Fate of monarchy linked to Nepal's
poll By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - Nepal on Monday appeared like
a country finally heading towards an election of
historical significance later this week. There is
visible enthusiasm among voters - an atmosphere
that was not to be found a week ago when
candidates in the 601-strong Constituent Assembly
conducted their campaigns amid fear and
insecurity. Just days ago, uncertainty surrounded
the poll, which is expected to pave the way for
the Himalayan kingdom's transformation into a
republic.
After two postponements since
last June, the interim government finally approved
a date, April 10, and directed the Election
Commission to make necessary preparations.
Thousands of poll observers, including from
Western countries, will be closely watching the
voting for which over 17 million Nepalis are
eligible. There are about nine thousand candidates
for the election - to be
based
on a mixed system of first-past-the-post and
proportional representation.
The men and
women contesting the elections have had differing
experiences, from disinterested crowds to
candidates in far-flung districts being killed,
abducted and intimidated, mainly by young
militants associated with the Maoists. In April
2006, the Maoists agreed to be a political party -
the Communist Party of Nepal - and joined
electoral and competitive politics.
The
Maoists continue to draw widespread criticism for
their cadres' crude and deadly behavior, ignoring
their pledge to abide by provisions of the peace
accord they signed to formally end a 10-year armed
insurgency which claimed over 13,000 lives.
Villagers in remote areas have complained
that Maoist cadres routinely visit them and
threaten retribution if they do not vote for their
candidates and parties. Maoist cadres have made
hundreds of villages inaccessible to other
parties, forcing them to confine their campaigns
to district centers. Responding to these
complaints, the top Maoist leader publicly issued
a directive for his group to behave like Indian
non-violent spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi for
the remaining days of the campaign. His cadres at
the village level, however, do not appear to have
been paying attention.
Threats and hurdles
What happened on March 29 in
Biraatnagar, the home town of interim Prime
Minister Girija Prasad Koirala located in the
southeast, provided an example of how precarious
the law and order situation is across Nepal.
Within hours after Koirala addressing local
authorities on enhancing security services in the
region, powerful bombs exploded at a neighborhood
mosque, instantly killing two persons and
inflicting serious injuries on others. The
incident added a communal dimension to the
existing problems in the Hindu-majority country.
In its pre-election report issued on April
6, the special United Nations mission in Nepal
alluded to a "climate of fear in which candidates
and voters function". While appreciating pledges
by leaders of three parties - among the seven
political parties in the interim alliance - to
conduct the campaign in a peaceful manner, the UN
report continued to express frustration, saying
that "these commitments need to translate into
reality on the ground - which has too often not
been the case".
As if to prove this
perception, Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal (also
known as Prachanda) last week canceled all of his
public engagements outside the capital for
security reasons. Ironically, he is also the head
of the "People's Liberation Army" and is usually
surrounded by scores of armed personnel around the
clock. It is odd to see the Maoist leadership
scared to move around in a country in which they
say is 80% under their control. "Death has come to
haunt its greatest purveyor," wrote a newspaper
columnist.
Prachanda's decision came in
the wake of threats from some two dozen armed
groups in the Terai region, mainly bordering the
Indian state of Bihar, which have said they would
disrupt the April 10 polls by "eliminating"
candidates. Some of these groups are said to have
political agendas and demands that their regions
be declared autonomous with a right to
self-determination. It is a widely held belief
that New Delhi is behind this separatist movement.
Meanwhile, political rivalry between the
main contesting parties remains acrimonious. Both
the Maoists and the Communist Party of Nepal
(UML), the more moderate of the two, depict the
Nepali Congress, the party with centrist
credentials, as a supporter of the status quo
(meaning support for the monarchy) , even if the
Congress leadership has agreed to their republican
agenda. The Congress sees the Maoists as a party
of anarchists. But the dual between the UML and
the Maoists has been strikingly bitter, with each
accusing the other of being royalist. Nobody knows
what Gyanendra, whose days even as a "suspended"
king are numbered, would have said about these
verbal battles.
But is Gyanendra still in
a position to move or shake Nepal's political
course at this decisive phase? Apparently not. The
country's army has ceased to be "royal" and there
are no other visible domestic forces to salvage
the monarchy, even in a ceremonial form. Krishna
Prasad Bhattarai, a former prime minister and
Koirala's rival while he was still in the Nepali
Congress, is the only political personality of any
standing to say that the monarchy is still needed.
