Absolute Monarchy to Absolute Democracy

This is an essay by Kanak Mani Dixit, an interesting man who left the UN and New York in 1989 to return to Nepal where he has been an incredibly strong force in responsible journalism. [-ES]

King Gyanendra has taken the people of Nepal on a disastrous course, using the excuse of fighting an insurgency to compromise democracy. Nepali society must be returned to complete democratic rule, which also provides the only means to tackle the raging rebellion and promote social and economic progress in the long term. In order to stop a complete unraveling of the Nepali future, political parties backed by civil society must wrest the state back from the palace and military administration.

Nearly two months after the royal takeover of 1 February, it becomes clear that the regime change conducted by King Gyanendra was an attempt to bring back authoritarian rule on the pretext of tackling the Maobaadi rebellion. Since a military solution to the insurgency is impossible even by the reckoning of senior army officers, serving and retired, the proper course would have been to build a front with the political parties and then to engage the rebels. Instead, the king exploited the differences between the parties to prepare the ground for his takeover.

It has also become obvious that there was no plan as such behind the royal putsch, with which the palace was to tackle the Maobaadi challenge. The action of 1 February is therefore to be seen as nothing more than a power grab, the only correction to which is a complete return to multiparty government, an end to the state of emergency, and restitution of all freedoms and fundamental rights. The presence of the extra-constitutional Maobaadi in hill and plain cannot be used to blackmail the Nepali population and the international community to support discredited authoritarianism. The democratic state is more than capable of confronting the insurgency, as long as the palace and army do not play spoilsport.

On a historical scale, the royal action was and remains problematic in terms of both principle and practicality. It is not as if Nepalis had not suffered through three decades of the Panchayat system under the present king's father and brother. It was that royalist system which maintained the autocratic continuum into modern day Nepal and whose regressive legacy a dozen years of democracy had just begun to address. Nepalis who were 12 years old in 1990 when the Panchayat was ended are today 27, and they have known no political system other than parliamentary pluralism. Citizens of all ages have found their voice, and for this reason alone the country cannot now be converted into a police state bereft of fundamental freedoms
and civil liberties. For too long have Nepalis spoken and organized freely and seen the advantages of pluralism for social and economic progress, and 2005 is not 1960, back when it was possible for King Mahendra to muzzle society through his own royal coup d'etat. Indeed, the King Gyanendra's takeover has its origins in a 1960 deep freeze that does not countenance current socio-political reality. Additionally, while the earlier coup was carried out with the help of feudocrat power-brokers, including those who betrayed democracy, this time around King Gyanendra has made no-holds-barred use of the Royal Nepal Army. Only a king out of touch with present day discourse and unwilling to listen to the clear voices of social science and common sense could have read out the proclamation of 1 February and taken the actions that followed.

Since it is clear that the royal proclamation was not a knee-jerk action but something thought of months in advance with the help of willing military commanders, there would be some method behind the madness. The short term plan, already in implementation, is to act on the fear of the Maobaadi and browbeat the political parties while exploiting the latter's weaknesses and differences. Under a particular logic, the longer term plan would be to do away with the 1990 Constitution and develop another document which redirects substantial power back to the monarchy. Thereafter, an election would be conducted where a conservative force is made to emerge in order to sabotage the secular system of parliamentary governance. As in the Panchayat years, the proposed process would look and sound progressive, with sops for historically discriminated communities, but would at its heart be reactionary. All in all, King Gyanendra would be attempting to bring back 'guided democracy' by grabbing the keys to the
kingdom that have been in the hands of the citizenry since 1990.

Given that such a dangerous agenda is fraught with uncertainties, many who wish King Gyanendra and his dynasty well are keeping their own counsel while sycophants and quislings from the early Panchayat era are emerging from the slurry to try and turn back the flow of history. With the king now chairman of the Council of Ministers, the monarchy is exposed to the turbulence of politics and administration, but it has neither resilience nor goodwill on its side. King Gyanendra has donned a new hat, but does he realize that a blunder has been committed? If there is such realization, then the political parties may yet come to the rescue of the crown on the condition of an absolute and unconditional roll back to democracy. If the palace does not backtrack, the people are in for an extended agitation.

Today, Nepal faces on the one hand a state of emergency, suspension of civil rights and an autocratic military-supported regime. On the other hand, there is the vicious insurgency. The resolution of the Maobaadi challenge through dialogue and constitutional course-correction can only be contemplated when there is first a return to democracy. Barring a total collapse of the state, such a return can be contemplated through the reinstatement of the disbanded Parliament or through an interim government put in place at the initiative of the political parties, with or without the palace in agreement.

Seven weeks after 1 February, while we wait for King Gyanendra to reconsider his drastic and ill-advised action, and for the political parties to locate and act on their collective voice, it is time to review the royal takeover as it affects 26 million people of the 40th largest country in the world.

