UNMIN's Reintegration Plan is Under Fire in Nepal

Krishna Hari Pushkar

The United Nation Mission in Nepal (UNMIN)'s has imported and now introduced a sixty weeks reintegration plan for ex-Maoist Combatants in Nepal. It has come in a crucial strategic period and political transition period of Nepal. The UNMIN is being accused that it has been working against its mandate and favoring particular political powers and ideologies. Often, UNMIN tries to intervene in domestic political affairs, which crosses its limitation. In the past, the chief of UNMIN was about to be declared Persona non grata. Today, Nepal has just a caretaker government and is suffering from political limbo. As many of us know, the ongoing political escapades in Nepal are not favorable for an effective and successful implementation of a comprehensive peace process and related plans.

The "Reintegration Plan" of the UNMIN has come as a nasty surprise for domestic peace stakeholders, because the plan was supposed to come after political consensus and proper homework - respecting the aspirations and needs of the nation. It did not, however, come in the right time, right manner, right way and by the right authority. It is nothing special, just a way to please donors in the community; to allow the UN General Secretary to be safe; and to sustain both his job and the life of UNMIN in Nepal. It is an open secret to all that the ill-fated plan cannot work for reintegration.

Naturally, the plan has come under serious dispute and has been straightforwardly rejected by the head of the Government and its coalition parties, which should be regarded as a major fault of the plan. On the one hand, the Prime Minister Mr. Nepal has already threatened UNMIN against its so-called reintegration plan and on the other hand the Maoist has also expressed its strategic discrepancy by developing its own party's reintegration plan. On the other side, the ex Maoist combatants and other stakeholders including civil societies, private communities and general citizens are also not happy with the plan. Its simple--no one is happy except the employees and allies of UNMIN.

There are lots of problems with the plan. First, it sounds like its prepared in an academic manner, ignoring the sensitivity of local socioeconomic and political scenario. It seems the plan is designed and developed by those experts who are aware about the literature and story but not about the facts, local context and relevant contents of Nepal.

Secondly, it has no participatory planning characters that are must for any reintegration plan. Third, it has neither sustainability measures about the plan nor is it owned by government or the particular authority e.g. state/executive or parliamentary committees, civil society, local government or any authorities that are directly supported and authorized by the government. It is because the government is the only authority who has ultimate and final accountability to manage and deal with pre to post phases of reintegration and to entire processes with its citizens. It is not just a matter of peace and politics--it has to do with national and internal laws too. Furthermore, it is also true that the UNMIN has not worked properly in profiling and opportunity mapping areas that are a must for any successful reintegration plan. Thus, the locals in Nepal consider the aired reintegration plan as an authoritative/interventional course of action.

In my observation, UNMIN and respective outsiders should pay more attention and need to be careful about its given mandate and legitimized role. They should understand "reintegration" is not like distributing food packets or organizing seminar projects. The reintegration is related to the past and the long term future of the nation’s people, as well as its peace, polity, and governance related affairs.

It has broader areas and scope, which has a lot to do with political consensus and agreements. So, they must attempt to work on a pre-policy impact assessment approach and must use the conflict sensitivity analysis while working on such crucial plans, policies, programs and projects in such a conflict-affected fragile country like Nepal, which is a among the poorest countries of the world. It is on the one hand a post-conflict nation and on the other hand it has severe ongoing arm ethno-regional-political insurgencies in various parts of Nepal. The reintegration plan has direct relations and links with other ongoing insurgency groups and its insurgents' arm group, so it need be clarified before to introduce such policy and plan. Though, UNMIN has not yet presented any strategy to address the issue in their so called advertised disabled reintegration plan, which is unfortunate one. UNMIN must know that any reintegration plan should not undermine the contemporary sociopolitical situation or the sustainability of its long term management while introducing the reintegration plan.

Sadly, the UNMIN has failed to recognize even the existing and potential actors of reintegration. The UNMIN deliberately failed to consider the importance of, or to coordinate with the various stakeholders in different layers. Therefore, the UNMIN must correct its roles and activities regarding the reintegration of ex combatants in Nepal, otherwise, such plans could add more political tension and confusion over the peace process in an upcoming day in Nepal. The poorly designed reintegration plan may push the nation into further conflict and political polarization. It could stymie the entire ongoing peace process. Of course it would be vexing to bring the peace process into its logical end.

Any plan from the UNMIN that may assist the mismanagement of ex combatants and their future should not come into the nation. The UNMIN has no rights or authority to play with the future of the nation and its citizens. The time will come soon where the state will get stronger, and will be compelled to take action against the UNMIN--and declare their officials Persona non gratae, if they continue such activities in the upcoming days.

Source

Nepal’s Dual Citizenship: A Suicidal Decision?

By Krishna Hari Pushkar,

Upcoming Dual Citizenship policy will be a big threat on democracy, sovereignty, integration and harmony in polity as well as in society too. Such stochastic policy could push our nation towards serious problem, if the government introduces the policy without analyzing the potential impact. Therefore, the government should go in open referendum accordance with the spirit of interim constitution before to approve the policy of dual citizenship.

