TMCnet News
Nepal politics: Endgame approaching for King GyanendraUPDATE(EIU Viewswire Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)COUNTRY BRIEFING FROM THE ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT Nepals King Gyanendra, faced with mass protests calling for a return to democracy, has signalled that power will be returned to the people and has called on the opposition to nominate a prime minister. Although this falls short of opposition demands for constitutional revisions, it opens a routewith external helpto resolve the current political crisis. Yet securing this outcome will depend on opposition factions, including the Maoist insurgents, overcoming their habitual fractiousness and working together. It also requires the royalist government not to collapse in the interim. Speaking on national television on April 21st, King Gyanendrawho sacked the government in 2005 and imposed direct ruleannounced that power would be returned to Nepals people and invited the united opposition to nominate a candidate for prime minister. His climbdown followed more than two weeks of mass street protests against his rule; in recent days, over 100,000 people in Kathmandu, the capital, have ignored a curfewand police threats to shoot those who break itto call for the king to step aside. In the process, three demonstrators have been killed and hundreds injured. Overwhelmed The scope and scale of the protests have taken the king's camp by surprise. The political parties, which banded together last year in an effort to reinstate the elected government, had originally called a general strike in Kathmandu, to last from April 6th-9th. However, demonstrations against the king have been broad both in terms of participants (including some civil servants and erstwhile supporters of the monarchy) and geography, with incidents reported countrywide. This has belied the palace's claim that the political parties' demands are not shared by the population at large, emboldening the parties to extend the strike indefinitely until their demandswhich include not only a return to democracy, but the establishment of a new constituent assembly to place greater constitutional limits on the monarchs powerare met. The extent of the protests invites comparisons with the 1990 popular democratic movement that forced King Gyanendra's brother Birendra, then king, to abandon the panchayat (appointed assembly) system of government in favour of a parliamentary monarchy with constitutional limitations on his authority. Since disbanding the elected parliament in February last year the king has sought to legitimise his coupincluding by holding farcical local elections in February this year (in which the established political parties did not participate) to secure his supporters positions of authority ahead of a planned general election next year. This exercise, and the king's suppression of civil freedoms and repression of dissent, has contributed to growing popular anger over his seizure of power. Busted flush? The kings announcement effectively seals the fate of the royal government, although his own position as monarch is probably secure for as long as he retains the support of the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA). Nevertheless, the prospects for a swift or peaceful transition back to parliamentary democracy are not good. For one thing, an interim government would require the established parties to continue co-operating and to command popular support. Before last year, party politics in Nepal was distinguished by the parties' extreme reluctance to co-operate, resulting in undignified squabbling, policy paralysis and regular changes of government. A strong public turnout in anti-royal demonstrations might not therefore translate into strong support for the parties themselves now that King Gyanendra has backed down. Any negotiated solution would also have to accommodate the demands of the Maoist insurgents, who have waged a guerrilla campaign for the last ten years to introduce a new system of government (initially calling for the abolition of the monarchy). This might be possible if the Maoists agree to renounce the use of violencetheir insurgency has cost around 13,000 livesand co-operate from within a new political system. Mutual antipathy to the king's seizure of power led last November to the parties and the Maoists signing a pact to work together for the establishment of a constituent assembly to draw up a new constitution. Whether this pact will last without a shared enemyor even whether it represents the Maoists' true objectivesis hard to tell. Last year it appeared that they would tolerate the preservation of the monarchy, assuming it was limited by the new constitution to ceremonial functions. Given King Gyanendra's recent actions, however, this may no longer be acceptable (not only to the Maoists, it should be said). Nevertheless, to exclude the Maoists from post-Gyanendra political reform, thereby possibly forcing them back into militancy, is unthinkable. External pressure External pressure, particularly from India, seems to have played a constructive role in forcing King Gyanendra to seek compromise. The US, UK and UN have all criticised the kings autocratic tendencies and has called for a return to representative government. Even China, which has been less reluctant to support the palace since the royal coup, has recently called for a negotiated resolution. India sent its foreign minister and a special envoy to talk to the king, in an effort to convince him to transfer power back to the elected government. Its response to Gyanendras offer was positive: the Indian foreign ministry welcomed it as a step that should now pave the way for the restoration of political stability and economic recovery. This statement is a clear signal for the opposition to come to the negotiating table, even though King Gyanendra is yet to accept fully their demands for constitutional reform. For the external powers, this represents the best hope of preventing the situation in Nepal escalating into a full-blown crisis. It would, however, present them with a dilemma as few of them are happy at the prospect of Maoists enjoying formal power. The best-case scenarioa swift exit for the king without the intervention of the RNA, followed by the Maoists' renunciation of violence and participation with the mainstream parties in an interim government, prior to some form of constitutional revisionrelies on detailed plans and oversight bodies being agreed and formed in advance. If the royal government collapses suddenly and violently without these structures or plans in place, it could lead to a dangerous free-for-all as disparate factions (the RNA, the police, individual parties and the Maoists) vie to fill the political vacuum. SOURCE: ViewsWire Asia |