Detention of Politicians: The continuing detention of scores of political leaders and activists is, to put it simply, offensive. The incarcerations fly in the face of Nepal's democratic experience and can never be justified by the palace in the name of fighting 'terrorism'. King Gyanendra, as chairman of the cabinet, bears direct responsibility for the confinement of political leaders and the continuing clampdown on activists around the country, as he does for all other attacks on civil liberties under the state of emergency. A royal proclamation which repeatedly swore allegiance to democratic values has been implemented through a whole series of undemocratic acts. Article 27 (3) of the 1990 Constitution, which enjoins the monarch to "preserve and protect" that supreme law, has been used instead to destroy the letter and spirit of that document.

Freedom of the Press: The harassment of the media runs deeper than the jailing of journalists. There is a concerted campaign afoot to demoralize reporters, editors, radio producers and publishers, to break their will through continuous maltreatment. Those working outside Kathmandu Valley are extremely vulnerable to pressures from the district-level military commanders. In Kathmandu and elsewhere, editors of spirited tabloids are forced to submit to frustrating appearances before chief district officers. The royal action has halted Nepal's FM radio revolution in its tracks, and the future of this unique Southasian success story is now in jeopardy. The dishonorable manner in which this coup was conducted is exemplified by the palace press secretary who told the editor of a leading daily that the army was in control and he, the editor, "could even be disappeared for a few hours" if the royal strictures were not followed. Today, newspapers and magazines are banned at whim from entry into certain districts, the FM airwaves are empty of empowering news, discussion and information programmes, and clandestine rebel radio broadcasts now fill the resulting vacuum with their vicious propaganda. Among other ills, the king's clampdown has made it impossible for the press to cover Maobaadi abuse that is continuing. Simultaneously, the media is no longer there to report on excesses by the security forces. The public lies exposed and unprotected as never before. Overall, the advances achieved by print and electronic media over a dozen years of unfettered freedom are being rapidly eroded, and the domino effect on society and economy will be significant.

The RNA: The military-backed coup conducted by King Gyanendra constitutes a barrier to the evolution of the Royal Nepal Army as a professional force. The Nepal military, commended for serving in UN peacekeeping assignments over the decades, had found it a difficult fight after it was deployed to engage the Maobaadi in 2002. Its image already tarnished since by human rights abuse and disappearances, the RNA now stands accused of being part and implement of a coup. The royal takeover has forced army officers to take de facto command as local administrators, a function for which they are ill prepared. The longer the RNA is asked to play such a role, the more entrenched will be the anti-democratic and anti-people evolution of the polity. The militarization of society will retard social and economic progress for decades on end, and the RNA risks losing whatever credibility it presently has by engaging in everyday policing,
censorship, and otherwise preventing citizens from enjoying fundamental freedoms. Over the medium and long term, the army's deployment against the political forces will negatively affect the morale of soldiers and on their ability to protect the people. The Nepali army can only evolve into a disciplined and professional fighting force if it is kept out of public affairs and brought within full control of parliament in the long term if the national economy is sustained and international support continues in both the development and military arena. However, the extended period required for a victory-through-arms will simply entrench the military and exact an unbearable price from the populace. The open society built up with such sacrifice of the people will begin to unravel in innumerable ways. The one answer to both the political crisis and the Maobaadi challenge is a return to absolute democracy. The international community, including India, the United Kingdom and the United States as the main partners in the state's fight against the Maobaadi, has been steadfast since 1 February in its call for a return to multiparty democracy. This has been welcome and the international community is to be thanked, but it is unrealistic to expect more support than this from the outside. The battle for restoration of democracy must now gather steam within Nepal. Any resolution brokered from elsewhere will necessarily be more conservative and less democratic (and perhaps more hurried) than one fought for by Nepal's citizens. For all the world community's good intentions, foreign governments will hold stability of the country more important than transformation of Nepali society through democratic process. After a 'grace period' of a few months, it is likely that the external players will settle for a balance of power that favours an evolving status quo, which would not deliver optimum democracy with sovereignty resting entirely with the people. Meanwhile, King Gyanendra's attempt to run the country as a corporate CEO is taking him back to the discredited loyalists of the palace to run his regime. Since an extended royal rule is obviously not a possibility, one can make out the contours of a royal plan to build a new political terrain where pro-palace political forces are made to emerge. Loyal royalists would be nurtured so as to support monarchical activism well into the future. This would add a dangerous and diversionary departure from the open society that must be re-established in Nepal.
Evolution Ahead: As a country which emerged from centuries of authoritarianism only in 1990 (with only a year-and-half of democracy in 1959-60), the blame placed by King Gyanendra on a dozen years of pluralism for the inability to deliver social and economic progress is unreasonable and prejudiced. A decade and a half after the People's Movement of 1990, the present should have been a time when Nepalis were fine-tuning their democracy. Instead, we seem to have returned to the drawing board. While the talk until recently was of constitutional readjustment order to deliver a more inclusive state, we are back to the task of rescuing democracy from an active monarchy. Indeed, the time has come to try and save Nepali pluralism from the palace as well as the insurgents, by means of a principled yet practical resolution.