But since Bhattarai is no longer
politically active, it is unlikely his statements
will make any direct impact on the ongoing
political process. Two of the 54 political parties
in the fray have said openly they are in favor of
a ceremonial monarchy.
One of them is the
Nepal National Development Party, which is headed
by a Nepali citizen of Japanese origin, Takashi
Miyahara. He thinks Nepal can take Japan as a role
model and stresses that people forgave their
emperor despite the loss of 2 million lives during
World War II. Some of the world's top 10
countries, he contends, are monarchies, such as
Japan and in Scandinavia.
Gyanendra has
publicly said he has no plans to leave Nepal.
Instead, the palace last week sent out customary
cards with New Year's greetings from "Their
Majesties the King and Queen". Nepal's new year,
2065, begins on April 13.
Nepal's interim
constitution and concomitant agreements between
the seven political parties that make up the
ruling coalition stipulate that the first meeting
of the newly-elected assembly will "implement" a
proposal to declare Nepal a republic. And the
assembly has to meet for its maiden session within
21 days after the announcement of the last
election result. In election commissioner
Neelkantha Upreti's estimation, all results will
be out within three weeks of the poll, provided no
re-polls are required. In other words, the
240-year-old monarchy which has remained a symbol
of Nepal's stability will be relegated to the
history books in a matter of weeks. Will Gyanendra
quietly wait for that day without making a final
attempt, be it overt or covert, to save his
throne?
Some politicians in the coalition
have said they suspect the palace is behind the
recent spate of violence. In private
conversations, very few prominent politicians,
including the Maoists, see the monarchy
disappearing easily. They know they themselves are
primarily responsible for the anarchy and chaos
the country has witnessed since the successful
pro-democracy movement of April 2006. They are
also aware they have alienated a large section of
the population by declaring Nepal a secular state
without putting the issue to a popular test.
Similarly, leaders in the coalition
hurriedly pushed through a citizenship law in the
interim legislature, subsequently granting Nepali
citizenship to about 4 million aliens, mainly
Indians. Even the Maoists, who always claimed to
be more nationalist than others, did not raise any
objection while the "liberal" law was being
enacted. "Maoists, too, showed that they are no
different from others when it comes to vying for
New Delhi's favor," said Somnath Ghimire, editor
of Yugsambad, a Nepali language weekly.
Widespread fear and indifference could
lead to an unexpectedly low turnout of voters,
with some estimates claiming it could be as low as
25%. In the absence of a law requiring a minimum
percentage of voters, even such an election could
be declared valid by Nepal's election officials
and endorsed by international observers.
But will it achieve the political
legitimacy needed to complete the current
transitional process? This is a question that
might be asked, among others, by Gyanendra, who
earlier told the media the people alone had the
right to decide the fate of the monarchy.
Additionally, it is as yet unclear which of three
main parties is likely to emerge as the winner.
Some analysts say that despite splits and
mergers, the Nepali Congress stands a chance to
lead the other parties. Others believe the UML has
brighter prospects. The Maoists are not being
viewed as the main winners.
However, this
is a prediction the Maoist leadership refuses to
accept. Prachanda has publicly thundered that the
Maoists will not accept the results if his party
is denied victory, and thereby a chance to
introduce revolutionary reforms. According to
Prachanda, his party will take such a result as a
conspiracy, compelling it to restart the armed
insurgency. One senior Nepali Congress leader told
Asia Times Online that the Maoists want to be in a
win-win situation - either winning the majority
and accomplishing the dream of "taking over" the
country, or staying out of election without being
seen as the main villain.
Worrying
trends Institutions tasked with
analyzing emerging trends have made no secret of
their concern. The latest report by the
International Crisis Group predicts the post-poll
period will be more "difficult and dangerous". In
the words of the group's Asia program director,
Robert Templer, "The turbulent aftermath would
require cooperation and forward planning from the
main parties."
Will that be forthcoming if
the Maoists decide to reject a defeating poll
verdict and boycott the elected assembly
thereafter? Recent events in Kenya and Zimbabwe do
not offer encouraging messages.
One school
of thought has it that while communist slogans may
be attractive to poor, illiterate and credulous
people, the West-dominated international community
would hate to see - or recognize - a Maoist regime
in Nepal, which shares borders with Tibet, and
thereby China. The US, for instance, has yet to
remove Nepal's Maoists from its official list of
terrorists.
For the moment, the great
electoral exercise remains on the threshold,
although a section of Nepal's intelligentsia
continues to view the mission as an enigma.
Dhruba Adhikary
is a Kathmandu-based journalist.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
