With Shah back to Kathmandu, political parties may give up such antics for the moment, but his latest pilgrimage has sent out an alarming message: Political parties have been pushed to the point where they must project someone as a possible enemy to drive their point of republicanism and secularism home. Having lost people’s trust, this is perhaps the only option left for them to make their presence felt in the national polity. The protest this time, as always, was made to seem like a battle between the royalists and the republicans. Political actors would love to establish it as a new twist in the political narrative. But there is more to it than meets the eye.[break]
It is interesting that Shah comes into limelight during his public appearances not because of his own efforts, but because of those of his “republican” opponents. When he speaks to the media and/or his loyalists, his adversaries quickly interpret these gestures as his desire to mount a comeback. In April, for example, when Shah was touring the western parts of the country, former prime minister and CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal warned him that he should stay within his limits and if he conspired against them, he would be dealt with imprisonment. A few months later, when Shah remarked that political parties had made a tacit understanding with him to retain monarchy in 2006, party leaders threatened to curb all state privileges accorded to him.
It is difficult to determine whether the political parties deliberately over-react when Shah comes out of Nagarjun Palace, or they are genuinely perturbed by his ‘grandeur.’ But in either case, fears are unfounded and anxieties uncalled for, unless parties envision the ex-king making a foray into party politics and fear his future might. People know, and perhaps Gyanendra knows it equally well, that he cannot come back as the king. There are people who still regard monarchy as an esteemed institution and sympathize with him, but there are very few that want him to return as the king.
FEARING THE EX-KING
Related story
Facing my phantoms
Shah’s latest outing has sent out an alarming message that political parties must project someone as enemy to drive their point of republicanism and secularism home.
Besides, even the parties led by Panchayat veterans—such as Rastriya Prajatantra Party and Rastriya Janasakti Party—that once staunchly supported him have stopped lending him their shoulders now. Perhaps battered by a life of seclusion, and away from the power center, Gyanendra Shah is trying to assert his existence by reaching out to his well-wishers, comforting them and listening to their grievances. He has been doing this since he was dethroned in 2008.
What, however, could be alarming for political parties is that people in general are developing a soft corner for him. It must be noted that people are unhappy with the way political parties oppose Shah’s mobility. The letter to the editor sections of major dailies last week were replete with anger against political parties and sympathy for Shah. (A bit of advice for political leaders: If you want to read people’s perceptions about current politics, you should read the letter to the editor sections of national dailies.)
Why do political parties make a hue and cry each time Shah makes a public appearance? Why do people sympathize with Shah, despite having been the victims of his direct authoritarian rule? There are political, psychological, and historical reasons behind this.
No matter how foul they cry against monarchy, most of the current crop of leaders have deep-rooted monarchial hangover. This makes them look at Shah as a king, not a citizen. NC and CPN-UML were the trusted allies of constitutional monarchy and multi-party parliamentary system of the 1990s. Most leaders of these parties have worked with the king, some even bowed to him. And many from these blocks had made hay while monarchy was shining. The current rage, therefore, could be outbursts of their past loyalty to monarchy.
And history has given monarchs of Nepal the identity of victims and victimhood, not that of oppressors and tyrants. Either they have been wronged by their courtiers, or queens. Except for the brief interregnum of Rana Bahadur Shah’s insanity in the late eighteenth century and the king Mahendra-orchestrated Panchayat rule (1962-1990), Nepali kings had served as mere pawns at the hands of their scheming courtiers (before 1846) and Rana prime ministers (from 1846 to 1950). This historical baggage prevents people from nurturing hostility against the kings.
In sharp contrast, political parties have won people’s trust during three major occasions—during the anti-Rana revolution of the late 1940s, and during the first and second people’s movement of 1990 and 2006. Save for these, they have earned the reputation for promoting corruption, misusing democracy and sowing the seeds of violence. These necessary evils of democracy arouse more frustration and hopelessness in people than sympathy and support. In the post-May 27 politics, political leaders have proved they are useful only to fuel revolutions. This, in turn, is making people shift their sympathies toward the old order.
What, then, should the political parties do? Let the ex-monarch become a civilian from royalty. And through his visits, he seems to be doing just that. He is familiarizing himself with Nepali people, learning people’s language and behavior. He now addresses the reporters with courtesy, an uncommon practice among royalty while addressing their subjects. It should be noted that in every question he answers, he mentions the word ‘people’ and their will. It seems he has picked the language of political leaders.
Political parties have to do what they are meant to do: Remove the ills continuing from the system they ousted and institutionalize a new system they promised to the people. It is becoming clear that the enemy of our political parties does not lie outside, but within. Saturday’s attack on NC president Sushil Koirala, a respectable figure by age, by a party cadre shows the urgent need for parties is to keep their house safe, strong and in order. Otherwise, if dysfunctional monarchy could make for a republic, why is it not possible that dissent and dissatisfaction against the current system will make way for a sense of longing for the dead institution? Given the continuing political mess and foolishness of the political actors, how can one brush off the prospect of the revival of monarchy as an infantile imagination?
mbpoudyal@yahoo.com
