Nepal: Delight In Dangerous Delusions

Death, destruction and demonization. The kinds of headlines Nepal has been making since the collapse of King Gyanendra's direct rule in April 2006 have underscored the fallacy of that widely acclaimed change. For much of the last year and a half, whipping up public sentiment against the palace remained the best policy prescription the ruling Seven Party Alliance (SPA) and Maoists could draft.

Demonarchization - erasing royal prefixes from key institutions like the army, depriving the king from attending religious and cultural ceremonies, nationalizing royal property - has run its course. Now that King Gyanendra has been forced to recede so deep into the background, popular perceptions of contemporary events are changing. A peace process that produces over a dozen armed groups peddling all kinds of ancient grievances is bound to perplex the people.

Regardless of whether a republican Nepal would actually degenerate into the same fractious petty principalities the founder of the Shah dynasty created modern Nepal from over two centuries ago, the fear definitely persists. Yet the ruling alliance harps on a popular mandate that it keeps redefining at its convenience. From their own position papers and accords, the movement against King Gyanendra's direct rule was precisely that, not republicanism. The contradictions sparked by this eagerness to interpret the popular mandate according to one's convenience have taken its toll.

The former Maoist rebels, the most vociferous proponents of a constituent assembly that would allow directly elected representatives of the people to draft a new constitution, have, for all practical purposes, turned against that exercise. The second-largest group in the self-appointed interim legislature, the former (and future?) insurgents know they would be wiped out in any free and fair election.

Their insistence that the monarchy be abolished before the elections is merely a fig leaf. A more credible endeavor would have led them to document and prove specific instances of palace obstruction to the consolidation of the democratic process. At least they could have easily invoked the interim constitution's provision empowering the interim legislature to abolish the crown.

At the other end of the ideological spectrum, the newly reunited Nepali Congress, the country's oldest political party, is the worst practitioner of what it preaches. Prominent leaders have expressed disapproval at the way party president, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, has chosen to ram republicanism down the throats of the rank and file. Former premier Krishna Prasad Bhattarai quit the party the day after it was reunited, opposing its ideological drift.

Critics have dismissed Bhattarai's move as a futile bid to save the monarchy. Yet for the "royalist" camp he represents in the party, this is a matter of survival. Nepali Congress leaders and workers know that once the monarchy is out of the way, they would become the Maoists' favorite target.

There is another imperative here. Popular support for the monarchy ranges between 40 and 50 percent in most public opinion surveys. Efforts to discredit King Gyanendra's February 1, 2005 takeover of full state powers as a power grab have now fizzled. More and more Nepalese now understand that they are compelled to come out in the streets for democracy so often because of the political leadership's failure as custodians.

The parties in power make tall claims about how Nepal is on the cusp of a blissful post-monarchical order. A leader of one radical communist constituent of the ruling alliance recently opted for some mathematical precision. In his view, 98.5 percent of Nepal's problems would end with the abolition of the monarchy.

Yet few Nepalese believe this crop of leaders can sustain a republic among all the fissures they have widened for partisan purposes. If the "suspension" of the monarchy has brought things to such a sordid pass, could the consequences of an outright abolition even be contemplated?

The honorable thing for the government to do would be to organize a direct referendum on the monarchy under international supervision. Supporters of a monarch who has repeatedly affirmed his belief in the supremacy of the popular will would have little problem accepting a republic. Would Nepal's republicans be ready to accept any other verdict?

© Scoop Media