parties in conflict realize that they are locked into a lose-lose situation and its persistence can only hurt them further they can engage in dialogue so that they are willing to give up some for a larger gain for all of them, which can be termed as a gain-gain situation. Therefore a dialogue always means give and take. The question comes now: are the parties in conflict in Nepal now ready to give up some so as to make a bigger gain for all? For that they should also be able to look into one's own weaknesses as much as they believe in their strengths. A series of questions like mentioned above could be asked to the parties in conflict, which they must answer while engaged in dialogue or even before entering into it.

As the parties in conflict have their own agenda and perception of the reality, it is often difficult for them to come to an agreement. For this reason, the need for a facilitator-mediator arises, who can engage all the concerned parties in a meaningful dialogue.  Therefore, a facilitator-mediator becomes the fourth party of the dialogue, who can skillfully steer the group from step by step process to logical conclusion, based upon consensus decision of all concerned. This is a highly technical task and comes with years of experience and practice. The act of a facilitator is as much complicated and challenging if not more than that of a neurosurgeon. If one watches a neurosurgeon performing his task of surgery, it may look very simple for a layperson as if given a knife, he/she could also cut open somebody's head, as the surgeon does. The task of facilitation looks also alike for a similar person, as he could also stand and make people talk as they feel like talking. The only difference is: if a surgeon commits a mistake he can kill a patient and if the facilitator makes the mistake now in Nepal, he can kill the nation.

As a human society is dynamic, the gain-gain situation cannot be permanent and so conflict becomes inherent. The democratic societies manage these conflicts in a more rational manner so that conflicts managed well in time can create prosperity for all people. In an authoritarian society, conflicts are often suppressed, which explode later and become unmanageable, creating a great deal of suffering for all. The Maoist demand on the republican state of the dictatorship of the proletariat is such that none of the government duly elected under the 1990 constitution can meet. As long as they persistently insist on such kind of demand, there can be no common denominator between them and the elected government, under which a meaningful dialogue could take place. The silver lining of the current dark political cloud is that it is the King himself, who can perhaps go beyond the 1990 Constitution to deal with the Maoists as he is already reported of having done while appointing the Chand government. It is only from this point of view his action of sacking Deuwa can make sense. But the same question arises again 'what trump card does the King hold to deal with the Maoists? They have already proved to be a force, which needs to be reckoned.'

Preconditions of a Dialogue

A great deal of gossip to media fanfare took place last year on the preconditions of the dialogue while the Deuwa government and the Maoists were engaged in a series of futile talks.  Similar voices are being raised again now by the well-meaning self-proclaimed facilitators, who lack technical expertise and experience. The civil society and political leaders are raising voices that range demands from the Maoists surrendering themselves to scraping the present constitution in favor for change that allows an election for constitutional assembly. The proponents of the constitutional assembly are simply guessing if this can satisfy the Maoists, which they have clearly, rejected being their own agenda. The constitutional assembly, although is being perceived by some as a magic rod to resolve the current crisis, could as well be a Pandora's box with many uncertainties attached to it including that for the status of the monarchy, which might even jeopardize the sovereignty of the country. Off course, such issues could be some of the agenda of dialogue over the negotiating table. But in no way they can be taken as the preconditions for dialogue. There is no sense of putting the cart before the horse.

In fact the only preconditions of a dialogue among the parties concerned are self-confidence, humility and hope. The parties of dialogue should be the three main players who are visible now in the tri-polar conflict and the facilitator as the fourth player, who comes as an external agent to lead them through step by step process by maintaining an equidistance to all of them. For that a minimum common denominator has to be explored upon which all the parties in conflict can stand together, which then needs to be expanded further to cover the interests of all. Civil societies if represented in the process, could also act as the catalyst for a meaningful dialogue.

a. Self-Confidence

Self-confidence means the position a party in conflict holds on certain issue of dialogue. Self-confidence is not the blind faith as such, but an ability of an in-depth objective understanding of one's own position, which can allow the party concerned to speak and hold on to itself while confronting the others. Without having such ability, nobody can engage in dialogue with others. In case of the conflict in Nepal now, the parties concerned must have a very clear picture of Nepal from their own positions that can be obtained through transformation of the present reality to that of the future, which is desirable but realistically achievable, sustainable and equitable.

The parties holding to monarchial autocracy, constitutional monarchy, constitutional assembly republican or monarchial alike or dictatorship of the proletariat, must have the clear understanding of one's own position to defend it from all perspectives and convince the others, why the system one believes in, is better for the Nepali people than that of the others. Here it is also necessary to assert that it is the people themselves, who should be the actor as well as center of the whole transformation process and a political system as such is only a means to support them. The relative advantages and disadvantages of all the political systems as the agenda of dialogue should be presented and discussed thoroughly.

b. Humility

The second precondition of dialogue is that the party in conflict, which wants to engage in dialogue, must have humility. Here humility means one's own quality and ability to listen to others' views, no matter how much he/she has the self-confidence on the righteousness of his/her own position. This also indicates having attitude to learn from others on their positions no matter how much one feels that he/she knows about the matter. Here there is also the need to realize the fact that any reality is much more complex than one thinks about it and no single party has a complete understanding of that complexity. And there is no single ready-made solution to the given problem. The understanding can only be made through collective efforts, so that perceptions from all sides can be brought together. And this is possible only through a meaningful dialogue. This understanding is vital for holding the dialogue in Nepal now, as no single player visible now seems to have the best solution that is acceptable to everyone. 

c. Hope

The third precondition is the hope that allows the parties to engage in dialogue in all sincerity, to believe on the possibility of an emergence of a new reality, as a result of collective effort, which is commonly beneficial to all concerned. Unless these three preconditions are met, a meaningful dialogue cannot take place among the parties in conflict.

If one reflects back to the so called dialogue between the government and the Maoists last year, one can very easily see that not a single precondition as described above was met. No wonder the so-called dialogue ended without it being started. Therefore, the call of the time today is that the parties in conflict must come together to engage in dialogue so that they can all freely spell out the future of Nepal they want, listen to others' opinion and bring together the one that is acceptable to all the players. The nomenclature of the acceptable solution can be made then accordingly. 

Functions of a Facilitator

a. Understanding the Conflict Dynamics

A facilitator of a dialogue between or among the parties in conflict plays a key role to make them act by following the above pre-conditions.  He/she must also have the clear understanding of the dynamics in which the parties in conflict are engaged in. The tri-polar conflict scenario as presented above is putting all the players into a vicious cycle of gain-lose and lose-gain situation. When one party gains while the others lose, it looks as if the conflict is resolved momentarily. Since the loser does not accept the defeat, he/she always looks for an opportunity to hit back to transform his/her loss to the gain situation. Thus the vicious cycle gets created. In Nepal, the autocratic monarchy, constitutional monarchy and the Maoists alike already seem to be pushed into this vicious cycle. When the vicious cycle persists for a long time, then lose-lose situation emerges for all. It is only the internalization of the lose-lose situation or its apprehension, the parties in conflict can engage in dialogue so that they are willing to give up some for a larger gain for all of them, which can be termed as a gain-gain situation.

b. Conscientization

The facilitator not only must have a clear understanding of the given outset situation, but must also make the parties in dialogue come to its common understanding. There are several tools in practice of participatory technology today that can be utilized to collectively investigate the outset situation. In case of Nepal one should be able to draw a thorough picture of Nepalese, their background, resources, strengths and weaknesses, problems and anxieties, limitations, expectations as well as their aspirations.  One can draw lessons from the past to make the new future that is progressive in every respect but also realistically achievable, sustainable and equitable. This task is very much like conscientization, as Paulo Freire calls it. Therefore, the tri-polar conflict in Nepal needs to be managed very carefully. There is no ready-made solution to come out of this conflict. This demands careful action to cultivate the solution through a meaningful dialogue among the conflicting parties going through series cycles of action-reflexion-action. The facilitator of the dialogue has this tremendous task to make each player internalize the lose-lose situation and make them voluntarily ready to step down a bit so as to come up for a gain-gain situation for all. What are these little step-downs and bigger gains for all that have to be very well visualized by all concerned and the facilitator has the role to bring the players to this situation, without even telling them that they are being driven into it. Civil society representatives participating in the dialogue could assist the main players in collectively realizing the pain of the vicious cycle and the prospects of coming out of it for a gain-gain situation.

c. Managing Group Dynamics

As the role of the facilitator is not to do the task by himself/herself, he/she should create conditions under which the parties in conflict can work together for building up of the common understanding of the situation as described above and then come up with an acceptable framework, which can provide the way out of the present conflict. As there are parties, whose interests are opposed diagonally to the point of pulling triggers at each other, to make such parties work together is obviously not simple. That is the reason a competent facilitator is needed, who is not biased in favor of or against any party. He/she can motivate, if needed command at times with full authority not to make one dominate the others, so as to make the parties work at ease. For that, he/she must have a clear understanding of the perceptions of each party and manage group dynamics that emerges in the process of work. He/she should be able to monitor and evaluate every step of the work and build upon it until a final solution acceptable to all is reached. For that he/she should be able to provide feedback to the parties in conflict, which can be taken positively to improve the task performance by all members of the group. 

d. Leading for Consensus Decision

Bringing the conflicting parties at a dialogue or a negotiating table is the task of the initiators. There seem to be enough persons working at this in Nepal now. Although a facilitator could also act as initiator at times, his/her real task begins only after the parties agree to sit together. He/she should be able to select each step the group has to take and lead them through a process of consensus decision. Human mind is the most complicated phenomenon of all and working through the minds of parties in conflict and bringing them to a consensus decision is not a simple task. The task is difficult no doubt, but it is possible as any human problem has a solution that can be reached by dialogue.  It is not sufficient to have the theoretical understanding of the task but must have the ability to practice in real terms. 

Conclusion