It has been a few months since the protests in the Tarai have died down. Since then, the government has only paid lip service to the importance of holding negotiations with the Madhesi parties. It did invite the Madhesi parties to talks last week, but the distrust towards the government’s intentions is so high that they refused to come to the negotiating table. Instead, the Sanghiya Gathabandhan (SG)—a coalition of Madhesi and Janajati groups—began a fresh round of protests yesterday in Kathmandu.

It is too early to say what the impact of these protests will be. Given that the government refused to address the Madhesi demands even during the Tarai agitation, it is very unlikely that it will listen to their grievances this time around. Nonetheless, for the long-term future of the country, it is essential for the two sides to hold talks. The SG should also be careful to ensure that the protests do not turn violent. It was unfortunate that a government vehicle was vandalised during yesterday’s protests. The SG should unequivocally condemn such actions and urge its cadres to refrain from violence.

In recent months, the government has indicated that it will press on with its priorities without addressing Madhesi and Janajati demands. A case in point is Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s statement that local elections will be held in November. It is true that the absence of local government has caused much dysfunction in governance at the local level. Elections are essential if local democracy is to be revived. But it would be wrong to accuse those opposing immediate local elections as standing against efforts to rehabilitate local democracy. Rather, their anxieties should be recognised and plans to hold local elections should address their concerns as far as possible.

These groups fear that holding local elections under the old system would mean that the current unitary state structure will be further strengthened. Once new local bodies are elected they will become entrenched, and the agenda of state restructuring will be pushed far into the distant future. Indeed, the fear is that local elections will mean the death of federalism. Given that the CPN-UML has always had a highly ambivalent attitude towards federalism, this fear is not very far fetched.

 The Election Commission too has doubts about holding elections by the end of this year since many laws and regulations are obsolete and need to be thoroughly overhauled. If the government is truly serious about holding the local polls, it should follow the following steps. The Nepali Congress will have a major role to play in bridging the political divide between the two major constituencies—the ruling UML that wants an immediate election on the one hand and the deeply apprehensive Madhesi constituency on the other.   

First, it should take the Madhesi and Janajati parties into confidence. If sensitive matters such as the revision of provincial boundaries cannot be addressed immediately, they should at least reach a basic agreement on how the dispute will be resolved. Second, the major parties, the Madhesi parties and the Election Commission should come together to flesh out the modalities for local elections. They should agree on measures that can revitalise local bodies while at the same time laying out a clear path to the implementation of the federal structure. The internal political crisis in the country can be resolved only through the adoption of a path of this nature.