The Struggle for Justice in Nepal and Fiji

First Quarter 2007

A New Order in Nepal?

by Krishna Napit© 

The "Comprehensive Peace Agreement 2006," signed on November 21 by the Government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (CPN-Maoist) has brought a sigh of relief to a majority of the people. But it has also caused anxiety for some who have begun to transfer their wealth to foreign countries out of fear that it might be confiscated by a new government. There is hope but uncertainty in Nepal today.

The peace agreement is a positive sign that the process of transforming Nepal from a feudal order to a more democratic and open society might finally be succeeding. In the past, governing officials in a monarchical system were rewarded based on a system of patronage rather than on how well they served the people. The older patronage system was carried forward during the early stages of Nepal's transformation to a constitutional monarchy just a few decades ago. A corrupt bureaucratic system continued that exploited the general public and enhanced the wealth, power, and position of the ruling elite.

These injustices were among the causes of the revolutionary reaction of a highly disciplined movement that identified itself as Maoist. Since 1996, the Maoists fought to try to bring down the government and to intimidate rural communities to support them, recruiting children into their fighting forces. In response, the monarchy fought back, disbanding parliament four years ago and resuming absolute rule. The civil war led to the often brutal killing of an estimated 13,000 people. Last April, the current ruler, King Gyanendra, returned government to an elected parliament, which formed a coalition government. The coalition government began negotiating with the Maoist rebels, leading to the agreement just signed.

The peace agreement means that the Maoists will now join the government on the basis of an interim constitution and will take part in drafting a permanent constitution that may put an end to the monarchy altogether. If all goes well, this could lead to a positive order for all the people of Nepal, but the outcome remains to be seen.

Nepal has a long way to go to change from an underdeveloped to a developed country, from a disorder of social, political, and economic injustices to a new order of freedom with justice. To achieve real peace, human rights, democracy, and social and economic justice for all will require cooperation from ordinary citizens as well as from business people, political parties, nongovernment organizations, and government officials. It will also require wise involvement and support by international organizations and the governments of other countries. It will not be enough for a new constitution to be approved and some laws to be passed. The people of Nepal will have to play their part by obeying the law, paying taxes, participating in the democratic process, accepting the rule of the majority, and holding elected representatives accountable to the people and requiring that they serve the public good. But all of this will demand trust, evidence of just governance, and time to learn new habits.

Will it be possible for those who govern to make sure that all segments of society benefit from the dramatic changes? Will a new government pay close attention to the needs of ethic minorities, of low-caste and untouchable groups, of women and the elderly? Will equity and fairness encompass people from the high mountains and mid-range hills, from the valleys and lowlands (called the terai), and from urban and rural areas? Will people and officials be ready to permit free speech for the media and civil-society organizations? Will the society experience some satisfaction that justice has been done to all those who murdered and committed atrocities during the civil war? Can reconciliation become a reality?

Whatever the shape of a new constitution, the new government and elected representatives will bear huge responsibility to help create a new pattern of public life for Nepal. Nepal does not have a long or positive experience with democratic institutions free of patronage patterns and associated injustices. The challenge will be for new officials to transform the society rather than hold on to old privileges that they used to have. Careful checks and balances need to be written into the constitution, but more than anything else political leaders themselves will have to demonstrate and lead others in a paradigm shift of values and principles, agreeing that all people, including themselves, must abide by the law.

A new, elected government will also have to make sure that the army and police are held accountable to it. But since the top brass of the army and police have been part of the privileged elite, the smartest approach will be to replace the current senior officials one by one without creating an uproar among the rank and file. For this to happen the rank and file must find that they can trust the new system and their senior officials. Given the years of civil war, this will be a very big challenge indeed.

The court system of Nepal will also have to be reformed in order for it to play a strong role in effectively maintaining law and order, interpreting the constitution, and imparting timely justice to the people.

The future of peace, democracy, and development in Nepal hinges on the new constitution and on how well the new leaders can do justice to all the people of Nepal. We wait in hope and long for the day when Nepal can become a peaceful and just nation.

Krishna Napit is a Nepali citizen who has directed a number of development and natural resources management projects in his country. He completed several degrees in the United States, including the Ph.D. in agricultural economics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is currently teaching and living with his family in Englewood, Colorado. 

***

Another Coup in Fiji
by Robert Wolfgramm, Bruce Wearne, and James W. Skillen©

Robert Wolfgramm is the Editor-in-Chief of the Fiji Daily Post, whose freedom of operation was threatened during a military coup led by Commander Voreqe Bainimarama, in early December, 2006. The coup did not occur without warning. Bainimarama had been threatening action since before the last free election in May 2006. The coup deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase, who had first been elected in 2001.

