 |
| |
VOL. 27, NO. 17, January 04, 2007 (Paush 20 2064 B.S.)
|
|
Monarchical Republic
The Maoist-engineered third amendment of the interim constitution gives Nepal a weird identity on the international stage
By SUSHIL SHARMA
In 1951, the autocratic Rana regime collapsed under the weight of a massive pro-democracy movement.
In a country of less than five million people then, thousands poured out on the streets to celebrate the fall of a century-old regime.
 |
| King Gyanendra: Gyanendra: King in republic
|
In 1990, the king-led party less regime collapsed following another pro-democracy movement.
In a country whose population had reached 20 million by then, hundreds of thousands joined rallies across the country to greet the fall of the 30-year-old royalist regime.
In 2006, the second innings of absolute royal rule -- under a different king -- came to an end after a little more than a year in the wake of an unprecedented democracy movement in Nepal ’s history.
The people in their millions joined in victory celebrations – one more time.
In 2007, the governing seven-party alliance declares Nepal a republic by bulldozing a constitutional amendment in the unelected parliament.
The country’s population had crossed 25 million by this time. But not a single person turned out on the streets to greet what some saw as an epoch-making event -- the beginning of a new era and the “end” of the 250-year-old monarchy.
How does one explain this? This can perhaps be explained in two ways.
ONE, the ordinary people are not convinced yet about the establishment of a republic.
According to the constitutional amendment, the republic is subject to the implementation by the constituent assembly, elections for which are still not certain.
Pending such an uncertain polls, the king will continue to occupy the Narayanhity palace, with some 3000 soldiers providing security. The number is a sixth of the Maoist “soldiers” verified by the UNMIN.
He will continue to receive perks and salaries sanctioned by a cabinet which comprise, again, of Maoist ministers.
The governing seven parties agreed to remove the monarchy even before the constituent assembly meeting, if the king is found obstructing the polls.
The parties are silent on what will they do if the elections are disrupted by forces other than the monarchy.
After all, a number of powerful forces – internal and external – are at work as Nepal struggles through its critical transition.
TWO, the people are not happy that the hand-picked parliament of the seven parties denied them the right to make a decision on the fate of the two-century-old institution.
Going by the claims of the seven-party leaders especially the Maoists, the fate of the monarchy has effectively sealed.
Says lawyer-turned Maoist lawmaker, Khimlal Devkota, “that no one came out on the street to protest the declaration of republic proves that the monarchy is dead.”
Such an argument can backfire. Royalists used to give a similar argument to defend the royal takeover two years ago.
Spontaneous street protests against the king’s February 1 misadventure had been non-existent.
Less than two years later, the situation had reversed. Millions took to the street to force the king to do something the monarch perhaps never imagined.
Said an eminent political commentator, “there is no guarantee that the history will not repeat”.
“Crucially”, he added, “the key external actors that helped end the royal regime two years ago have not committed yet to end the royalty altogether.”
If they reversed the publicly declared position, then the situation would take a decisive turn. Their unchanged position so far has been: “the people should be given the choice between a monarchy and a republic”.
By denying that choice to the people, the seven parties can, at best, hope to have a monarchical republic only!
