Nepal's misunderstood movement By Krishna Murari Gautam
To mark the fifth anniversary of Nepal's royal massacre, the BBC News website invited Nepalis of different political viewpoints to present their vision of what lies ahead for their country.
Krishna Murari Gautam is a satirist and an agricultural economist by training.
In 1990 when Nepal embraced multi-party democracy, the political party leaders found themselves in a position where they had no one to fight against.
But they also didn't have any plan or programme ready at hand to fight for in order to meet the aspiration of people.
The royal massacre of 2001 injected new confusion, suspense and a new player in Nepali politics - King Gyanendra.
Like the political parties in 1990, the then prince Gyanendra suddenly found himself in a role for which he was not prepared.
His accession to the throne as per the constitution and tradition of Nepal occurred when (a) many suspected him of engineering the royal massacre, (b) the country was sliding down to the brink of being a failed state, and (c) section of the population disappointed with the performance of political parties looked upon him as the possible rescuer of the nation.
All this at a time when party leaders were beginning to realise that the Maoist insurgency has become a formidable force to reckon with and economic woes had pushed the country to the brink of being a failed state.
Street protests
The pain of being caught unprepared but responsible for the situation then did not come as easy as to continue playing the game of finger pointing that the political parties had been practicing since coming to the power.
The political leaders found it easier to channel mass frustrations through street protests to topple the ruling government instead of assuming the responsibility to reverse the ongoing trend of economic down turn and government failure to deliver goods and services.
This cycle of street protests leading to government change left each successive government weaker.
This instability only furthered the Maoists' interest leading to further instability and anarchy.
And, now there was this new direction where the failing governments and party leaders could point their fingers to - the new King.
The growing mass frustration came in handy for any party to call street protest and general strikes to topple the ruling government only to be replaced by another group of the date-expired parliamentarians.
Royal takeover
Somebody had to intervene responsively before any country, neighbouring or not, or organisation came ready to pass Nepal from her failed state. And the constitutional monarch did step in to fulfil his constitutional obligations as the head of the state.
The royal proclamation of October 2002, that dismissed the then government, promised to conduct election of all political bodies dissolved by the earlier governments, and make the 1990 constitution functional again within three years by handing over power to the elected government.
But that was not the way the political parties had got used to earn the authority to rule Nepal.
Therefore, the political parties again took to the street to fight against the king - the new obstacle in their accession to power through street protests after the parliament was dissolved.
Interestingly, the king who favoured people electing their representatives both at the local and central governments was projected as anti-democratic or authoritarian while the political parties that avoided election and dissolved the elected bodies were to be taken as the beholders of democratic values.
The old notion of autocracy associated with the term King came handy for the political parties to misguide the international opinion and understanding of the kings' actions after 2002.
Defamation campaign
History repeated itself only to leave the country in much worse condition than before.
Thus, the constitutional head of the state, i.e., the King Gyanendra, had no choice but to assume the position of the head of the government too.
And he did so in Feb. 2005 and included his old friends, faithfuls or monarchists in the government with the hope that they will somehow be able to make the 1990 constitution functional again through the election of local and central government bodies.
But by then, the agitating parties had made considerable progress in defaming the king, misguiding the international community on the king's actions and intentions, and getting stronger to make impossible for any government other than their own to rule.
Somehow, they succeeded in convincing the world that taking part in the election of representatives of the people for different levels of the government is against the democratic norms in case of Nepal.
By April 2006, the leaders leading the street protests had to be called in to form the government and rule the country with democratic values and norms.
Now the future of Nepal rests singularly on the hands of Maoists who have performed well as revolutionary but their performance as rulers is yet to be seen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5034468.stm
