Nepalese civil society in conflict transformation: Opportunity and Challenges.

This essay brings about the overview of the Nepalese armed conflict and civil society in conflict transformation through the lenses of a Peace and Human Rights Practitioner based in Nepal. This essay also tries to highlight about the present challenges and opportunity of the civil society in the post settlement era.

The 1990 constitution of Nepal has been regarded as superior to the previous constitutions; however with the weak implementation it could not properly address the issue of social exclusion and inequalities. Dissatisfied with the state provisions and practices, the Maoists launched a people's war in February 1996, which lasted until the signing of Comprehensive peace accord (CPA) on November 21, 2006 (Tiwari, 2010, p.242).  This has been sustained till now by the election of the constituent assembly in which the Maoist guerrilla themselves took part and got the wide spread success which made them the largest political party in Nepal.

The contemporary literature offers two possible motivations for the origin of the conflict in Nepalese context: Greed and Grievances. The concept of "greed" emphasizes the role of rents, which are occasionally lootable in producing inter-group rivalry for their control- a competitive process of rent-seeking that can descend into outright war. The "grievance" approach is based on a sense of injustice where some social groups are discriminated against, and their grievance could provide a basis for violent conflict (ibid p. 243).

In practice, both motivations exist in Nepalese context and it is difficult for groups to sustain the fighting without historical grievances, ethnic as well as political divide, and socio economic and cultural discriminations. Similarly, the war which was initially started with the "grievance" factor later turned into "greed" once the war produced "new avenues" of profit was evident. Thus, "greed" and "grievance" dimensions are inextricably intertwined (ibid p. 243). 

Conflict transformation is now a leading approach to peace building. Recognizing that conflicts are a key feature of everyday life, this approach combines short-term conflict management with long-term relationship building, and transformation of the roots of conflict (Rupesinghe 1995 cited in p.6 World Bank 2006). A core element is the concept of peace constituencies that aims to identify mid-level individuals and empower them to build peace and support reconciliation (Lederach 1997 cited in p.6 World Bank 2006). It assumes that mid-level empowerment will impact on both the macro and grassroots levels. The key role of third party intervention is to support local actors and coordinate external peace efforts, requiring an in-depth understanding of local socio-cultural dynamics, and a long-term time frame (ibid p.6 2006).

The role of civil society in peace building has gained increased recognition in the last decade. Today the main question is no longer whether civil society has a role to play in peace building, but how it can realize its potential, what are the roles of various actors, what are critical factors and pre-conditions for their effectiveness? Despite great interest in civil society peace building activities, considerable challenges, and doubts about sustainability and impact, there is little: (i) systematic analysis of civil society’s potential, limitations and critical factors; and (ii) guidance on how to support civil society initiatives (World Bank, 2006, p.V). Most of the problems commonly encountered in designing intervention processes centre, in principle, around one question, "Which actor can intervene with which strategies and instruments, and at what time in any particular situation of conflict?"  (Paffenholz, 2004, p. 2).

With the key role of the third party in the conflict, the civil society can be one in any context. Earlier conception of civil society dates back to the Cicero who deliberated upon civilas societas before 400 BC, he was evidently referring to civil society, a society of citizens, who were free and equal participants but had unequal abilities. For the Greeks, the civil society embodied in the polis emerged as autonomous units between the family and the state (Dahal, 2001, p.9). John Locke (1632-1704), who was the first in modern times to stress that civil society, is a body in its own right, separate from the state. Charles Montesquieu (1689-1755) in his model of separation of powers (De l’esprit des lois 1748) distinguished, as Locke, between political society (regulating the relations between citizens and government) and civil society (regulating the relations between citizens), but presents a far less sharp contrast between the two spheres. Jurgen Habermas (*1929) focused his concept on its role within the public sphere. The political system that needs the articulation of interests in the public space to put different concerns on the political agenda, but this function cannot be left entirely to establish institutions such as political parties. (Cited in world bank report, 2006 as Merkel and Lauth 1998, p. 4; Schade 2002, p. 10; Habermas 1992, p. 374 ).

At the same time, civil society in Nepalese context also dates back to Vedic age (around 2000 BC), the age of knowledge and enlightenment (Dahal, 2001, p.15).  Earlier in that era, the moral teachings and stratification based on the caste system were practiced, with major aim of controlling the social order. After the rise of nation/state concept in Nepal and the 20^th century democratic governance different associations came into national policy frameworks hence strengthening the role of civil society in the public sphere.

While in the analysis of conflict actors and its roles, The Pyramid analysis brought forward by John Paul Lederach in 1997 elaborated the types/ identification and approaches/roles of the actors involved in the peace building process which seems very relevant and true to the Nepalese context. However, without the through analysis of the actors and relevance in the changing context it will not make it applicable and effective.

