Later in 1990, parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy were restored following popular protests spearheaded by political parties. But in 2005, the then King Gyanendra again took power in his hands. However, this time it was not the good deeds of the government or the popularity of the political parties that prompted the king to seize power; conversely, he tried to take advantage of the weaknesses and increasing unpopularity of political parties, which resulted from their lackluster performances, intra- and inter-party clashes, poor governance and corruption. Thus, although the actor (king), the motive (power), and the instrument used (military) were the same, circumstances leading to the royal takeover of Feb 1, 2005, were substantially different from the ones existing before 1960. Drawing parallels between the two without a comparative and in depth analysis or passing superficial conclusions like ‘history repeated’ are just reflections of naivety and over simplification.
The next threat is from the radical communists who have emerged as the most powerful political force in Nepal.
The monolithic Panchayat system had banned political parties, shelved civil and political liberties and suppressed all political activities. Leaders and dissidents were jailed without trial and many even got killed. The early days of Panchayat were despotic and horrific. On the other hand, Gyanendra’s direct rule during 2005-2006 had targeted the Maoists only. No force was used against other opponents; political parties remained legal and their activities, including street protests, went uninterrupted. Although the press and the judiciary met with some pressures to kowtow the official line, they largely remained free. In fact, freedom enjoyed by the press became instrumental in bringing down the king’s rule within 15 months.
Time and again, democracies in poor third-world countries fall victim to dictatorships – left as well as right. While the cause of ‘people and progress’ are reasons often cited by radical leftists, that of ‘peace and stability’ are the ones quoted by the extreme rightists to justify their onslaught on democracy (‘nationalism’ is the excuse used by both). Back in the sixties and the seventies, the propaganda machine of Panchayat used to portray the patriotic party leaders as anti-nationalist. However, in 2005, the king did not have to invent any accusations against the parties and their leaders; he knew that they had become the despair of the people.
Thus the king hadn’t miscalculated when he decided to takeover power. However, he committed blunders afterwards. He antagonized all political forces within the country as well as the powerful Indian establishment, which has enormous clout in Nepal’s realpolitik. Rule of war demands support and back-ups on all three sides – right, left and back – to fight an enemy. But Gyanendra, while battling the Maoists – his principal enemy – antagonized or undermined the mainstream parties forcing them to form unity with the rebels to encircle him.
The king failed to understand that however weak or unpopular the parties might have become, they were a people-based force. He also ignored the fact that without penetrating to the grassroots and without securing India’s cooperation, lasting triumph over the Maoists was not possible as they enjoyed sanctuary in India and controlled large parts of rural areas in Nepal, through good deeds as well as terror and intimidation.
Instead of taking it as a wakeup call, the king even dismissed the Indian-brokered peace deal. The pact signed between the seven parties and the Maoists in Delhi in November 2005 later provided Maoists with the cushion against armed offensive. Using the cushion, they disguised their own cadres as activists of mainstream parties to fool the authorities/security personnel and thus managed to bring hundreds of thousands of people, both through coercion and persuasion, from nearby rural districts to swarm the streets of Kathmandu during the spring of 2006. The king, who has taken the military’s traditional loyalty for granted and had over expected their support, was forced to surrender when the army appeared reluctant to use excessive force against the agitators.
Monarchy is history now, yet the dangers to democracy are far from over. The next threat is from the radical communists who, despite their open disbelief in liberal democracy, have paradoxically emerged as the most powerful political force in democratic Nepal, thanks to our stupid politicians.
jeevan1952@hotmail.com
Related story
No one should dream of going against democracy: PM Deuba
