It is time to live up the promises made during the run-up to declaring Nepal a republic.
Tomorrow is the first anniversary of our new-born republic. Monarchy in Nepal, as mostly elsewhere, could not tune itself to the changed times. Gyanendra – one of the most stubborn and unchanging monarchs of modern times – grossly miscalculated when he launched a coup on February 1, 2005 and took power into his own hands. He thought that with the support of the army, he would be able to fight all his enemies both inside and outside the country. His move united all his enemies, which included almost all the political parties and the powerful Indian establishment. He could not survive their joint assault.
Political parties-led mass uprising of 2006 – popularly known as People’s Movement II – and ensuing events showed the exit door to the 240-year-old Nepali monarchy. However, the political parties should not only see the anniversary as a time for self-congratulation but also for self-examination. With euphoria over the establishment of republic long over and disappointment and dissatisfaction taking roots among the people, it is high time the parties did some soul-searching.
Republic Day to be celebrated for three days
Contrary to what political parties forecasted or feared, the switch-over to republic was smooth and bloodless. The king gracefully surrendered to the people’s will. His words and deeds have been uncontroversial ever since he agreed to reinstate the parliament in April, 2006. Similarly, Nepal Army, which was previously loyal to monarchy, accepted and supported the political change.
However, establishing republic is not an end in itself. It is only a form of government as monarchy is. It is the quality of governance that matters, not the form. How have our leaders fared in the test of good governance? The answer, unfortunately, does not make for a good reading. Parties that successfully led and organized mass uprisings are failing in the task of nation building. Leaders who were able to get rid of monarchy have so far not been able to prove their capability to run the country. If Nepali people had valid reasons to reject monarchy, they have valid grievances against the political parties. If the parties are not able to address these grievances or meet their expectations, it is only a question of time before they are rejected as well.
People want the political parties to change. They are tired of seeing infighting and corruption that Nepali Congress is so notorious for. They don’t want to see party interests taking precedence over national interests, and institutionalized corruption that CPN-UML is so famous for. Republicanism isn’t a license for the political parties to restart the process of committing the same sins like inter- and intra-party fights and facilitating political instability and corruption.
Meanwhile, people’s expectations from the Maoists are different than that from NC and UML. People want Maoists to understand that by going for a republic, they have opted for peace, development, democracy and social justice. People want Maoists to honor their commitment to peace and not indulge in acts of terror, intimidation, displacement and killings of those who disagree with them. Nepali people have already tested the fruits of freedom. Their fight was for a free democratic republic, not for a communist ‘People’s Republic’.
Nepali people enjoyed democracy for 15 years before the king took power. So, ‘People’s Movement II’ was to restore democracy, not to jump to another form of dictatorship. Yes, people do want change but one that is viable. People will be satisfied even with limited progress, provided they are real. People will not be content with big but empty promises.
Similarly, in the name of amul paribartan people will not accept destabilizing adventurisms. People want social justice and not protracted conflicts between communities in the name of class war. Nepali people never struggled for politico-military misadventures like ‘power seize’. Neither are they guinea-pigs nor is the state of Nepal a lab to conduct another experiment of a failed ideology.
The change to republic was a change for the better. It was not to put the populace and capital to flight. It was not to disintegrate the nation and arouse enmity among different communities in the name of federalism based on ethnicity and regionalism. The much publicized ‘New Nepal’ was meant to write a new constitution and to conclude the peace process through national consensus. It was not to promote anarchy, lawlessness or a culture of impunity.
Unfortunately, the last one year of republic has been full of such ills. Leaders don’t seem to have learnt from their mistakes or from other’s examples. People are increasingly getting disappointed. Let us pray that over a certain period of time, they do not reach desperately to the great grand children of Gyanendra to request them to come and rule the nation.
