Is Nepal on the road to a republic?

But wait! Are we speaking too prematurely? Are we making too simplistic an interpretation of the situation in Nepal? Would handing over power by the King resolve a problem, which has fomented over many many years and come to such a pass now.

Nepal's experiment with democracy has always been abortive. In fact, in its several hundred years of history, since 1769 when a territorial shape to what is now Nepal was finally given by King Pritvi Narayan Shah, Nepal has been ruled by absolute monarchy, before 1990, except for a short-lived stint of democracy under BP Koirala. And when King Ganyendra so rudely ended the post-Panchayat democratic decade in what has been termed as a royal coup, it severed the last link of democratic polity with Nepal's experiment with democracy. The current spate of popular movement is the latest attempt in Nepal's quest to see the will of the people established finally in Nepal.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

But Nepal's twelve year stint with democratic form of government has not been without blemish or tribulations, with no less than eleven prime ministers forming government in as many years since 1990. There have been deliberate attempts, by the detractors of democracy, including the monarchy, who found its failures an excuse to assume full executive power, hoping to underline the argument that Nepal was not yet ready for democracy, and the Maoists, who exploited the democratic interregnum to strengthen their party organisation, to propagate the efficacy of a Marxist government in Nepal.

In fact, the king and the Maoists have complemented each other. According to RS Mahat, a former finance minister of Nepal, "By crippling the democratic process the Maoist insurgency has given an alibi for the king's direct rule. On the other hand, the king's actions have given validity to the Maoist theory that the ultimate power in the present political order lies with the king." Although the king has wilted further and reinstated the parliament, it would be a tad premature to suggest that the end of the confrontation is near.

It is important to remember that there are three players in Nepal's politics, the monarchy, who has had a patchy role since Nepal's inception as a nation state, but has wielded real political authority from 1959 till the end of the Panchayat system in 1990; the political parties, whose poor track record in running the state during the decade of democratic dispensation and the shortcomings thereof were one of the motive forces behind the emergence of the third force, the Maoists, in 1996. Since October 4, 2004, the political deadlock that resulted from Birendra's takeover of power gave rise to a triangular struggle for power. What the king's action has been able to achieve is to bring the anti-monarchy elements, notwithstanding their divergent political philosophies, on the same platform, pitted against him.

The king's first offer to the political parties to name a prime minister was rejected out of hand by the people as being a ploy to procrastinate on delivering on the demands of the people, and to drive a wedge in the political movement; and it was the popular mood that acted as a disincentive for the seven-party alliance to fall for it. But his latest move, to reinstate the parliament, has been able to split the movement, wittingly or unwittingly, in that while the seven-party alliance and the people on the whole have welcomed and accepted the offer, the Maoists have summarily rejected it. And that is what gives rise to uncertainty about the future of democracy and peace in Nepal.

It is therefore imperative that all the parties act sensibly, keeping the future of democracy and the peace and stability of the country in mind.

As for the seven-party alliance, it is as important for it to take the Maoists on board in any future political discourse and arrangements, with the 12 point Agreement of November 2005 between them as the backdrop, as it is to see the best way to the election of a constituent assembly that will draw up a new constitution. Without this, the success of the last several weeks of struggle risks being nullified.

As for the Maoists, they were with the alliance in the recent movement, which, according to commentators, provided the verve to the popular protest. They will be closely watched to see whether or not they forego violence as a means to power and reconcile to the idea of a multiparty system of government. That would require the Maoists to dispense with their underlying political philosophy. A tall ask for them indeed. What is important, too, is how the seven-party alliance coalesces with the Maoists, given the pressure that they were under at the start of the recent movement, particularly from the US, to abjure any link with the rebels.

As for the monarchy, although it has not met all the demands of the seven-party alliance, its decision to reinstate the parliament has doused the fire of unrest, for the time being at least. The political parties, but not so much the people, are divided over the future role of the monarchy. While it is for the people of Nepal to decide whether or not they would want to retain kingship, and if so in what form, it is for the king to prove the relevance of the monarchy to Nepal's politic future.

The author is Editor, Defence &Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star