*/Jan Sharma/*
It was a decisive and bold move. King Gyanendra through the February 1 proclamation directly took over the government to quell the decade-old insurgency. The move, which had long been expected, has been widely welcomed amidst a murmur of dissent.
> > How can you call this a decisive move, it took the King more than 2
years to make this decision.
The monarch has risked his throne to bring peace, and has pledged human security and dignity to the people who have suffered from a persistent spell of anarchy and violence. He has promised a representative government in three years time.
>>The monarch did this in an attempt to save his Shree Pech, not the other way round. He could not handle the pressure of Contituent Assembly so he did this.
The King had little choice. And the choice was definitely not pleasant one: takeover or let the chaos worsen to the point of surrender to the commies.
>> Little choice he had-- all he had to do was cave in for constituent assembly. As per your suggestion there are probably more than 50% public on the Kings side, so what was he afraid of.
The best choice for King Gyanendra was no doubt to hold the elections - both for local bodies who play an increasingly important role in local governance and development management and for parliament - in multi-phases.
>> He sacked Deuba for the same reason, but what did his cronies like Surya Bdr. Thapa and Lokendra Bdr. Chand do?
This option was emphasized by the King, who pledged to initiate the process of the vote by mid April 2005. The political parties rejected it - the Nepali Congresses because of their unpopularity and CPN (UML) because of split personality.
>> So why does he need 3 years huh??
Electoral prospects were dumped to the funeral pyre by political parties - failing to work together among themselves and refusing to work with the King - mainly because they were hand-in-gloves with the Maoists and their perpetrators.
>> Do you know the true meaning of democracy??
How else one explains deposed Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Bharat Mohan Adhikari's reluctance to release the allocated budget for the army for over six months and home intelligence playing footsie with the terrorists?
>> Do you think money grows in trees???
Naming yet another face to head the government would have let the situation deteriorate further to an even hopeless situation. It must be remembered that the King dismissed a government that had no popular mandate.
>> 1st he killed the one with popular mandate and created this havoc.
Ironically, Nepal has always been unstable and insecure under a weak monarchy. The instability since 1994 is reminiscent of similar situation under King Tribhuvan during 1951-55 and under King Mahendra until 1959.
>> You sure would love Panchayat to return wouldn't you??
The main problem with the multi-party regime installed in 1990, which came soon after India's attempt to strangulate Nepal by imposing a unilateral economic blockade, was that it provided for a weak executive authority, paving the way for anarchy to flourish.
>> Democracy is for brown-nosers of the power only. Nepalese people are too illiterate to follow democracy, isn't that what you mean. " A country does not have to be deemed fit for democracy; rather, it has to become fit through democracy"- Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate
It provided a structure that provided for neither a strong executive authority nor the required checks and balances. It was a product of the mistrust of both the Monarchy and the office of the Prime Minister. The result was a constitutional anarchy.
>> King Gyanendra's lust of power.
This perhaps explains the public euphoria following the King's direct takeover. The hope is that somebody is finally in charge to provide law and order, peace and security, however rudimentary. However, the euphoria may not last if the people do not prosper.
>> Agreed.
There is no doubt that King Gyanendra faces an uphill task. He has correctly identified his priorities: restoring peace in order to provide human security and dignity to his people, protect them against internal and external threat and preserve sovereignty.
>> Who is going to put the bell on the cat's neck. Previous governments had also identified the problems. Only if King G had given in.
Bringing peace would be the biggest challenge. The King has urged the insurgents to surrender arms and join the national mainstream. If the insurgents are not fighting a proxy war for a foreign country, they will bend to the heat of a military offensive.
>> Urged, haven't all previous government's urged the Maoist for peace. All they were asking was the King to have less powers and people to have more. So far your thinking is limited to wishful thinking. If you remember before, the Shasatra Police was going to do the job, then the Army would do the job, now the King will do the job...., selling hopes and grasping power.
It would be wrong to assume that King Gyanendra will be obsessed with fighting terrorism. In order to sustain the popular support in the longer term, he needs a faster economic growth that brings robust employment and income opportunities.
>> Another wishful thinking, with democracy flushed down the toilet, who will invest in Nepal, who will go back to Nepal, only those related to RNA and Shah families.
This will partly depend on favorable global and regional economic climate but mainly on prudent national policies that promote export growth, stimulate domestic demand and exploit all available opportunities for overseas employment promotion.
>> Very true, but all wishful thinking. Its better for the King to step down and bring Maoist to the table first.
It would also be prudent to focus on building competent and efficient political and economic institutions that deliver basic services to ordinary people such as education and health. Much of the public anger is because this never happened in the last 15 years.
>> Everything happened in Panchayat Era I suppose.
Finally, a forward-looking foreign policy that beyond managing the crises is long overdue. Nepal's foreign policy needs to focus on economic growth and development and trade and investment opportunities. It needs to build foreign policy on economic priorities.
>> Agreed.
