RSS Feed
Twitter
Towards a New Nepal
Concluding part
Conclusion-making Rebels
into Stakeholders?
Taken the short life of the last Maoists government
under observation one has to ask how far Maoist are, not in general, but at
least in particular in Nepal capable of seriously running a democratic
government and to deliver good governance. Of course, until the resignation of
the ruling Maoists, the political establishment carried out
all kinds of
measures to destabilize the Maoists government and derogate their political
performance. Nevertheless, the question which appears here is how the Maoists
from a democratic government can and still keep their rebel force, the Young
Communist League intact without being accused of various criminal activities as
well as human rights violations but also of being an anti-systemic force? This
is gaining special importance with regards to statement formulated in a typical
revolutionary rhetoric of Maoist politicians, that violence is still an option
for them. Doubts about the Maoist seriousness towards its commitment to
democracy and development conflict resolution, were already cast during the
2008 Constitutional Assembly elections as they were maintaining their PLA.
Despite the fact, that the involvement of the United Nations guaranteed, the
peace process was not hampered by the Maoist ‘stick ness to their weapons’.
This clearly indicates a major and current threat towards the democratic
development. Later phenomena can be described as the ‘double standard’ of the
Maoist, signing a peace accord to disarm, but nevertheless, maintaining their
armed forces and gangs.
all kinds of
measures to destabilize the Maoists government and derogate their political
performance. Nevertheless, the question which appears here is how the Maoists
from a democratic government can and still keep their rebel force, the Young
Communist League intact without being accused of various criminal activities as
well as human rights violations but also of being an anti-systemic force? This
is gaining special importance with regards to statement formulated in a typical
revolutionary rhetoric of Maoist politicians, that violence is still an option
for them. Doubts about the Maoist seriousness towards its commitment to
democracy and development conflict resolution, were already cast during the
2008 Constitutional Assembly elections as they were maintaining their PLA.
Despite the fact, that the involvement of the United Nations guaranteed, the
peace process was not hampered by the Maoist ‘stick ness to their weapons’.
This clearly indicates a major and current threat towards the democratic
development. Later phenomena can be described as the ‘double standard’ of the
Maoist, signing a peace accord to disarm, but nevertheless, maintaining their
armed forces and gangs. 
