The UML’s response to our demands has been half-hearted

AUG 19 -
The High-level Political Committee (HLPC) is currently in talks with the Federal Socialist Party (FSP), which till date, has been opposed to fresh Constituent Assembly (CA) polls conducted by the Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi-led government. The party has submitted a five-point list of demand to the HLPC, which includes the formation of an all-party mechanism, the dissolution of the HLPC, scrapping or amendment of the 25-point presidential decree and 11-point political agreement and retain the number of proportional seats as in the last CA. The Post’s Dewan Rai and Darshan Karki talked to the FSP Chairman Ashok Rai about ongoing talks and the party’s preparation for elections.

Where have talks between the HLPC and FSP reached?

We held our second round of talks with the HLPC. Despite the fact that our party has been protesting ever since the President promulgated the 25-point ordinance and the HLPC was formed through the 11-point agreement, talks were only held last week. Our argument is that the two agreements did not create an environment for polls. Instead, they only allowed parties in the HLPC to do as they wish. Now that talks have begun, it is a positive start. However, we have discovered that there is no agreement among the HLPC members themselves.

Do you mean a lack of agreement concerning your demands?

Yes, they did not have a common point of view on how to address our demands. Furthermore, one of the four parties even told us that they were unaware of our demands. This, despite the fact that we have been protesting for four months, have publicised our demands in the media and even submitted it to them during bilateral talks.

Which party was this?

The CPN-UML. This shows that the four parties are not serious about resolving issues. They haven’t even discussed our demands within their own parties. We have clearly stated that we cannot be part of an election held under the current circumstances.

Have you provided any alternatives?

A round table conference can be organised and through it, the so-called HLPC can be dismantled. If need be, another mechanism can then be formed. Let us discuss what needs to be corrected in the 25-point ordinance and 11-point agreement and how they can be replaced. As the upcoming CA is only the second version of the first CA, let us go for elections by keeping all previous national agreements as they are. That would be the intelligent thing to do.

What is your problem with the HLPC?

This is a committee with no constitutional basis. It is in neither the 25-point ordinance nor the constitution. But it is working as the actual power centre behind the curtains, directing everything onstage. It controls and commands the government. The argument is that as the current government is party-less, there are doubts regarding its proper functioning. Why form a government that you can’t trust? The current government was formed to hold free and fair elections but the four parties control it. How can those outside the HLPC expect a fair election?

Will you still agree to go to elections if the HLPC isn’t dismantled?

If none of our demands are fulfilled then we can’t go for elections. We have made our stand clear to the President as well as the four parties.

The HLPC is reportedly showing maximum flexibility in bringing the CPN-Maoist on board. Have they told you something similar?

Yes, they also mentioned that to us. However, the HLPC’s assurances are incomplete. They said that they are ready to increase the number of proportional seats but not as it was in the last CA. Secondly, they said they are willing to only deactivate the HLPC, not to disband it. They are still not ready for an all-party meeting. The HLPC’s opinions are all based on November 19 as the deadline. We have said that if everyone agrees for elections, we should not treat November 19 like a marriage date.

Still, how hopeful are you that talks with the HLPC will pay off?

They are heading in the right direction. But a complete agreement has not been reached. It will take more time but I am hopeful. Talks are a political process. The Nepali Congress (NC) and UML wasted 10 months reaching an agreement when Baburam Bhattarai was prime minister. If talks conclude within this week, so much the better but I don’t think that is practical. The UCPN (Maoist) and the Madhesi Morcha are positive about addressing our demands. The NC is mostly positive but the UML’s response is half-hearted.

Have you been preparing for elections?

Very much so. We are at the table for discussions and are also preparing to expand the organisation. We have already covered more than 50 districts. We have registered our party and have obtained an election sign, which we will declare once we receive a formal letter from the Election Commission.

Is there any possibility of the FSP forming an alliance with other parties?

We plan to go for elections on our own as we are in the process of building a political party. We want the message of our party to reach the people in all districts. This is necessary because we are a new party. If we form an alliance, our party will not be able to make its mark. The FSP was formed with a long-term vision and we need to establish ourselves as an independent entity all over the country.

Is it because most FSP members were previously in the UML that your party feels undue pressure to establish a new identity?

Every party needs to establish itself as an independent power. This is not a necessity simply for us. We also want to establish ourselves as a national party.

But the FSP is seen as a party of Janajatis.

We have been projected as a Janajati party by others. This is not the truth. We would like to carry this message to the people and elections are a good opportunity for us to do so. The FSP believes in democracy, federalism, secularism and gender, ethnic, regional, linguistic, race and class equality.

Will you oppose elections if your demands are not met?

We have no plans to disrupt elections. An election that takes place without addressing the FSP’s demands will not be fruitful. We will not take part in such an election but if other parties take part and show it to be a meaningful exercise, we will not consider it otherwise.

Labels: Interview