India News and Features Alliance (INFA) - Nepal Towards a Crisis:Bracing For An Uncertain Future, by Dr. Smruti S Pattanaik, 10 January 2006

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.