Nepal emergency withdrawn but democracy remains a far cry

Zaglul Chowdhury says Gyananedra is relaxing absolute control but does not show signs of reinstating parliamentary democracy

Daily Star
Saturday, May 14, 2005

By Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury

The state of emergency has been withdrawn in Nepal and this appeared as a happy augury for a country which so painstakingly introduced democracy in 1990, but the last nail was driven on the fragile system with the sacking of the elected prime minister in February this year by the King when the state of emergency was declared and many other restrictions imposed. The stringent moves drew sharp criticisms and also condemnation internally and internationally as these were seen as "killing of democracy" by the monarch, whose role was supposed to be largely ceremonial.

Facing orchestrated clamour for restoration of democracy, King Gyanendra started slowly showing readiness to relax his absolute control and has recently withdrawn the emergency. But he is demonstrating little sign to revert to democratic system even though pressure continues to mount on him for early elections and other steps including release of political leaders and workers who are still detained. The statement from the finance minister that the King wants democracy back, but it is likely to be restored in three years clearly belies the impression that the monarch would follow up the withdrawal of emergency by further positive measures. Consequently, prospects of early restoration of representative authority in this south Asian nation seems bleak and certainly this sends a discouraging signal.

Earlier, the King released former prime ministers Girija Prasad Koirala and Sher Bahadur Deuba and general secretary of Nepal Communist Party Madhav Kumar Nepal from detention. Obviously, intense pressure from home and abroad resulted in the release of these people, among many others. Needless to say that King Gaynendra's action in dismissing the elected prime minister sought to put the clock behind as he took over all executive powers on flimsy grounds. In a bid to ward off mounting criticisms, he is, to an extent, slackening his grip and indicating that the tough measures are a short -- lived arrangement. But this is not happening despite the fact that emergency is no longer there. Sensing that the King would seek to cling to power, seven political parties have launched a common platform for democracy and made a demand on monarch's power. The political climate is further heating up rather than getting a cooling effect after withdrawal of state of emergency.

Nepal, the landlocked nation, admirably introduced parliamentary democracy in 1990 replacing executive monarchy. The developments in the country -- sacking of the elected prime minister and vesting of all power in the monarchy -- cannot be commended to any extent since these measures are certainly taking the nation further away from representative character of governance. The current millenium had certainly begun on an ominous note for Nepal, which was otherwise a largely calm and peaceful country drawing too many tourists from all over and was making significant strides to change its impoverished image. Monarchy remained the constitutional head with an elected parliament and leader of the majority party or alliance as the prime minister to run the nation. But over the last four years, the happy conditions began to change and the political situation get murkier. The dismissing of Sher Bahadur Deuba government, strictly speaking, has not come as a total surprise. In a way, something like this was apprehended sooner or later since political developments held no promise for a better future taking into consideration the evolving condition centering the elections and the ever increasing unrest caused by a determined insurgency by the Maoists.

A popular monarch King Birendra had to loosen his grip on powers facing a pro-democracy movement when he conceded demands like democratic government in 1990. Political parties -- the Nepali Congress, the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) and other smaller groups -- have not shown maturity in a new parliamentary democracy as intra-party rivalries as well as squabbles within the main Nepali Congress kept all at bay about the fate of democracy even though people favour representative system of government. The murky political situation can be well judged by the fact that Nepal witnessed as many as thirteen premiers in fourteen years of introduction of democracy. Nonetheless, nascent democracy was gaining experience and killing of it is no answer to the ills. On the contrary this will compound the situation.

Undoubtedly, the biggest headache for the King is certainly the activities of the Maoists, who often engage themselves in fierce battles with the army and police leading to big toll of lives on both sides. By this time they control a large area in the countryside. Efforts for a government-Maoists negotiation did not bear much fruit and consequently a stand-off situation exists as far as the fighting is concerned. The Maoists want dismantling of the monarchy and setting up a Republic, and a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. The King is not ready to accept these demands, not surprisingly. Recent reports say the army has gone all out against the ultras.

Evidently, a country like Nepal can ill afford to absorb two serious crises -- stemming from political instability and the long-drawn Maoist insurgency, which is growing in intensity even though none of the sides is in a decisive stage. But the solution definitely not lies in measures like "killing" democracy in the country. King's February measures are proving counter-productive.

Nepal developments came in for severe criticisms in the South Asian region and also the world at large. Donor nations including the United States, the UK and India -- all important democracies -- threatened to cut off military aid to the country. Setback to democracy has not been taken kindly. After a meeting between Indian prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Nepalese King Gyanendra

In "Bandung" on the sidelines of the Afro-Asian conference, India showed readiness to resume military aid to Nepal, but the decision came in for criticisms from some partners of the Congress-led UPA alliance government. Later Indian government said the issue of resumption of the assistance is contingent upon the process of restoration of democracy in the country. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, during his recent visit to New Delhi, stressed that the King must act quick to revive the representative government. But the latest position of the government hardly gives any indication of an early election. Nepal needs a return to democracy. That can more effectively serve the nation to eliminate political instability on one hand, and the "Maoist" insurgency on the other even though the latter is a difficult task. This will also improve the image of the otherwise peaceful and lovely country abroad.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury is a senior journalist with The Daily Star.

Date Posted: 5/14/2005