In Response to Nepal: A Shot at Cooption

These are all excellent arguments and questions posed on the counter-terrorist strategy of cooption. In spite of these points, however, I would have to say that the success of the co-option method in Nepal will depend not on governmental action but on the nature of the Moist opposition group. According to Benjamin and Simon, for cooption to work and for there to be a diversification and eventual democratization of a given country, several key criteria need to be met. First, the government must extend the olive branch and accept this pariah group into the political arena. This the Nepali regime has done. Second, there must be a mutual trust between reform minded individuals in the targeted regime and moderate members of the opposition. Essentially, both parties have to agree that they are willing to abide by the rules of democracy. This is a more normative question - therefore rendering it more difficult to measure empirically - however, for the sake of my argument, I will assume that this trust has not been fully met. Regardless of this fact, I would venture to posit that part of this trust has been fulfilled since the Nepali regime is allowing the Maoists to run in the current election cycle. And lastly, since successful transitions require “reformers to trust the opposition party’s commitment to democracy” and “willingness and ability to reign in its radicals,” one must look at the ability of the opposition group to moderate itself over a long period of time. An example of this murky last point can be seen in the October elections in Pakistan in 2002. An alliance of six religious parties netted 11 percent of the vote, thus garnering the coalition: several seats in parliament, a partnership in ruling Baluchistan, unprecedented control of the North-West province and the status as the nations leading opposition party. “At first the ruling officials of the opposition party sought to demonstrate their ability to rule” rather than “in provoking the military and President Musharraf.” However, the group sought to push several of their more radical views through parliament without compromise which in turn lead to a breakdown in relations with the ruling government. This breakdown has turned into an impasse which - as of yet - has threatened to bring Pakistan down into a nasty civil war. To recapitulate, if the Maoists try and adopt the same tactics as the opposition groups in Pakistan, then they will fail and so will the method of cooption. However, if the group can continually compromise and retain the trust of the government - and vice versa - then the method of cooption might have a chance in Nepal. All of this will depend on whether or not these groups can put their differences aside and bargain with each other (for a positive example of cooption look at Sinn Fein and the IRA in the ongoing peace process in Northern Ireland). In the end, only time will tell if the cooption method can work for in Nepal for only time will us if the Maoists can moderate themselves and truly stick to the rules of democracy.