Where do we go from here? The way is still open for King Gyanendra to work with the parties, as he could have on 4 October 2002 or 1 February 2005. The Maobaadi could still lay down their arms and join the democratic parties in above-ground politics. But the royalist and Maobaadi mindsets are not variables that one can rely on, so it is important for those who believe in open society to chart an independent course. Only the political parties of the suspended Third Parliament have the legitimacy to lead this charge, because they more than any other entity (monarch, rebel or anyone from 'civil society') represent the people by the fact of having submitted to the ballot.

Evolution of constitutional practice through parliamentary exercise and judicial oversight is the obvious path of political progress, but the shakeup of the polity has been such that there is no escaping the need to revise the 1990 Constitution while standing on the platform it has created. Such a revision can be achieved through a permutation or combination of a number of recourses, including a referendum, election-to-parliament, election-to-constituent assembly, or a roundtable conference of all concerned parties including the rebels. Constitutional reform would have to address matters which go to the heart of the current discourse, such as ensuring the RNA's allegiance to civilian government; instituting a restrictive definition of constitutional monarchy that defines a ceremonial role for the king; removing the 'Hindu' appellation from the description of the state; and transitioning to a federal system of governance based on sound economic and political principles rather than on race, ethnicity, language or faith.

While constitutional evolution is of utmost importance, however, the immediate task is to rescue democracy as we know it under the 1990 Constitution. Failure to do so can invite adventurism from the extreme left or right. The rapid descent to an authoritarian state requires the political parties to take immediate action to return the people from absolute monarchy to absolute democracy.

The present royal government with the king as chairman is illegitimate under any interpretation of the 1990 Constitution as well as in light of the general democratic principles. A resolution which would 'cleanse' the monarchy of the stain of 1 February and at the same time revive the democratic process under the 1990 Constitution would of course be the revival of the Third Parliament. Indeed, no political move could be more people-friendly than to revive the Lower House for a specified period, with preliminary understanding among the main players about the key tasks, such as formation of cabinet, talks with the Maobaadi, and the longer term constitutional issues. If King Gyanendra recognizes the blunder that was the royal proclamation, he may yet opt for a revival of Parliament as an institution - which incidentally would also be a secure dynasty-saving action.

If not a revived Parliament, political resolution would have to come in the form of an interim government under the aegis of the mainstream political parties. If King Gyanendra understood the perils of the moment, he would seek the help of the parties and encourage them to cobble together such a government. Under the reasonable assumption that he will not pick this option, the political parties must present the palace with a fait accompli in the form of a fully-formed interim government. Such a government could be an all-party entity, or also include a mix of respected independent individuals. Such a government chosen by the parties rather than by the palace has been a requirement since October 2002, and can still be a means of simultaneously reinstating democracy, addressing the insurgency, and stabilizing the polity and economy.

The establishment of an interim government by the political parties would not obviate further evolution of the polity to respond to the drastic royal move of 1 February. This would be an emergency measure to respond to the public's democratic inclinations as indicated in numerous public opinion polls, and to ensure that the supportive international reaction on behalf of the Nepali people and against royal adventurism is not wasted. Once a people's rather than king's government has been put in place, it is important for those in the saddle not to forget the pressing constitutional, political, economic and social issues that must be tackled in order to ensure that the fruits of democracy are finally delivered to the people of Nepal.
Hopefully, the crisis brought on by the rebels in the jungle and the king in the palace has brought sober appreciation of the need to reinstate and vigorously protect parliamentary democracy. At the same time, the burden is now on the political parties and individual leaders to conduct themselves in the weeks ahead in a manner that respects the people of Nepal and responds to their trust in the democratic process. The path to the immediate future should be defined by political forces backed and watch-dogged by civil society, to challenge the king and to set up an interim government. The people await their representatives to respond to this need of the hour.

Over the last nine years, the hopes of the people of Nepal have been massively compromised by the violence brought on by the Maobaadi insurgency. Now the people have the misfortune to be led in an opposite and equally unrealistic direction by a king who misreads the demands of the so-called twenty-first century. How far can the lot of the people worsen? When will relief come and of what kind? Nepalis still have it in their power to decide for themselves, and to reverse the regime change introduced on 1 February. If King Gyanendra will not loosen his grip on the state, the state will have to pried from him.