Royal Takeover in Nepal: Drastic and Ill-Advised
Royal Takeover in Nepal: Drastic and Ill-Advised
When King Gyanendra sacked the prime minister and began direct rule on 1 February 2005, he said he did so under a constitutional provision which enjoins the monarchy to uphold and protect the Constitution. While he repeated many times in the royal address his commitment to constitutional monarchy and multiparty rule, the king's drastic action on Tuesday went patently against those principles. Firstly, he was taking over as executive monarch on the basis of a personal decision. Secondly, the royal address was replete with castigating references to political parties, who are the intermediaries for pluralism and democratic practice anywhere in the world.
King Gyanendra's antipathy towards the political parties is well known and has been often-expressed, but by sidelining them completely and planning to rule as well as reign, the king has removed a buffer between himself and the rough and tumble of politics. To that extent, he has taken a great risk and put the institution of monarchy in the line of fire. Clearly, the king believes that the risk is worth taking. Which brings us to the matter of whether Narayanhiti Royal Palace has a trump card vis-Ã -vis the raging Maoist insurgency. If such is indeed the case and there is rapid movement towards tranquility, with the insurgents being routed or laying down arms, the royal palace may be able to overcome the turbulence it has introduced into the Nepali polity. Peace and an end to the insurgency would put the monarchy back on the pedestal as a respected institution, but everything depends on how soon that would happen. At one time, the Maoists did announce that they would negotiate only with Prime Minister Deuba's 'master', so are we to hope that now with the king directly in-charge the Maoists will extend a hand? We can hope.
Further, the Royal Nepal Army's fight against the highly motivated and increasingly brutal insurgents thus far has been lackluster. Will the royal palace's direct control of national affairs mean that the military will now put up a spirited fight, and also that its human rights record will improve from current levels? We will have to see.
What is clear is that this has been a radical step exposing the institution of kingship to flak, when other approaches could have been tried. Such as using the inherent powers of kingship to cajole the political parties to work together and put up a political front against the insurgents. But the king's deeply held feelings towards the parties seems to have blocked off this avenue towards resolution. The calls made since King Gyanendra took over informally in October 2002 for an all-party government or revival of the Third Parliament, all of which would have provided political challenge to the Maoists on their home ground, are now for naught.
King Gyanendra's announcement of a takeover for 'up to three years'
provides a long window in which Nepal's highly successful experiment with democracy of the last dozen years may be eroded. Unless there is a rapid move towards resolution of the insurgency, it is also likely that the Maoists will try to make common cause with the political parties. Although it is not likely that the above-ground parties will go with the insurgents as long as they hold on to the gun, it is certain that the royal action will add strength to the insurgents' demand for a king-less republican constitution and government, a call that has been taken up with alacrity lately by many politicians.
It is inexplicable how the royal palace plans to attend to the criticism that is bound to erupt in the domestic political arena as well as in the international community. In castigating the political parties, King Gyanendra preferred to hark back to the Parliament dissolved three years ago, while keeping silent over interim period and rule through palace-appointed prime ministers. This is the period when the peace and security of the country's populace plummeted more than previously.
In the speech, King Gyanendra highlighted the great contribution of the Shah dynasty to the creation of the nation and ventured that he was speaking for the 'janabhawana', i.e. the Nepali people's feelings. While it is true that the desire for peace overwhelms all other political desires among the people, the question arises whether the royal takeover was the proper way to address the 'chahana' (desires). Rather than remonstrate at the political parties' inability to work together and opt for the takeover, it would have been a much more popular and realistic move for the king to have used his prerogative as head-of-state to bring the bickering parties together at this critical juncture.
In the end, unless King Gyanendra is able to come up with the trump card of peace vis-a-vis the Maoists in the near term, one can conclude that his unprecedented action of the First of February has exposed the historically significant institution of Nepal's monarchy to the vissictitudes of day-to-day politics and power play. Did the Nepali monarchy deserve this at this late a date in history?
Endnote: As I write this on Tuesday evening, the significant political leaders are all under house arrest, the media (press, television, radio) is under censorship, the fundamental freedoms have been suspended, a state of emergency has been announced, telephones (landlines and cellular) as well as Internet are down, and the Tribhuvan International Airport is closed.
Program on Science and Global Security
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Princeton University
221 Nassau Street, Floor 2
Princeton, NJ 08542-4601