Kingless Nepal looks for a president
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - The monarchy is gone and a republic has dawned, but the signs for a
stable Nepal are not visible on the horizon. And the United Nations mission is
finding it difficult to devise a clear exit strategy until the issue of Maoist
combatants is resolved.
Gyanendra Shaha, 60, would have marked the completion of seven years of his
controversial reign on June 4; but that was not to be. Exactly a week earlier,
on May 28, Nepal's newly-elected Constituent Assembly (CA) sealed the fate of
the 240-year-old monarchy itself through a declaration that proclaimed the
country a republic.
Accordingly, the caretaker government headed by Girija Prasad Koirala sent a
letter to the last Hindu king to vacate, in two
weeks, Narayanhity Palace, which had been king's residence for over 120 years.
Incredible but true, Gyanendra did not offer even symbolic resistance or
reservation. Instead, he agreed to leave the palace, now being transformed into
a museum, before the deadline.
But in a rush to abolish the "feudal institution" (of monarchy), leaders of the
three prominent parties ignored important procedural matters that could be
challenged in a court of law.
Firstly, the assembly was called into its first crucial session without having
been made into a complete body of 601 members, as stipulated by the interim
constitution. The government failed to nominate the 26 members needed to give
the CA its complete look. Secondly, the resolution on republic was proposed by
a minister of a caretaker government, Krishna Sitaula, who is not a member of
the House. (He had contested the April 10 election but was defeated ). Thirdly,
the resolution was put to the vote without a debate. The motion was adopted
with 560 in favor and four against. "The manner in which the republic was
declared was not only objectionable," said News Front weekly on Monday, "but
also defied all norms and practices of any established democracy."
Constitutional lawyers have expressed views critical of the way in which the
entire process was handled. A concomitant ordinance to amend the statute for
creating the posts of president and vice president was equally controversial.
It did not include, goes the contention, adequate outlines for election
procedures and was silent on the tenure of the vice president.
Leaders of the leading parties closed ranks until the proposition to remove the
monarchy was approved and differences of opinion and rivalry surfaced only once
the focus shifted to the issue of power-sharing.
The proclamation of a republican set-up obviously generated some public
enthusiasm, but it clearly did not require the extravaganza of a three-day
public holiday for celebrations that was implemented. Indeed, the spontaneous
response witnessed during the political changes of 1990 when a parliamentary
monarchy was introduced were not to be found. However, the May 28 initiative
did offer to address the grievances of some indigenous people as well as
traditionally marginalized groups.
Since a republican agenda was primarily introduced by the Maoists through an
armed movement that began in 1996, the proclamation of a republic is a victory
for their camp. Their rallies drew prompt attention and participation.
On the other hand, non-Maoist political parties appear somewhat ambivalent. The
scale of their enthusiasm was not at the levels of after April 10, when these
parties together obtained over 70% of about 10 million votes cast in
country-wide polls. The parties had reluctantly approved the Maoist-led
republican agenda because nobody wanted to be seen as opposed to "progressive
ideas" suited to the 21st century.
But there is now widespread concern that the vacuum created following the
abolition of the monarchy will not be easily filled, and that external powers,
mainly India, might take advantage of the fragile state of the newly-declared
republic.
"Does it make any sense to fell a mango tree just because one or two of its
fruit are not edible?" asked a high-placed official, alluding to the unpopular
image of both Gyanendra and his son Paras.
And, as if to prove this point, Maoist leader Prachanda told a public meeting
in Kathmandu last Friday that Nepal had swiftly turned into a republic because
of Gyanendra's "stupidity". He then warned the centrist Nepali Congress and the
moderate communist UML (Unified Marxist Leninist) that now their folly might
soon change Nepal's status from democratic republic to that of a "people's
republic".
In the same breath, he mentioned Russia's 1917 October Revolution. But it was
not clear if he was merely trying to add pressure on Koirala to quickly vacate
the prime minister's post to enable his party, the Communist Party of Nepal
(Maoist), to make efforts to form a transitional government. Although it could
not secure a majority, the Maoists' party has the largest representation of the
25 parties in the Constituent Assembly.
Another point about Prachanda's loaded remarks was that he delivered them just
hours after the Indian ambassador to Nepal, Rakesh Sood, had met him at his
residence. The Maoist party later issued a statement saying it was their first
meeting after the declaration of republic. Barely a month into his tenure, Sood
has become the most talked-about envoy in town.
Sood had already drawn considerable public attention for meeting the country's
top authority, Koirala, even before presenting his credentials. Subsequently,
Sood made frequent visits to the leaders of political parties.
On May 24, he publicly pleaded that the Maoists must not be prevented from
forming the government, and that there was no need to amend the interim
constitution before such formation. This appeared to go too far, and Finance
Minister Ram Sharan Mahat, who did a stint as foreign minister, said Sood was
not following diplomatic norms.
New Delhi believes it is a major stakeholder in Nepal, and Washington and
London appear to have accepted this contention, often seemingly indifferent to
Nepal's vital interests at the risk of offending India, a country the US needs
to contain China.
One of New Delhi's concerns is to have a say over Nepal's snow-fed rivers,
which originate in the Himalaya mountains. In this regard, it wants to replace
a pact between the countries signed in 1950 - the Treaty of Peace and
Friendship.
Wither the United Nations?
One issue on which India's interests converge with China's, but not with the
US's, is that of the United Nations mission in Nepal. New Delhi is opposed to a
protracted UN presence in what it considers its backyard, and Beijing also
dislikes the presence of a large number of Westerners in its area, suspecting
they might instigate exiled Tibetans to fight for a homeland. Washington
obviously does not want to antagonize New Delhi, but certainly would be less
sympathetic to Beijing.
The US attitude - and that of China - will be known when Nepal's case comes up
for debate at the UN Security Council some time before July 23 - the last day
of the current tenure of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), which has
been in Nepal since January 2007. [1]
Ian Martin, who heads the UNMIN mission, says the UN is aware of the unfinished
business of the peace process. "The Constituent Assembly election [April 10]
was a milestone, a major achievement in the process, but it does not represent
the completion of the process," he told a press conference on May 27.
But he knows that any initiative for the extension of the mission needs to
begin with the government in Nepal. This is probably one of the reasons UN
secretary general Ban Ki-moon has shown eagerness for the formation of a new
government as soon as possible.
Prachanda, who is expected to head Nepal's first Maoist-led government, is in
favor of retaining the UN mission for some time. In response to this
correspondent's question, he said he did not, however, want to see a huge UN
bureaucratic machinery. "The mission's term should be extended by another six
months," he clarified.
The tough problem at the moment, though, is whether the Maoists will be allowed
to form a government in the first place.
Note
1. UNMIN was established in response to requests by the seven-party alliance
government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), in their letters to the
UN secretary general of August 9, 2006, in which they asked the UN to assist in
creating a free and fair atmosphere for the election of the Constituent
Assembly and the entire peace process. The parties went on to sign the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement on November 21, 2006, and UNMIN officially began
its work on January 23, 2007 with the adoption of UN Security Council
Resolution 1740. UNMIN's tasks include monitoring the management of arms and
armed personnel of the Nepal Army and the Maoist army; assisting the parties
through a Joint Monitoring Coordinating Committee in implementing the agreement
on the management of arms and armed personnel of both the Nepal Army and the
Maoist army; providing technical assistance to the Election Commission in the
planning, preparation and conduct of the election of a Constituent Assembly in
a free and fair atmosphere and assisting in the monitoring of ceasefire
arrangements.
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
