The Fragility of Peacebuilding In Nepal

In some strange and paradoxical way the rapid ‘success’ of peacebuilding that the UN has been proclaiming in Kathmandu seems to be another blow to the Western model of peacebuilding: The transition from war to peace is proceeding quite smoothly and the political institutions in the capital city are undergoing significant transformation yet this transition has yet to make a difference in the lives of most citizens and for the overall‘development’ of Nepal. In some ways, the current changes remind of the post-1990situation where a newly democratized Nepal produced a ‘good governance bubble’ in Kathmandu, but was unable to address many problems and grievances that finally led to the violent conflict. Prescribing more of the ‘status quo ante’ medicine as many donors and international aid organizations continue to do is another sign of the lack of historical and institutional memory that development not only in Nepal suffers from. In other words, isn’tt he very success of the political transformation a sign that peacebuilding may create stability on the surface, but at the same time fail to achieve its ultimate goal even under favourable conditions: To contribute to long-term, sustainable development and broad‘poverty reduction’ in the post-conflict environment