Aditya Man Shrestha

Tables are turning too soon in the political scenario of our country. The year 2002, for example, was dominated by two forces, the state and the insurgents. The then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba was on a roller coaster. He had taken over the reins of power to address the Maoist problem and redress violence from Nepal. He, of course, did it, to begin with, but failed to lead it to a successful end. Violence erupted in a more vigorous way.

The dominant question was whether the emergency should be extended or not. Sometimes Deuba said yes and sometimes he said no. That angered his colleagues in the Nepali Congress who said no to more emergency. That, in turn, angered Deuba who, in a fit of rage, dismissed the parliament. Another burning question related to the election if it would be held in November as scheduled to organise a new parliament. How would the Maoists react to it was a great suspense till the end.

While the Nepali Congress was busy in infighting, the CPN-UML started preparing for the election campaign with the hope of winning a majority given the division in the largest party in power. Others were watching if the scheduled polls would really take place or could take place.

Nevertheless, the political personalities at play were familiar faces like Girija Prasad Koirala, Sher Bahadur Deuba, Madhav Kumar Nepal, Hridayesh Tripathy, Surya Bahadur Thapa, Pashupati Shumsher, Narayan Man Bijuchhe, Amik Sherchan.

The whole scenario changed in 2003 that brought King Gyanendra in the centre stage after he threw out the Deuba government. The bipolar world changed into three poles — the King, the political parties and the Maoists. All the political figures continue to be in the theatre but not in the decisive positions as they were. If the weekly Ghatna ra Bichar is to be believed there will be unipolar politics and consequently we will soon observe a superpower emerging in our country. It is none other than the King himself. Backed by the global superpower, the US and equally supported by the regional superpower, India, the Nepali monarch is planning to evolve into a national superpower.

A superpower means there is no rival to challenge its supremacy. Is the King really in a supreme position to dictate his terms to the rebels and the political dissidents? the King himself has not touched on this sensitive point even when he opened up his mind to a large extent on the coming events during his recent tours in western Nepal.

Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa and his colleagues are indeed trying to give the impression that a superpower is really in the making. They have time and again emphasised that the Maoists are no longer in the strategic balance that Baburam Bhattarai claimed to have achie-ved in the battlefield on the eve of the second round of peace talks. They are forwarding the evidence that the rebels have failed to launch attacks on the military installations since the present government took over, like they did several times before.

There is yet further stronger evidence of

this new emerging phenomenon as expressed in the determination of the government to

hold general elections for a new parliament. King Gyanendra has also endorsed this plan in order to hand over power to an elected representative government. As of now, we see too many hindrances to hold a fair and fearless election in the wake of violence of the rebels and mistrust of the political opposition. But if the superpower creation is really on the cards, we should not be surprised to see the election held by fair or unfair means.

On the other hand, the peaceful movement of the political parties against the royal step of October 2002 is described as ineffectual in forcing the King to mend his ways with them. The weekly believes that the King will push the political parties hard to provoke them to opt for republicanism instead of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy they have so long stuck to. That would open the road for the monarchy to crack down on both violent and non-violent opponents. That would even pave the way for outlawing those parties. The paper, therefore, indicates that the political leaders are preparing to go underground.

This is one possibility towards which the country might head. However the emergence of a superpower is no guarantee of resolution of a problem. Going by the experience of the global superpower in Iraq, it is clear that destruction of an enemy is not the end of the problem. It has proven to be only the beginning of a problem. Overthrowing the Saddam regime in Iraq with the superior firepower was much easier than managing the country he had ruthlessly ruled. Before the war on Iraq, President Bush tried his utmost to sideline the UN but, after the war, his Iraq ruler Paul Bremer had to run after UN Secretary General Kofi Annan coaxing him to come down to Iraq to replace him. The guerrilla bombing over the US troops and the civilians is no less effective in shaking up the superpower for whatever reasons, domestic or international. The story of the regional superpower in the Kashmir imbroglio is equally sad.

The message should not be lost. superpowers might emerge at any level. But that does not secure peace. Nor does it do any good to the people. Fighting might cease but bombs will not.

Shrestha is a freelance journalist