This theory was conveyed and contested in my personal work that I am doing in Collective Campaign for Peace (COCAP)[1], and tried to relate the identification and roles of the organization in the broader picture in the trainings, strategic planning meetings and interactions. Most of the instances, the participants agreed that we "COCAP" are some where in the lower half of the mid level or upper half of the Grass root level.

It was also widely agreed that our major role is to represent the Grass root level  and bring about the voices of the change to the Top level leadership . However the major challenges faced are with the realization of the position where we actually are, as well as the activities that we are doing still might not often make the  Top level leadership  realize about the aspirations of the grassroots. In this context, the proper strategy as well as changes according to the time and context is needed which has been the conclusion of that discourse.

During the armed conflict too, the role of Nepalese civil society became more active with the need of the time and context. The activities then included Human Rights violation documentation and reporting, support to the internally displaced persons, widows and particularly children. The relief work and the psycho social support became the vehicle for the victims as well the people who wanted to do some thing in that situation. The relentless work and effort particularly in the CSO and NGOs with some motivated social workers, the whole discourse and movement of the "civil society" started to become visible in the context of Nepal. These actors became more active and started to get involved in pressurizing macro level political scenario through mass rallies, peace marches and negotiation/mediation, with continued micro level relief and psycho social support in the community level.  

The role of the Nepalese civil society has widely changed from the context of the armed conflict to the post settlement phase. Much debate now has been concentrated on its roles in the particular given context. Role without context is rather ambiguous. The role of the peace builder as mediators, facilitators as well as the pressure group was one example that was lead by the civil society in the pre post-settlement era of the armed conflict in Nepal. The negotiations between the armed Maoist and the government that failed before the inception of 12 point agreement that actually bought the fighting rebels to the mainstream politics and the down fall of the age long monarchy system in Nepal were initiated monitored and even pressurized by the Nepalese civil society. After the conflict was resolved which was lead by the people's movement II was also one event where there was the heightened role of the civil society was seen. It was the time when the leaders of civil society gained acknowledgment as political leaders, resulting in the mass arrest by the state in the heights of the movement.

After the Constituent assembly election, the major challenge which was seen in the civil society sphere was that of fragmentation within it. The major reason for the split was that of political inclination as well as agenda difference. During the time of the later years of the conflict when the monarch was active, the common enemy for all was "monarchy" however after the republic, the rise of power of the political parties lead to the fragmentation of the civil society. During this time, the role of the civil society as one of the pillars for the reconciliation could not be kept by them resulting in the fragmentation of the society itself in the line of ethnicity and regional background.

In the time of the conflict, these actors found relatively ease while working in concept/ideas and difficulties in the functioning, where as in post settlement phase, it has been reversed, there is relatively safer environment making it easy to function but with out proper direction, motivation, strategy and the "very role". It makes the situation widely evident where the political voices are only voices that are heard. This also includes many disagreements, dis-resolutions and dis-settlements. The post settlement context has been highlighted by the conflict of interests between the political parties who are in power about the major contentious issues of the peace building process from the people's liberation army integration in the national armed forces to the constitution making process, hence limiting the role of civil society. The mainstream political context has dominated so much every walk of life that it has left little space for any second actor including the civil society.

References:

1.  Barnes C 2005: Applied Conflict Transformation Studies Readers (Theory of Conflict: causes, dynamics and implications), Responding to conflict UK.
2. Dahal D R 2001: Civil society in Nepal: Opening the grounds for questions, Centre for development and governance Kathmandu Nepal.
3. Lawoti M and Pahari A (Eds) 2010: The Maoist insurgency in Nepal: revolution In the twenty first centuries, Rutledge New Delhi. India (Chapter VII, Identifying the causes by Biswa Nath Tiwari, p. 239-257)
4.  Paffenholz T 2004: Designing Transformation and Intervention Processes, Berghof-handbook, Berlin Germany.
5. Ramsbothom O & Woodhouse T (2005): Contemporary Conflict Resolution (Second ed.). UK: Polity press.
6. World Bank Publication Social development papers (Paffenholz T and Spurk S) 2006: Civil Society, Civic Engagement, and Peace building, Paper No. 36 / October 2006.
7. World Bank Publication, 2006: Civil Society and Peace building: Potential, Limitations and Critical Factors, Report No. 36445-GLB.

Websites sources

1.    http://reliefweb.int/node/219161 downloaded on 15th April 2012 (Comprehensive peace accord 2006 Nepal)

---

[1] COCAP is a national network of peace and human rights non-governmental organizations in Nepal. It started as a loose, informal forum in June 2001 and was registered with the government of Nepal as a nonprofit and non-political network in December 2002. Currently, COCAP has 43 member organizations. COCAP aims to provide a common space for its members, volunteers and friends to collectively engage in the pursuit of peace, human rights and justice in Nepal.