Clock ticking for monarchy?

Serious differences between the government and the radical leftists on the fate of monarchy in Nepal appear to have narrowed down significantly following the passage of a proposal by parliament asking the government to initiate legal preparations to declare the country a republic. This has not fully resolved the simmering dispute, but has certainly alleviated the situation that had threatened a complete govt-Maoist rupture.
Earlier, the Maoists, who worked closely with the seven-party political alliance in the anti-king agitation last year, had called for a referendum to determine the fate of monarchy. The demand came close on the heels of scrapping of the national elections, which were scheduled for November but had to be called off as the radicals refused to take part, charging the government with failure to abolish monarchy.
The seven-party government was keen to go ahead with the November 22 polls, but the postponement forced by the ultras threatened to complicate the political situation, raising uncertainty about the future. The worsening govt-Maoists ties had not only cast a dark shadow on the political horizon but also seemed to scuttle the prospects of the declared "Roadmap." Fortunately, indications now look positive.
Last year, a remarkable democratic victory was accomplished in Nepal, which had been convulsed by a long-drawn people's agitation demanding restoration of representative authority and curbing of corruption and misuse of powers by the monarchy. King Gyanendra capitulated, and finally agreed to reconvene the elected parliament, which he had dissolved in 2002 with utter disregard to democratic norms.
Kathmandu introduced Westminster type democracy in 1990, ending more than a two centuries old effective monarchy, but was later robbed off this system. However, a section of the politicians was also to blame for the situation as they had failed to live up to people's expectations because of their unbridled corruption and abuse of power.
The king exploited this situation to grab absolute authority for the throne once again, but his repressive rule and lust for power and wealth once again turned the masses against him and, consequently, Nepal reverted to representative rule. Indeed, it was a great achievement, but was made possible at a huge cost in lives and sacrifices, much of which could have been avoided had the king realised the gravity of the situation earlier.
The government headed by Prime Minister G.P. Koirala faced two main problems. First, the monarchy issue, as the government was vacillating on the matter. The seven-party alliance carried out the anti-king movement in collusion with the Maoists, who are totally opposed to the existence of monarchy in any form and want to turn the country a "People's Republic."
The political parties are largely at variance with the radicals on this issue. The monarchy debate poses a big challenge, since some quarters feel that the country may continue with the "twin pillars" of constitutional monarchy and elected government, like Britain or Japan. Many others strongly feel that the "monarchy concept" must be scrapped altogether.
The second main challenge for the new government is the sensitive issue of dealing with the Maoists. The two sides agreed to cooperate on fundamental issues like national elections and a new constitution for the country despite having some differences on certain matters. They signed a landmark peace agreement, and the Maoists, who have a large force of cadres and plenty of weapons, also agreed to come into mainstream politics.
Later, they joined the seven-party alliance government -- all these came as a big relief for the Nepalese who experienced massive political mayhem prior to this healthy situation.
As the Nepalese pinned high hopes on the government and the Maoists, they have also bitter memories. The brief spell of democratic rule after 1990 was unfortunately marked by political infighting, rampant corruption and revolving governments, that had largely eroded peoples faith in their quality of leadership.
The people, by and large, now feel that the country could move ahead towards a new future if the political parties and the Maoists worked together towards political and economic stability. The two sides maintained broad understanding, and agreed about elections in November.
Unfortunately, differences began to crop up as the radicals quit the government some weeks ago, accusing the government of not doing enough against the monarchy. True, that the government has taken several decisions, including curbing the political and financial powers of the king, and is mulling the idea of nationalising the seven palaces belonging to the royal family. But the Maoists consider these measures as inadequate, and are opposing tooth and nail the existence of the monarchy in any form.
Radicals opposed the elections, saying that polls would be meaningless unless monarchy was abolished. The government has reduced the once-powerful king to a lame-duck, but is not very keen to abolish the system altogether. This dispute has created fresh uncertainty, as the Maoists have embarked upon new programs to realise their demands.
They may have other reasons as well. A complex proportional representation in the voting, and an impression that popular support for them may be on the wane, could also be factors for their unwillingness for the balloting. This has brought them on a collision course with the government -- which people are not relishing. They are looking for a stable Nepal and count on both the sides for the purpose.
The postponement of the crucial polls has certainty raised eyebrows about the shape of things in Nepal in the coming days. However, the two sides seem to have realised this unhappy situation, and it is against this background that the parliament passed the new proposal on the fate of the monarchy. The postponement of the balloting has provided a breathing space for the two sides to mend fences.
While the elections now clearly hangs in the balance, the ultimate fate of the monarchy will now largely influence the affairs of Nepal. The two biggest stakeholders are still in variance on this crucially important issue, but differences are being hammered out by the mediators.
The government and the radicals need to demonstrate greater wisdom and sagacity in their policies for the sake of their people. The basic objectives of the "road map" for a New Nepal must remain. The poverty-ridden but prospective south Asian nation can hardly afford instability any longer.
The parliamentary decision on making the country a republic is a step in the right direction. However, more remains to be done about the monarchy as the country badly needs to move along the expected line in conformity with the hopes of its people.
Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury is a senior journalist.