The Non Residential Nepalese (NRN) has pressurized government to approve the dual citizenship policy and now government is almost agree on it. Sadly, there are misunderstandings among the people that NRN is only the people who are rich and living in rich country. Now, it’s time to be clear about the NRN. What about the 80-90 lakhs Nepalese who are living in India? What about the 4-5 laksh Nepalese who are living in Burma? What about the 3-4 lakhs Nepalese living Bhutan? For instance, let’s exclude the NRN people who have been living in prosperous country and prosperous profession and think what will happened if the described people come in Nepal and ask to be a part of dual citizenship?

I think most of them come in Nepal and will happily try to settle in Nepal permanently since the problem in Bhutan, Burma and India (see the problems and difficulties facing by Nepalese ethnic people in Assam etc.) have become huge headache for Nepalese ethnic people. I think most of them could easily establish relationship with Nepal and will able to fulfill all the required criteria to obtain citizenship.

We should be serious and learn first about our national capacity, limitation of resources, infrastructure and other related multifarious aspects. Just approving the dual citizenship is easy job for government, but to manage and maintain policy sustainably is more complex job. I think the citizenship includes the set of duties and responsibilities equally for a nation and individual too.

What happen if the all people come and ask the state to fulfill the constitutional, fundamental and human rights? Do you think that our nation is capable now to address the issues? Do you think the dual citizenship policy will prove profitable for Nepal? Isn’t it will be an additional burden of the nation? I think it will be a big threat on democracy, sovereignty, integration and harmony in polity as well as in society too. Such stochastic policy could push our nation towards serious problems, if the government introduces the policy without analyzing the potential impact.

Is there any research and homework conducted about the potential impact of dual citizenship policy with reference to Nepalese context?

Therefore, I request all stakeholders to be serious about the issue in timely; otherwise it will prove a suicidal step for the nation and the existing nationalities of Nepal. I am not sure but in my personal opinion, the government should go in open referendum before to approve the policy of dual citizenship.

Additional justification from Krishna Hari Pushkar:

Thank you. Please do understand that there is nothing to do with the NRN law and its definition. The major issues of dual citizenship are for those Nepalese who have been living abroad and have ended the Nepalese citizenship and also for those who are willing to do the same. Friends, pro-dual citizenship companion is based in a cagey logic that provision of dual citizenship will be helpful to attract FDI or private investment in Nepal from the so called limited rich people. However, you might know about the number of rich people who can really able to invest in Nepal. I think we could just count in finger about the number for such limited people, but you will lifelong unable to count the growing number of those people who seek for dual citizenship. You must know about the ratio of the people who want to invest in Nepal and the people who just want to have dual for their individual/personal benefit. May be millions of NRNs who are living abroad (India, Burma, Bhutan etc) will settle permanently in Nepal. Therefore, why should Nepal Government and people agree to provide dual citizenship? Could you provide any empirical justification? Do you know the number of people who want really investment and to be a part of socioeconomic development? I think Nepalese people are now aware and willing to know about the fact rather than the value.

Additional justification from Mr. Krishna Hari Pushkar:

In response to your argument, I would like to clear that I did not talk about those people who are only Nepalese speaking. But, I talked about those people who are inherent Nepalese and they migrated or left Nepal few decades ago due to employment or economical reasons. I am sure that they could obtain their Nepalese citizenship accordance with laws and could present enough proofs e.g. parental properties, blood relations, old voter list, lands and malpot related receipts etc. Most of the previously described non residential Nepalese have more than enough proofs to prove that they are well eligible to get “Bansaj Nagrikata”. Therefore, it should be clear that I talked about those non-residential Nepalese who are equally eligible as the defined nonresidential Nepalese who are living in so called developed and prosperous country.

Author's Bio: Mr. Pushkar was a DAAD fellow and studied research master in peace and conflict studies in Germany. In addition, he holds an internationally honored first class master degree in public administration. He has participated in dozens of national and international trainings, seminar, and workshops programs related to governance, migration, ethnicity, social inclusion, human rights, diplomacy, peace, security and conflict management in US, Europe and Asian countries. Mr. Pushkar often writes opinion articles, reports, conduct researches and publish commentary notes on the various contemporary issues related to the areas of his expertise, specially with reference to Nepal. He has been working under the Ministry of Home Affairs/Government of Nepal and well honored as a Peace, Security and Conflict Management Professional. Mr. Pushkar actively involves and also contributes regularly to the dozens of national and international nongovernmental organizations as a capacity of peace and conflict management expert.

Federalism & National Integrity in Nepal

Federalism & National Integrity in Nepal
Prakash Bom
Federalism generally implies federation comprising a member of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central "federal" government. However, in the government level the self-governing status of the component states or regions is constitutionally established and no unilateral decision of the central government can alter it. Primarily, state or regional governments must consist of a unit of partially self-governing local governments in which people have constitutional right to govern their own constituencies. It is the partially self-governing local level of governments that play vital role for the stability, prosperity and national integrity of a federal democratic nation.

