Answer:Nepal ushered in a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy in 1990 after a People’s
Movement overthrew the thirty-year autocratic party-less Panchayat system controlled by an absolute
monarchy. Within six years, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), hereinafter referred to as Maoists,
launched a ‘People’s War’ in February 1996, with the aim of uprooting the monarchy, displacing the
‘bourgeoisie’ parliamentary democracy, and establishing a communist ‘people’s republic’. The armed
insurgency killed approximately 15,000 people from the rebel, state and civilian sides, destabilized
democracy, and caused destruction to property worth tens of million dollars. When the conflict was at
a stalemate, with loss of life and property continuing, various actors showed a willingness to resolve
the crisis through dialogue and negotiation. This was the background for the peace process.
A consensual approach, wider legitimacy, local ownership, an inclusive process and a role for specific
groups (e.g. youth, women) are often referred to as defining features of a National Dialogue by the
international community. In Nepal, however, they were all subject to different interpretations and
therefore not all of these elements were explicitly present in the Nepali process. Although there were
many key elements of National Dialogue present in Nepal's process, no explicit, official term 'National
Dialogue' was used in the case of Nepal. Instead, terms such as peace talks, peace negotiations, high
level talks, and dialogues were used, often in an inter-changeable way. As there was no single format
of National Dialogue practiced in Nepal, it emerged more from the efforts and combination of different
actors, factors, tools and techniques to end the armed conflict and to achieve peace, economic
prosperity and political stability.
There was a wide range of actors engaged in different activities and processes, ranging from
development assistance and humanitarian support to human rights protection, roundtables and
national conferences for the purpose of promoting dialogue for restoring peace. These processes and
activities were either self-organized or assisted by others. In this study, we have documented and
analyzed the efforts of different actors in the given context to create a favorable environment, to
facilitate peace talks and reach negotiation between the conflicting parties, and finally to achieve the
aim of securing a durable peace and political stability in Nepal.
Explanation:
Copyright © 2024 EHUB.TIPS team's - All rights reserved.
Answers & Comments
Answer:Nepal ushered in a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy in 1990 after a People’s
Movement overthrew the thirty-year autocratic party-less Panchayat system controlled by an absolute
monarchy. Within six years, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), hereinafter referred to as Maoists,
launched a ‘People’s War’ in February 1996, with the aim of uprooting the monarchy, displacing the
‘bourgeoisie’ parliamentary democracy, and establishing a communist ‘people’s republic’. The armed
insurgency killed approximately 15,000 people from the rebel, state and civilian sides, destabilized
democracy, and caused destruction to property worth tens of million dollars. When the conflict was at
a stalemate, with loss of life and property continuing, various actors showed a willingness to resolve
the crisis through dialogue and negotiation. This was the background for the peace process.
A consensual approach, wider legitimacy, local ownership, an inclusive process and a role for specific
groups (e.g. youth, women) are often referred to as defining features of a National Dialogue by the
international community. In Nepal, however, they were all subject to different interpretations and
therefore not all of these elements were explicitly present in the Nepali process. Although there were
many key elements of National Dialogue present in Nepal's process, no explicit, official term 'National
Dialogue' was used in the case of Nepal. Instead, terms such as peace talks, peace negotiations, high
level talks, and dialogues were used, often in an inter-changeable way. As there was no single format
of National Dialogue practiced in Nepal, it emerged more from the efforts and combination of different
actors, factors, tools and techniques to end the armed conflict and to achieve peace, economic
prosperity and political stability.
There was a wide range of actors engaged in different activities and processes, ranging from
development assistance and humanitarian support to human rights protection, roundtables and
national conferences for the purpose of promoting dialogue for restoring peace. These processes and
activities were either self-organized or assisted by others. In this study, we have documented and
analyzed the efforts of different actors in the given context to create a favorable environment, to
facilitate peace talks and reach negotiation between the conflicting parties, and finally to achieve the
aim of securing a durable peace and political stability in Nepal.
Explanation: