King Gyanendra has started fresh consultations over the past two days with leaders of tiny political parties, known to be pro-palace, and Taranath Ranabhat, who still holds, strangely enough, the post of Speaker of the House of Representatives. Reportedly in connction with these audiences, the two vice chairmen of the Cabinet, Dr Tulsi Giri and Kirtinidhi Bista, too, have camped there. Those who flew to Pokhara on Tuesday included Rabindranath Sharma, a leader of the Kamal Thapa-led RPP; Rajeswor Devkota, chief of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (Rastrabadi); and Bishwabandhu Thapa, a senior politician. Many audiences with political leaders have taken place in the post-October 2 (2002) period, but they seem to have been tactical, particularly from the standpoint of the establishment. The political parties felt let down, and that turned them into bitter opponents of the King, at least up to this point.

Therefore, the main test of any royal initiative should be judged in terms of what it produces.

This round will hopefully lead to royal meetings with leaders representing different shades of opinion in the country. The current consultations are taking place amid intense domestic and international pressure, the fiasco of the civic polls, the recent court verdict on the anti-corruption royal commission, the escalating war with the Maoists, and, no less important, the American push to detach mainstream political parties from their 12-point understanding with the Maoists and to reconcile the palace and parties. Therefore, some people in some of the political parties are hoping for something to emerge soon.

Ranabhat, talking to the press after meeting the King, said he gathered that the King would open dialogue with leaders of mainstream parties. Sharma, however, discounted the political importance of the meeting by saying that he did not have the time to make his own suggestions because too many people had been granted audience. Former prime minister Surya Bahadur Thapa, chairman of the Rastriya Janashakti Party, dismissed these consultations as a routine affair of no significant political meaning. Any such fence-mending would be fruitful for the country only if it led to a dialogue with the Maoists with the intention of resolving the national crisis within a broader democratic framework. However, it could serve as a first step in that direction. Otherwise, even a return to a pre-October 4 (2002) position would leave the political stalemate as it existed before that date. By itself, it would not restore peace — let alone democracy — to the Nepali people.