October 2004 Nepal: Conflict Dynamics and Choices for Peace Dev Raj Dahal, FES Kathmandu • The nine-year old Maoist insurgency and counter-insurgency operations by the state in Nepal have weakened the authority of the state and eroded the space for democratic politics. • Continued violence has claimed the lives of more than 10,000 people, crippled development infrastructure, debilitated socio-economic and governance reforms, caused the withdrawal of many foreign-aided projects from rural areas and induced a livelihood crisis. • The absence of an elected parliament and local bodies has created a democracy vacuum, weakened the accountability of governance and undermined the prospects for institutional redress of structural injustices to the poor, women and Dalits. • Manifest conflicts among the establishment made up of a coalition of four parties, the Mao­ists and another coalition of four political parties that are agitating for power have resulted in a political deadlock adding further complexities to conflict transformation efforts, not least their competing sources of legitimacy and conflicting perspectives on the national problem. • Both the government and civil society are doing their best to muster national and interna­tional collective action for the immediate beginning of negotiations. Which strategic choices for conflict settlement and peace are available? Nepal is facing a serious political and hu­man rights crisis. The nine-year old Maoist insurgency(February 13, 1996) and counter insurgency operations by the state have claimed the lives of 10,264 persons. According to the National Hu­man Rights Commission(NHRC) on an average 23 persons were killed each week. The state struggles to hold on to its legitimate monopoly of power and the capacity to fulfill governance functions ­national security, law and order, voice and participation and delivery of public goods. Violent conflict has led to the breakdown of education, closure of sev­eral businesses and weakening of farm­based subsistence economy. The unpre­dictable security situation is causing the withdrawal of many foreign aided devel­opment projects and an exodus of rural people to urban areas and abroad. The overwhelming use of society's re­sources only by the organized centers of power is the main factor that has led to the erosion of the efficacy of the state to protect the powerless people caught in poverty, caste and class hierarchy and pa­triarchy. These underlying structural con­ditions have been blamed by many ana­lysts as the stimulants of societal revolt against the state. In the beginning, socie­tal grievances were articulated to political parties. Due to procrast ination, neglect or even suppression of those grievances by the party or parties in power, the conflict assumed violent proportions posing a critical challenge to the state authority, political stability and the institutionaliza­tion of the democratic order. To combat rampant corruption and the growing cul­ture of impunity, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority(CIAA)