It is said that Mahatma Gandhi had deeply regretted with the constitutional provision of federal republic Indian because it has excluded the primary structures of federalism that could have set the system for local people to govern their constituencies with their constitutional rights. It was forced by the ruling elites who could not trust people capable of governing their local constituencies. Therefore, Indian federalism gives all power to the state government and to the chief minister to run the whole state affairs. If Nepal without scrutiny adopts Indian model of federalism then Nepali people will be deprived of their constitutional rights for governing their own constituencies.

On the contrary, there is no such a federalism, which has states or regions with full self-governing or full autonomy status. If there is then what is the purpose of institutionalizing federal democratic republic? In that case, such a state if it is rebelling for independent then should become independent nation. Constitutionally, just as central or "federal" government cannot alter the partially self-governing or self-autonomy status of states or regions with even unilateral decision so as the states or regions cannot alter partially self-governing or self-autonomy status of the local units of governments. Constitutional compliance of the central and state or regional governments establishes the right to partial self-governance or self-autonomy of the state and local governments. Therefore, as long as federal democratic republic exists in the nation this constitutional provision cannot be amended.

A parliamentary federal democratic republic nation's federal government consists of the Parliament with both Houses. Therefore, federal Parliament can only make amendments of the constitution. The state and local governments have legislative assembly, which under the provisions of the constitution legislate policies and regulations for their state and local governments. But state and local governments do not have their separate constitution. They must comply with the federal democratic republic constitution of the nation.

For example, under the constitution of the United States if any undocumented human alien has been living in the country the police cannot issue ticket for his or her arrest unless he or she has allegedly committed crime. But under the federal immigration law undocumented are considered illegal immigrants. However, it is up to the state or local governments to implement federal regulation. Therefore, there are many states and local government like New York City, which have given protection to undocumented immigrants. Some mayors of New Jersey local governments have welcomed undocumented immigrants if they comply with the rule and regulations of the local government and pay the taxes. These are the examples of implementing the provisions of the partial self-governance or self-autonomy of state and local governments under the federal constitution.

Under the other provision of the federal democratic republic constitution states and local governments must have electoral institutional establishments for the right to self-governance or self-autonomy. A centrally or stately nominated legislative, executive and judiciary bodies are not legitimate to have right to self-governance. Therefore, members of state legislative, executive and judiciary must be elected from respective constituencies of the state. This means assembly members of the state must be elected. The executive head (governor) must be elected to form the state cabinet. State judges, attorneys, and law enforcement officers also must be elected from among the professionals of the state.

Similarly, local governments are illegitimate without the electoral institutional establishment. The assembly members must be elected; the local government head (mayor) must be elected to form the cabinet; local (district) judges, attorneys and law enforcement officers must be elected. Electoral representation is one the mandate of the constitutional right to self-governance. All feudal political tradition of nominations must be terminated. Therefore, through the electoral competition electorates of all constituencies must have constitutional right to choose their representatives who are capable to oversee bodies (legislative, executive & judiciary) of their governments.

It is very important to understand the rational of the federalism regarding its self-governance provision for units of the governments. Particularly, those political parties and organizations, which are resurrecting federalism with the demand for full self-governance or self-autonomy, must comply with the basic principles of federalism. Similarly, SPA leaderships must respect the fundamentals of federal democratic republic. By just declaring it does not mean it has the structures of governance. Political leaderships and their cadres must have to work hard to create such a new structures that is off of our socio-political mindset. It is therefore unfamiliar and intellectually overwhelming. But if any political leader or professional elite out of his or her own unwillingness calls federalism a wrong governance system for Nepal then it is irresponsible statement. We must not disrespect our own consensus for the federal democratic republic declaration.

We must therefore consider our nations' diverse geographical and diverse ethnicity. Federalism is a national necessity not only for the sake of diverse ethnicities but also for all electorates of Nepal to have their right to self-governance in their constituencies. This means annihilation of the easy and merry-go feudal politics that indulge nominating and appointing tradition of ruling elites. Also, gradual abolition of 'First Past the Post' electoral system is must for the electoral system of the federal democratic republic of Nepal. This is essential to adopt "Proportional Representation" electoral system for the inclusiveness of diverse ethnicity representations for the self-governance participations in all state and local governments.

The federal democratic republic constitution of Nepal thus must establish the rights and duties of its partially self-governing units of the governments. One of the basic 'self-governance' rights of the local governments is to conduct elections to form their bodies of the governments. Local governments under federalism are fully responsible for their local administration, law enforcement, justice, developments, infrastructure maintenance, school management, local tax and revenue regulations and so on. Except for policymaking, funding and overall state infrastructure development the state has no control over the local governments' right to self-governance.

Any state proposal that attempts to disrupt the national integrity must require the political consensus of all local governments in that state under the federal democratic republic constitution of Nepal. Therefore, the self-sustainable self-governing local governments' fundamental constitution right is to protect the national integrity if the state leaderships tried to betray the nation. In a nation like ours', which has diverse geography and ethnicity, it is mandatory to make local governments in the grass-root level self-sustainable with their constitutional right to self-governance. That's the structure in the future Nepal can guarantee and secure the national integrity of the nation.
Source:globalpolitician.com