Palace, Parties and People Power

Govinda Neupane

The Ranas led the coalition of upper classes during their rule till 1951. After they were compelled to share power at leadership level, the new tussle began between the Shah Kings and the political parties. Due to the prevalence of feudalism in the society and the king’s control over the army, the parties were pushed to the background for more than 30 years. A ‘lofty’ word Panchayat was invented to cover the king’s direct rule. Although the parties continued low intensity resistance for fairly a long time, the palace was in total command. Thematically, the battle between them revolved around the system of governance. The palace was in favor of party-less system so as to actively control over the leadership, whereas the parties were for sharing the power with the palace by establishing a multiparty polity. They were in favor of constitutional monarchy as one of its ingredients. Other than some factions of the communist party such as the Jhapalies and the Fourth Congress, no political party was taking issues of fundamental changes in the society as its agenda during the 30 years period. Therefore, at the core, the political mobilization by the mainstream parties had nothing related to the structural issues.

People starved and died. People rebelled and failed. People tried and tested defeat. But as a collective mass, they never succumbed. The historic movements of 1970s, 1980s and the early 1990s offer evidences to justify this conclusion. The parties sided with the people. They never led them; neither had they launched movements effectively at the national level. But, people power expressed through the movements launched by the students, professionals and general people was overwhelming and the ruling class realized the need for sharing power. Hence, the contradictions between the palace and the parties related to the leadership had been managed by bringing temporary halt of animosity. They agreed to introduce multiparty system with essentially a powerful monarchy which had its total control over the army. The mainstream parties chanted loudly that the system they introduced was multiparty with constitutional monarchy. The arrangement announced that time in a document called constitution simply reflected the agreement for power-sharing. The document was neither the product of people’s general will nor it was the product of the reconciliation. Therefore, the contradiction between these two forces continued.

In the mean time, in 1996, the Maoists started armed insurrection, which progressed to a full fledge war. The two forces – the palace and the parties got divided over the method and leadership in dealing with the Maoists. For the parties, it was the opportunity to take control over the army at the most and have a say on its mobilization at the least. The army, as it had been traditionally getting orders from the palace and was loyal to it was reluctant to come under the control of the party’s government. Hence, the palace saw this opportunity to regain control over the leadership. They started the grand fight once again, sometimes clandestinely and sometimes publicly. The Maoists happily utilized the opportunity provided by the wrangling among the ruling elites. The fire was further fueled by the inefficiency, corruption, loss of credibility and division within the parliamentary party camps. As a result, the yesteryear’s heroes degenerated to the meanest villains making them vulnerable to any external push.

The palace enjoys the support of the army and has a traditional support base outside. It was reluctant to reconcile with the parties. The parliamentary political parties are on the defensive due to their misrule of several years. Their party leaderships are discredited. People do not trust them. Even, their own party cadres are reluctant to respond to the calls given by these parties. The so-called international community publicly supports the parties and clandestinely supplies resources to the palace-led government. The palace, perhaps, believes that the more the Maoists gain strengths, the more the so-called international community shall come closer to it.

The palace, after taking absolute power in February this year, boldly elaborated its priorities. The priorities included bringing peace by quelling the rebellion, controlling corruption and taking action against the corrupt officials of the previous regimes, restore democracy and reinitiate development programs. The palace set a time frame of three years to complete the restoration process. To achieve these goals, the palace introduced state of emergency, implemented censorship regime, quelled opposition voices by imprisoning political leaders and interfered in the means of mass communication. The cabinet formed after the king’s address of February 01 did not justify the beginning of clean governance. The collective face of the royal government was no different from the previous one. Those who were hoping against hope were frustrated when the anti-corruption commission was formed. Legal framework, operational instruments and personalities nominated all added to their hopelessness. This was one of the most important strategic errors. Rather than closing down the strategically less important enemy fronts, the royal government expanded them by introducing new fronts. The palace, perhaps, believed that single-minded determination alone can produce results. The parties, bewildered initially, got some respite not because of their actions, but due to the arrogance of the new ministers, missing credibility of the commission and the so-called international community’s moral support. Finally, they had some sense of confidence back after their pilgrim to the Indian capital and the sympathy-led support of the Maoists. After these ICU medications, their heart has started to pump blood, at least to keep them alive.

The government is ruling effectively in urban areas. The rural areas are under strong influence of the Maoists. Now, there are three possibilities – the government will regain control allover Nepal, the Maoists will win or a new mechanism will effectively end the divide and reunify the governance. The first two refer to the military solution, whereas the third is related to the political solution. The political solution could be achieved only by bringing people power into play and designing a system that could address the transformational agenda, which includes but not limited to inclusive democracy, federalism and radical socio-economic changes. The election of the constituent assembly could be the new starting point that may herald the beginning of a new Nepali political amphitheater. Not only the palace, the parties, the Maoists and the people could participate in this democratic process, but also the structural issues could be resolved in the new environment. Are the political players ready to listen and participate to resolve the structural issues proactively? Or, they simply wait to succumb to the people power?

Posted on www.nepalresearch.com, August 03, 2005