State Within State: The Consequences

By Purbasi Chhetri

The International community has recently witnessed the devastating consequences of countries having a state within a state, such as in Lebanon and in Palestine. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine are known as states within their respective state. Both the groups / parties have their own political wing forming part of the government and military wing not yet integrated into the national defense forces.

The Hezbollah provoked Israeli Armed Forces (IDF) to invade Lebanon by carrying out cross border attacks. The Hezbollah launched an attack on its own and captured two IDF soldiers on July 12. The government of Lebanon neither declared war against Israel nor ordered the Lebanese army to fight back. Is it not a state within a state? Likewise, Hamas being in the government of Palestine refused to recognise neighbouring Israel as a state. The International community in turn did not recognise Hamas as it is continuing violence and refusing peaceful coexistence. In the aftermath of the Israeli-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, the US President stressed "the need to dismantle Hezbollah's state within a state in order to build Lebanese democracy." Therefore, dismantling of Hezbollah or its inclusion in national defense forces with consensus is the only way out for democratic Lebanon.

After the death of more than 1,000 Lebanese in the 34-day conflict which left much of southern Lebanon in ruins, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war. Sheikh Nasrallah further said that "We did not think that there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war of this scale and magnitude." As Hezbollah was only trying to act as a state, it clearly showed weaknesses on its part in assessing Israel's survival strategy, determination and capability in defending her border. Recently Nasrallah said before the whole world that he is sorry for what he has done. Because of his immature behaviour, the international community is forced to deploy 15,000 UN soldiers to maintain the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. The International community is also exerting diplomatic pressure on Iran and Syria to stop supporting Hezbollah.

Making a comparison between Hezbollah of Lebanon and the Maoists of Nepal is not the objective but to forewarn the consequences of having a state within a state. The Maoist spokesperson has repeatedly said that there are two ideology (Dui bichar), two government (Dui satta) and two armies (Dui sena) in Nepal. The Maoists are reiterating the existence of parallel government and refused to be treated only as a political party like the Nepali Congress and Nepal Communist Party (UML).

Nepal's foremost challenge therefore is to remove these differences and prepare the state for ensuing election of a constituent assembly. Among the three differences, the ideological one could be sorted out easily once multiparty competitive politics is accepted by the Maoists. Resolving other two differences is comparatively difficult as they require more open debate and understanding among the people of all levels and quarters. When people comprehend these important issues from different perspectives with advantages, disadvantages and possible consequences then general consensus among the general populace will be made. Only such process would indeed lead towards a potential merger of state within a state into one where one government and a cohesive national army will have full control across the country.

To steer the country towards making a new, stable and prosperous state the vital issue needs to be sorted out before the proposed election of constituent assembly to avoid the chances of remaining on status quo ante i.e state within state (new and old state in Maoist's term) with two armies. The Maoists and Seven Party Alliance (SPA) have theoretically agreed to go for election of Constituent Assembly (CA) which is more of a means than the end in itself. The end would be the form of political system to be established after the CA. Once the political system is decided through referendum or other agreed methods then CA could be held for restructuring of the state based on the people's mandate. If the political system is fixed prior to CA, then CA comes with preconditions. Some political parties have disagreed about CA with preconditions. This outstanding misunderstanding must be resolved.

Powerful countries like the US, India, UK and Japan have expressed their strong reservations against Maoists joining the interim government without managing their arms. Seemingly their concerns are in line with the international standards. In DR Congo where a presidential election is being held, all political parties who have managed their weapons have joined the interim government a few years ago and now they are holding the national election. Armed groups of DR Congo managed their arms under the auspices of the UN and gave a peaceful way out to the country. From this perspective it can be said that political leaders of DR Congo have demonstrated their statesmanship before the world.

There are several countries in the world where there are states within a state persisting in the name of making revolution, taking autonomy, declaring independence, capturing the regime and other different objectives. Whatever is the goal and form of struggle, the rule of the game should be that once the political demand is met, violence must be renounced.

To tackle complex and intertwined political problems of Nepal, the leaders of the major political parties should first rise above the party interest and think from a long term national perspective. At this crucial juncture, Nepal does not need a whole bunch of leaders but a few statesmen who could rescue Nepal from the current crisis in order to acquire durable peace, security and stability. Let's not make Nepal another Lebanon and beg for excuse like Hassan Nasrallah did after it was too late.

alan@newsblaze.com