FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Democracy Undone in Nepal

Nepal’s 14-year-old experiment in constitutional monarchy suffered a major assault on February 1, 2005 when King Gyanendra sacked the prime minister, formed a new cabinet composed largely of royalists, and established direct monarchical rule. This was followed by a declaration of a state of emergency as leading political leaders were placed under house arrest, media censorship was imposed, fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of assembly were suspended, and telephones (landlines and cellular) as well as the Internet were shut down.

The King justified his actions under a constitutional provision that enjoins the monarchy to uphold and protect the Constitution. While he repeated many times in the royal address his commitment to constitutional monarchy and multiparty rule, the king’s drastic action went patently against those principles. First, he was taking over as executive monarch on the basis of a personal decision. Second, the royal address was full of denigrating references to political parties, who are the intermediaries for pluralism and democratic practice anywhere in the world.

King Gyanendra’s antipathy toward the political parties is well known and has been often-expressed, but by sidelining them completely and planning to rule as well as reign, the king has removed a buffer between himself and the rough and tumble of politics. To that extent, he has taken a great risk and put the institution of monarchy in the line of fire. Clearly, the king believes that the risk is worth taking.

This raises the issue of whether Narayanhiti Royal Palace has a trump card vis-à-vis the raging Maoist insurgency, which has claimed roughly 10,000 lives since 1996. If the King does have an agenda that can resolve the conflict, with the insurgents either being routed or laying down arms, then the royal palace may be able to overcome the turbulence it has introduced into Nepali politics. Peace and an end to the insurgency would put the monarchy back on the pedestal as a respected institution, but everything depends on how soon that would happen. At one time, the Maoists did announce that they would negotiate only with Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba’s “master,” so are we to hope that now with the king directly in charge, the Maoists will extend a hand? We can hope.

Further, the Royal Nepal Army’s fight against the highly motivated and increasingly brutal insurgents thus far has been lackluster. Will the royal palace’s direct control of national affairs mean that the military will now put up a spirited fight, and also that its human rights record will improve from current levels? We will have to see.

What is clear is that this has been a radical step exposing the monarchy to criticism, when other approaches could have been tried. Such approaches could have included using the inherent powers of kingship to cajole the political parties to work together and establish a political front against the insurgents. But the king’s deeply held feelings toward the political parties seems to have blocked off this avenue toward resolution. The calls made since King Gyanendra took over informally in October 2002 for an all-party government or revival of the Third Parliament, all of which would have provided political challenge to the Maoists on their home ground, are now meaningless.

King Gyanendra’s announcement of a takeover for “up to three years” provides a long window in which Nepal’s highly successful experiment with democracy of the past dozen years may be eroded. Unless there is a rapid move toward resolution of the insurgency, it is also likely that the Maoists will try to make common cause with the political parties. Although it is not likely that the legal parties will ally with the insurgents as long as they engage in armed struggle, it is certain that the royal action will add strength to the insurgents’ demand for a king-less republican constitution and government, a call that has been taken up with alacrity lately by many politicians.

It remains unclear how the royal palace plans to respond to the criticism that has already erupted domestically as well as in the international community. India, the United States, the United Nations, and others have already denounced the King’s actions. In castigating the political parties, King Gyanendra preferred to hark back to the Parliament dissolved three years ago, while keeping silent over the interim period and his rule through palace-appointed prime ministers. This is the period when the peace and security of the country’s populace plummeted more than in any previous period.

In his speech, King Gyanendra highlighted the great contribution of the Shah dynasty to the creation of the nation and ventured that he was speaking for the janabhawana, i.e. the Nepali people’s feelings. While it is true that the desire for peace overwhelms all other political desires among the Nepalese people, the question arises whether the royal takeover was the proper way to address these chahana (desires). Rather than denounce the political parties’ inability to work together and opt for the takeover, it would have been a much more popular and realistic move for the king to have used his prerogative as head-of-state to bring the bickering parties together at this critical juncture, thereby defending rather than weakening democracy.

In the end, unless King Gyanendra is able to pull out the trump card of peace vis-à-vis the Maoists in the near term, one can conclude that his unprecedented action of the first of February has exposed the historically significant institution of Nepal’s monarchy to the vicissitudes of day-to-day politics and power plays. Did the Nepali monarchy deserve this at this late a date in history?

