Though the Maoists in Nepal view themselves as guerilla freedom fighters, we can consider them as terrorists, given their political demands and means used to achieve them. After over a decade of bloody civil war between the monarchy and the Maoists, the government of Nepal is experimenting with the counter terrorism strategy of co-option by allowing the Maoists to participate in the current elections.
The elections held on the eve of Nepali New Year promises peace and end to war in Nepal. The latest poll results show the Maoist party as winning with an overwhelming majority of votes. I believe that the strategy of co-option usually works because it appeases the parties which are stirring conflict. It makes them feel that their demands are being recognized by the entire country and leads them to vent their frustrations through peaceful legitimate means, rather than resorting to spectacular indiscriminate attacks (armed propaganda).
My only question however, is whether the strategy of co-option will work even if the Maoists lose the elections, or would that lead to more violence in the country? Is an election victory the only way to appease rebel groups, or does co-option work irrespective of election results? Since the final results are not out, it will be interesting to see how events turn out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I can see the same problem with the co-option technique. The only way I could see a "former terrorist" party as being appeased despite their loss is through the realization that these elections might bring; that is, they could possibly show the terrorists that terrorism is not their only option. Although they did not win this time, they have a chance to compete in the future.
Another important factor in this case is that the Maoist party is competing for seats and not a single position. So, even if the party did not receive the majority in Nepal's parliament, they would still be represented in the state's government. I think that this representation alone could be beneficial in the defeat of this group.
I somewhat agree with Stefani that by allowing the the Maoist Party seats in the government it would help appease them, but i do not think it will appease them entirely.
The Maoist Party has already learned that it can get what it wants through violence. By fighting against the government of Nepal in a civil war they are now allowed some say in government if they get elected. If they do not get enough seats in the government and Nepal continues to not go in the direction they want it to go then I think it is possible that the Maoist party or fragments of the party will resort to violence again.
These are all good arguments - take a look at my views on them and more in my response.
What is difficult, in my opinion, is that this group, and others like it, are very difficult for leaders to control. In other words, even if there is an election result that is acceptable to the party hierarchy, there is no guarantee that they will be bale to stop the violence. A good example of this is Hamas and Fatah in the West Bank and Gaza. Even though both parties have participated in and even won elections, the parties don't always satisfy the radical elements of the group and violence can still occur. Perhaps the same or similar problems will occur in Nepal after the election results are announced.
Post a Comment