ROUND THE WORLD
New Delhi, 10 January 2006
Nepal Towards a Crisis
Bracing
For An Uncertain Future
Dr. Smruti S Pattanaik
Institute of Defence Studies &
Analyses
The dawn of 2006 has brought with it a violent future for Nepal with the
withdrawal by the Maoists of their four-month ceasefire on January 2. This is the third round of ceasefire declared
by them after they resumed their violent struggle to usher in the People’s Revolutionary
Government. The withdrawal of ceasefire is a reaction to the Monarchy’s
decision to go forth with its municipal election on February 8. With most of
the political parties deciding not to participate in the election, Nepal is again
heading for a political crisis.
The dissatisfaction of the political parties can be
understood from the fact that the Nepali Congress (Democratic), led by Sher Bahadur
Deuba, part of the seven-party alliance that is fighting for the restoration of
democracy in the Himalayan kingdom, has removed Constitutional Monarchy from
the party statute. The CPN (UML) and the Nepali Congress (NC) have already
removed constitutional monarchy from their party statute. These parties have held the King responsible for
the current impasse and have taken a position that monarchy and democracy are
incompatible.
Already, the RPP has seen a split and the Rastriya
Janashakti Party (RJP) is formed, headed by the former Prime Minister Surya
Bahadur Thapa. The Rashtriya Prajatantra Party that has been supportive to the King’s
February 1 take-over is facing a crisis due to the decision of a faction to boycott
the elections. Assistant Minister for Education and Sports Bhuwan Pathak, has
called for a National Convention in support of its party participating in the
municipal elections
The seven-party alliance has concluded a twelve-point pact
with the Maoists in order to jointly fight the Monarchy. Under the twelve point
agreement, the Maoists have agreed that its armed wing along with the Royal
Nepalese Army (RNA) to be placed under the UN or any other trustworthy
international supervision during the conduct of election to the Constituent Assembly.
The Maoists have agreed to abide by the results of the election. They also have
agreed to the political parties’ demand to revive the House of Representatives
and have a national Government that can hold talks with the Maoists to go for
the Constituent Assembly election.
It is important to mention here that both radical Left and
the political parties were part of the nominated Constituent Assembly that was
set up by the King in 1990 to draw the draft Constitution. Some of the Left
leaders who are heading the Maoist movement now had at that time demanded an
elected Constituent Assembly, because they had felt that the King still can
exert influence in the Constituent Assembly through its nominees. However, they
were marginalized, as the other political players were willing to compromise
with the idea of a nominated Constituent Assembly.
The Government has been accusing that the understanding
between the political parties’ alliance and the Maoists is reached at the
behest of a foreign country to discredit the understanding. As reported by the
media, the twelve-point agreement was reached in New Delhi where the leaders of various Nepali
political parties met. Sources close to the Monarchy accuse India of
playing a role in the understanding reached between the Maoists and the
political parties.
However, it needs to be emphasized that due to the
repressive measures adopted by the Monarchy, the political parties found Delhi a convenient place
to meet, away from the glare of the media. It is true that some of these
leaders met various Indian leaders during their sojourn in Delhi.
The interesting development is that the Maoists have emerged
stronger than before. In fact some of the demands which have been put forward
as joint demands of the political parties and the Maoists had originally
figured in the latter’s demands. The political parties that were great
supporter of constitutional monarchy have joined the Maoist rank by demanding a
republican form of government. In 1990, the mainstream political parties were
the vociferous supporters of a constitutional monarchy since the King is
considered as the symbol of Nepalese unity. The political parties felt that it
is safe to include the King as a part of
the multi-party democracy than to exclude him. Moreover, the King during his 30
years of rule through a Panchayat system was a strong force that could not be
marginalized.
This is more so, because the King was a party to the
negotiation for the establishment of a multi-party democracy. The Maoist view
is that the state sovereignty is not yet settled since the coercive mechanism
of the state through which it exercises power is still in the hands of the
Monarchy. They also feel that constitutional monarchies that are functional in
developed countries cannot be adapted in a semi-feudal and an underdeveloped
country like Nepal.
Therefore Maoist panacea for misgovernance is a republican form of the
government.
After the withdrawal of the unilateral ceasefire, the
political parties are finding themselves in a tight situation. They had earlier
justified their understanding with the Maoist peace in the Himalayan kingdom.
Few bomb blasts in the recent past clearly indicate the bloody war that is
waiting in the wings for the Nepali state. However, Maoists insistence to adopt
violent means for confrontation has put political parties in a quandary. The
demand has mainly been that the King needs to announce elections to the
Constituent Assembly. In fact, the present behavior of the King has convinced
the political parties that without keeping the King out of future political
arrangement it would be difficult to sustain democracy in Nepal.
The King feels that the announcement of municipal elections
will give him political credibility regarding his stance that he would be able
to bring Nepal back to the democratic path. He wants to project his role as a
stabilizing factor in Nepal’s nascent democracy. With the political parties
boycotting the forthcoming elections it would be difficult to establish a
credible government. The pertinent question is: Would it be possible for the
King to hold elections given the security situation? The Maoists have threatened
more violence. With the withdrawal of unilateral ceasefire, the Maoists have
made their position very clear about their intentions concerning the municipal
elections.
The four-month ceasefire could be interpreted as missed
opportunity. The King instead of initiating meaningful dialogue to resolve the
problem went on strengthening its armoury for a confrontation. It is true that
it would be difficult for the Monarchy to accept a secondary position in the
Nepalese polity. In fact, its vociferous supporters, the political parties,
have been alienated with the action of an intrusive Monarchy. As an institution
as such, the Monarchy has lost much of its glory and legitimacy after the
Palace killing of June 2001. Its political role after he took over power is not
of a benign Monarchy but of an assertive monarch.
Therefore, he is not seen as a part of Nepal’s democratic
future by the civil society groups. With the criticism of the international
community mounting regarding human right abuses, the state is increasingly
feeling the pressure both internally and externally. The King to establish his
legitimacy has recently toured the Eastern region of the country. However, his
real test for legitimacy would depend on how he approaches the crisis that
Nepal is going through.
India has repeatedly
emphasized political solution to the problem. However, at the same time it
supplied arms and trained the Royal Nepalese Army. It is only after the King
took over on February 1, 2005, India decided to suspend arms supply. India is
one of the first countries to declare the Maoists as terrorists. However, it
also realizes that without getting the Maoists to the negotiating table it
would be difficult to end the political impasse. The King assuming power
directly has created more uncertainty. Political leaders are being persecuted.
Pressure needs to be built on the Monarch to abandon the path of armed action
and restore Constitutional monarchy.
(Copyright, India News and Feature
Alliance)
|