Fate of monarchy linked to Nepal's poll

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 trendsInstitutions 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.

Source: Asia Times Online, April 8, 2008