The news of the king’s acquiescence was received in Washington DC in the afternoon of April 9, 1990 when a few dozens of democracy advocates had gathered at my residence to discuss the ways to support the movement to restore multi-party democracy in Nepal. Just a few days prior to April 9, the military had fired live bullets at thousands of peaceful demonstrators near the Royal Palace that killed an estimated 150 people, and left many wounded. The enraged demonstrators then planned a march to the Royal Palace, overcome security guards and, possibly, do away with monarchy. Despite stiff resistance from diehard royalists and Panchayat supporters, King Birendra saw the writing on the wall and was quick to end the crisis. He met with leaders of resistance at the palace that night and agreed to restore constitutional monarchy under a multi-party democracy.
MONUMENTAL DISAPPOINTMENT
In retrospect, it appears that Bhattarai was too conciliatory—even apologetic and remorseful—in telling the national TV audience on the evening of April 9 that the king had agreed to do away with the Panchayat system and accepted multi-party democracy. Bhattarai emphasized, however, that the king was very kind in making these concessions, that agitation of the last few months was unnecessary, and that the king would have restored democracy on his own. However, Bhattarai’s softness towards the king did not go well with most democracy supporters, who felt he did not make a strong case for the transfer of power, and downplayed the sacrifices people had made over a generation to restore multi-party democracy, including his own long years of imprisonment for the cause. Bhattarai’s conciliatory gestures that evening marked the beginning of a downward spiral in the exercise of people’s power.
However, Bhattarai, who went on to become the prime minister of the interim government a few weeks later, did nothing to upset the king or go after his henchmen. He did not take steps to hold them accountable for 30 years of misrule, and put them on trial for abuse of power. For more than a year that Bhattarai was in power, it appeared that he spent more time making the case for monarchy and protecting Panchayat leaders rather than assert people’s sovereignty and weaken palace’s hold on day-to-day administration of the country and bring key institutions under civilian control, most importantly the national army.
The weakening of the democratic rule started by Bhattarai continued through Girija Prasad Koirala’s (GPK) next three years in power (1991-94). GPK started the culture of factitious politics that was centered around his courtiers and kins and showed utter disregard for people who had spent a lifetime fighting for democracy. Interestingly enough, Koirala’s first victim was no other than Bhattarai himself. In the first general elections held after the restoration of multi-party democracy in May 1991, he made every attempt to ensure Bhattarai’s defeat, to pave his way to become prime minister, fully aware that it would divide his party and further weaken the democratization process.
Looking back, all the events seem like a nightmare. One just wonders why things couldn’t have gone the other way, in a more positive direction.
Koirala also indiscriminately fired from the cabinet many long-serving Congress leaders and also took row with bureaucracy by ordering compulsory retirement for thousands of senior administrators. Moreover, he championed the campaign against charismatic Ganeshman Singh, who had played an important role in forcing the king to give up power peacefully. In fact, Koirala’s campaign against Singh was a turning point in halting Nepal’s democratic evolution.
DESCENT INTO CHAOS
Incompetence, stubbornness, and utter selfishness that GPK introduced into the body politic of a nascent democracy helped undermine his own leadership within the party and disappointed many of his close associates, which eventually led to his fall from power. Koirala, instead of conceding government leadership to someone from his party, prematurely dissolved the parliament and called for new elections, cutting short his term in office by two years. Looking back, Koirala’s action was unnecessary and uncalled for. In my opinion, Koirala’s premature calling for elections can be viewed as the only instance in history when democratic transition of the country was cut short thus paving the way for divisive and violent politics to flourish.
Predictably, NC lost the 1995 elections in which no party received a clear majority, and a party without any democratic credentials won the largest number of parliamentary seats. Instead of accepting the verdict gracefully and cooperating with the new government, NC under GPK launched a public campaign to undermine the new government the day it was formed. GPK did this by cultivating strange alliances regardless of political beliefs and democratic credentials of the new allies. NC’s new ally was a party of old autocrats who had spent a lifetime opposing democracy but became favorites of NC leaders, who were happy to see them lead the government.
From this time onward, Nepal’s democracy movement and its stewardship by NC seemed to lose direction and clout creating a leadership vacuum that eventually led to Maoist insurgency in 1996. Again, NC’s credibility to face up to this new challenge had been so tarnished that the public did not trust it to respond to its clarion call for opposing the communists. Moreover, the king, who controlled the army, refused help to counter this new threat. Most probably, the king viewed the Maoists as tools to help him regain his state powers.
Now, looking back, all of these events seem like a nightmare. One just wonders why things couldn’t have gone the other way, in a more positive direction that would have helped bring peace and prosperity to the people long deprived of the state’s benevolence. If the NC troika had joined hands in challenging the hegemony of the palace in some real ways, placing the king in isolation, confiscating royal properties, placing Panchayat stalwarts—even the king—on trial for suppression of human rights and subversive acts against the state, Nepal’s democracy would have been institutionalized. In the immediate aftermath of the royal massacre of 2001, GPK could have abolished monarchy, and marched on to empower people.
In the same vein, Gyanendra could have acted sensibly after his 2005 takeover. Or, as the last in the list of missed opportunities, the Maoists could have waited for some more years, during which time royal power would have crumbled under its own weight and people would have rounded up disdained politicians to be tried by a Maoist government. That may have been a disturbing outcome for democracy but people would have welcomed a clean-up campaign that a monolithic Maoist regime would have carried out with people’s mandate.
Unfortunately, Nepal hasn’t been lucky to be rescued by such divine interventions. May be, the curse of Sati has still not quite worked-off yet!
sshah1983@hotmail.com
Related story
RPP calls for probe into assets of post-1990 political, adminis...