Fiji experienced three other coups in recent years, two in 1987 and one in 2000. The latest coup seems to have been motivated in part by Bainimarama's concern that he might be investigated and punished for acts he committed or authorized in reacting to the 2000 coup, though he has recently tried to deny this. The first stage of the coup involved Bainimarama demanding that the police commissioner be sacked and that the police drop all investigations into the military.

The Center for Public Justice has been kept informed of developments in Fiji over the past few months by our friend and colleague Bruce Wearne in Australia. Readers may remember that the Public Justice Report (4th quarter, 2001) featured excerpts of a speech by Laisenia Qarase (Speech), the founder of a new party—the SDL—in 2001. In that same issue of the Report we also carried an article by Robert Wolfgramm on democracy and Christian politics in Fiji (Article).

Below we publish excerpts from a December 19, 2006 interview with Wolfgramm by David Adams in Sight magazine (full interview at: Interview), followed by comments from Bruce Wearne about the situation in Fiji as of December 19.

***

Interview with Robert Wolfgramm
December 19, 2006

Adams: What's been the reaction of the nation's churches to events of the past couple of weeks? 

Wolfgramm: All Christians here find the coup worthy of condemnation. The Protestant churches have been especially strong in their vilification of the commander and his troops and urging repentance and a return to Democracy. Some specifically want the return of the democratically elected but deposed government of Laisenia Qarase. The Catholic Church has condemned the coup, but rejects the vilification of those involved and some Catholics express solidarity with the commander's manifest agenda [which is] to clean up corruption.

Adams: How does this situation compare with previous periods of political upheaval in Fiji—such as George Speight's coup in 2000?

Wolfgramm: [The] 1987 and 2000 [coups] were morning-tea coups with interim caretaker cabinets sworn in by afternoon tea or thereabouts. This 2006 coup was a dinner-time coup and two weeks later, still no sign of an interim caretaker lineup. 1987 and 2000 were May coups—by December/Christmas things were sufficiently normalized for Fiji to be on the recovery ropes. This present coup is a December/Christmas one—bad timing. In short, as far as coups go, this is a messy, clumsy, ill-conceived operation that looks as if it is being made up as they go along. I mean, what kind of coup takes advertisements out in newspapers for applications to fill emptied government?

Adams: You're a Fijian-born Australian national. Is it true you've been told you will be deported to Australia by the army? What reason was given?

Wolfgramm: No reason, other than "Fiji doesn't need people like you."

Adams: What needs to happen in Fiji for the restoration of democracy?

Wolfgramm: The military needs to stand down, restore and hand back executive authority to the president (which is possible), restore the fallen government (which is most unlikely), or let the president put in an interim regime (most likely), [with] elections to come.

Adams: How can Fiji prevent such a situation from happening again?

Wolfgramm: Demilitarize. Obliterating coup-culture by means of demilitarization and other structural reforms has never been addressed by any government; it must be once and for all or [the] coup-cycle will be a fact of life.

***

Bruce Wearne on Fiji
December 19, 2006

In Fiji today there are many who are urging a return to democracy by a route that avoids confronting the injustice of the military take-over. For example, the Great Council of Chiefs is meeting today (12/19/06). The military has demanded that the Commander, Bainimarama, be welcomed by the Great Council of Chiefs as Acting President. The Council has thus far refused to do so, though they have issued an invitation to him to appear in his military capacity. The Council rightly judges that to welcome him as Acting President would be to sanction his illegal action and would itself therefore be an illegal act contrary to the constitution. The Council is standing firm on this. Commander Bainimarama has got himself and his country into a very sticky legal mess.

Dr. Wolfgramm and many others are of the view that there is no road back to democracy if a so-called solution avoids redressing the harm done to those who have been subjected to this military action. Many are suggesting that a compromise be worked out, but clearly pragmatism and shallow platitudes of "going forward" provide no basis on which to reverse the cycle of grievances that have dogged Fiji's restoration and democratic security since the first coup of 1987. The injustice implicit in the failure to return power to the Bavadra government in 1987 and to the Chaudhry government in 2000 are the seedbeds of bitterness that have perpetuated the coup virus/culture that is plaguing Fiji with this latest outbreak. The problem now for those who would appease the military and try to find some other path is that such a decision undermines the constitution and free elections. It would imply that Fiji no longer accepts the judgment of the international election monitoring team of May 2006 that the most recent election was fair in returning the SDL Qarase government to power.

Taking Fiji forward properly requires a commitment to justice as a basis for ongoing national and regional reconciliation. Fiji needs to discover the just and right place for its military. The path of justice is also the way by which any nation and its military develop authentic public respect for itself.