KANAK MANI DIXIT is the editor of Himal, Himal Southasian and the fortnightly news magazine Himal Khabarpatrika, all published from Kathmandu. He contributed this essay to Foreign Policy In Focus.

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
April 02, 2020
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
The Dark Secrets in the Fed’s Last Wall Street Bailout Are Getting a Devious Makeover in Today’s Bailout
Jason Hirthler
The Temple of Self-Gratification
Eve Ottenberg
Prisons are a COVID-19 Petri Dish
P. Sainath
What We Should Do About COVID-19
Rev. William Alberts
The Coronavirus Rained on Trump’s Easter Charade
Stephen Corry
It’s Time to Clean Ecofascism Out of Environmentalism
Binoy Kampmark
The Swedish Alternative: Coronavirus as a Grand Gamble
Rebecca Gordon
The Future May Be Female, But the Pandemic is Patriarchal
Thomas Knapp
By The Time We Notice We’re Hungry, It May Be Too Late
David Rovics
An Open Letter to My Landlord #CancelRent
Simone Chun
Appeal for Humanitarian Diplomacy in the Korean Peninsula
Liu Jian
How COVID-19 Changed Our Lives: a Report From Beijing
Dean Baker
The Return of Infrastructure Week
Mike Garrity
Alliance for the Wild Rockies Sues Feds to Stop a Project That Will Kill 72 Yellowstone Grizzly Bears in Wyoming’s Upper Green and Gros Ventre Rivers
Elliot Sperber
Plague Days
April 01, 2020
Steve Early - Suzanne Gordon
No Pandemic-Related Pause? VA Privatization Leaves Veterans Waist Deep in Another Big Muddy 
Kenneth Surin
The UK and Covid-19 Crisis
Jack Wareham - Dylan Burgoon
“Whose University? Our University!” The Struggle for a COLA at UC Berkeley
Erik Molvar
Oil industry Exploits Pandemic as Excuse to Dodge Federal Regulations, Fees
Robert Jensen
Apocalypse, Now and Forever
Jake Johnston – Kira Paulemon
COVID-19 in Haiti: the Current Response and Challenges
Jen Moore
Guatemalan Water Protectors Persist, Despite Mining Company Threats
Danny Shaw
“The Coronavirus is Man-Made:” the Conspiracy Theory Trap 
Nafeez Ahmed
Former WHO Director: 8-Week Suppression Strategy Could Stop US COVID Crisis in Its Tracks
Frances Madeson
Death Camps in the Making: New York’s Prisons During a Time of Pandemic
Clark T. Scott
The White House and the CDC are United in Stupidity
George Ochenski
What Does COVID-19 Have to Do With Industrial Pollution?
Norman Solomon
Trump’s Mass Negligent Homicide Doesn’t Let Democratic Leaders Off the Hook
Scott Owen
Another New Peace
Elizabeth Schmidt
Lessons From Africa: Military Intervention Fails to Counter Terrorism
Greta Anderson
What’s the Hang Up on Releasing Adult Lobos?
Ted Rall
The Speech Trump Must But Cannot Give
Marshall Sahlins
Trumpty’s Country
March 31, 2020
Jonathan Cook
Netanyahu Uses Coronavirus to Lure Rival Gantz into ‘Emergency’ Government
Vijay Prashad, Du Xiaojun – Weiyan Zhu
Growing Xenophobia Against China in the Midst of CoronaShock
Patrick Cockburn
Trump’s Chernobyl Moment: the US May Lose Its Status as World Superpower and Not Recover
Roger Harris
Beyond Chutzpah: US Charges Venezuela With Nacro-Terrorism
M. K. Bhadrakumar
Has America Reached Its Endgame in Afghanistan?
Thomas Klikauer
COVID-19 in Germany: Explaining a Low Death Rate
Dave Lindorff
We’ve Met the Enemy and It’s a Tiny Virus
Binoy Kampmark
Barbaric Decisions: Coronavirus, Refusing Bail and Julian Assange
Nicolas J S Davies
Why is the U.S. so Exceptionally Vulnerable to Covid-19?
James Bovard
The Deep State’s Demolition of Democracy
Michael Doliner
Face Off: the Problem With Social Distancing
John Feffer
The Politics of COVID-19
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail