Nepal in Transition

The pace of change in Nepal has quickened, and recently culminated in the signing of a peace agreement that officially ended a 10-year armed conflict. There are high expectations by many in Nepal that their country is on the path to a lasting peace and will be a model for other countries emerging from conflict.

Nepal in Transition

Moving Toward a Post-Conflict and Democratic State

The pace of change in Nepal has quickened, and recently culminated in the signing of a peace agreement that officially ended a 10-year armed conflict. There are high expectations by many in Nepal that their country is on the path to a lasting peace and will be a model for other countries emerging from conflict. How Nepal manages people’s high expectations, and the manner in which it handles the challenges it faces, will dictate the success of its transition to a peaceful and democratic state.

After more than 200 years of monarchical and autocratic rule in Nepal, the people launched a movement in 1990 that resulted in a constitutional monarchy and a multi-party democracy. While the country experienced its first democratic elections in 1991, there was only frail stability as corruption and social and economic inequities continued to plague the nation. In 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal—Maoists (CPN-M) launched a “people’s war” that resulted in more than a decade of armed conflict and some 13,000 deaths.

Citing the ongoing conflict and the government’s inability to end it, King Gyanendra seized absolute power in February 2005, resulting in a state of emergency and the suppression of civil and political rights. Civil society and the political parties organized opposition to the monarchy’s total rule, which led to the people’s movement, “Jana Andalan II,” in April 2006. This eventually resulted in the king losing power, and led to the restoration of the House of Representatives (HoR). During the king’s rule, the CPN-M and the seven main political parties, with the support of civil society, began a dialogue that led to the signing of a ceasefire code of conduct, several “understandings,” and the eventual signing of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement in November 2006.

As part of the peace process, the HoR stripped the monarchy of all powers and adopted an interim constitution, which led to an interim parliament in January 2007 that included the CPN-M. Additionally, Maoists have been sworn in as ministers in Nepal’s interim government. The country is also preparing to hold constituent assembly elections to elect the body that will prepare a new constitution. While the past year has resulted in many positive changes, Nepal continues to face significant challenges as it works toward a peaceful democracy.

The State of Security and the Rule of Law in Nepal

While the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) has completed registration of arms and armed personnel in several districts within the country, there are concerns over the continuing CPN-M possession of weapons and the seemingly small number of weapons being registered. There are additional concerns that the reportedly poor conditions of the cantonments could lead to former combatants leaving those areas. Despite the CPN-M joining the interim parliament and government, there are reports of ongoing intimidation by CPN-M cadres.

Further threats to security include armed groups that have either splintered from the CPN-M or have organized in the name of retaining the monarchy, preserving Nepal as a Hindu kingdom, or in the name of protecting and promoting the rights of various ethnic groups. Of particular concern has been the growing Madhesi movement in the Terai (lowlands) of the country. The Madhesi people are culturally and ethnically close to the northern groups of India and have been historically discriminated against in Nepal. However, the movement has quickly turned into communal violence with rallies of people armed with spears and khukuris (traditional knives) attacking police, government offices and homes, CPN-M groups, businesses, and the Pahadia (hill people). With so much emphasis on the political affairs of the country, support for the police to address these crimes and take appropriate action has been insufficient. Similarly, the government and the eight political parties making decisions for the country hesitate to take any action against armed groups with political agendas for fear of destabilizing the country’s political future.

Other post-conflict crimes are on the rise, including organized crime, burglary and theft, cross-border looting and banditry, smuggling and human trafficking, and gun crimes. The legal framework is inadequate to deal with these crimes. Additionally, institutions that support the rule of law, such as the judiciary and the Home Ministry, do not have the capacity to address the crime problems. Also posing a threat to security is the ongoing poverty, economic inequity, and social exclusion, which have served as a platform for both peaceful and armed groups.

Challenges exist within the security sector in terms of identifying roles and responsibilities between the Nepal Police, the Armed Police Force (which was designed originally to fight the Maoist insurgency and operates as a paramilitary group) and the Nepal Army, which is now confined to its barracks according to the peace agreement.

Shifting Roles and Responsibilities of Police and Civil Society

During the sessions, the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) team discussed general themes regarding the changes in roles of civil society and the police during the transition from conflict to peace. While in the past the police may have been used to protect the state, they must take on a new role as protector of the individual and upholder of rights as democratic principles are implemented. Transparency, coordination, and communication, as well as operating guidelines that are indicative of the role police play as public servants, are all imperatives for the police in a democratic state. The police are citizens and part of society, and therefore should not be viewed as apart from it. Tools such as an internal review, and mechanisms for internal investigation whereby grievances can be filed by the public, can strengthen the police and increase transparency, thereby increasing public trust in the police. The transitional phase can provide opportunities for institutional change as well. This can include identifying or updating goals, updating policies, strategies, procedures, and timelines, in order for the institution to increase its effectiveness and capacity.

There are many roles that civil society can take, in addition to that of a “watchdog,” to assist in developing a democratic and secure society that operates by the rule of law. Civil society can continue to be vigilant not only in pressing for police to respect people’s civil and political rights but also in pressing for police to protect people’s rights by maintaining public order and preventing crime. Civil society can also engage with police in a constructive manner designed to identify and resolve issues of common concern.

As advocates, civil society could continue to push for inclusion of disenfranchised groups in decision-making processes and for the development of strategies and mechanisms that strengthen the rule of law. They can work with government officials in strengthening the police as protectors of the people, and push for law reform and for the equal enforcement of the law, regardless of political affiliation. They can also advocate for accountability within the government and security agencies, and jointly undertake activities with these agencies to formulate mechanisms to combat impunity.

It is important to build a human rights culture within the government and the security agencies during transition.

Civil society has the capacity to support and conduct some of these activities, including training in the area of human rights, democratization, accountability, and the rule of law. They can advocate for legislation that protects and promotes human security. Educating the public on security, the rule of law, legal frameworks, and the role of the police and government is important so the public can understand the roles of security institutions (the police, judiciary, penal system, and so on,) and more fully participate in reforming and strengthening police and other security mechanisms. Public education on alternatives to violence is crucial to reducing risks to human security.

Civil society can play a key role in identifying areas of needed reform, providing ideas and solutions to the state and relevant justice and security institutions and working jointly with those institutions in developing a long-term rule of law strategy. Sustainable institutional changes and reform rely on a long-term strategy developed with the involvement and acceptance of those institutions together with civil society and the public. A long-term strategy can inform the government and donor communities of the needs and areas that require change and support and help alleviate the often-found challenges of insufficient donor coordination and competing political agendas found in countries emerging from conflict. Overall, constructive engagement from civil society on issues of security and the rule of law will protect human security and strengthen institutions that maintain law and order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The report was prepared by Karon Cochran-Budhathoki and Colette Rausch for United States Institute of Peace (USIP). Karon Cochran-Budhathoki is a conflict resolution specialist based in Nepal and Colette Rausch is deputy director of USIP's Rule of Law program.