As during the 1990 people’s movement, Nepali politics is once again at a crucial juncture. It is definite that there is going to be a radical political change, whose shape is still fuzzy. The biggest casualty of the current crisis is the 1990 Constitution which would not come back to its pre-October 4, 2002 shape, especially after King Gyanendra’s February 1 takeover and his latest aggressive moves towards the goal of becoming a “constructive” king.

Indeed, the Constitution was the product of an agreement between King Birendra agreeing to become a constitutional monarch and the agitating political forces for the restoration of multiparty system. Consequently, as a result of the promulgation of this Constitution, Nepal has had three general elections to the House of Representatives and the National Assembly and two elections for the local bodies.

The new Nepali political ship appeared to be sailing smoothly, but, in fact, it had not. In reality, a rough weather was developing because of the inability of the successive governments to meet the expectations the people had from the new system, the wrangling within all the major parties and the dirty power games in which they were involved. In the meantime, another storm started in 1996 when the CPN (Maoist) launched an insurgency to overthrow the monarchy. Foreign experts may regard it as low-level fighting but for a country like Nepal it has already become a bloody and costly affair, which the country would not be able to sustain for long.

Although some people claim that King Birendra had not adjusted to his new role and was looking for an opportune time to strike back, he seemed to have accepted the post-1990 situation as a fait accompli. Nevertheless, during his time, both the political forces — the King and political parties — had adhered to the Constitution and were on one side, and the Maoists were on the other. Despite the fact that neither the monarchists were happy with the Constitution regarding the powers of the King nor the parties, especially with the provision on control of the army, there were basically two poles — one adhering to the Constitution and the other engaged in insurgency.

But when King Gyanendra came forward with his idea of constructive monarchy, the notion of constitutional monarchy was rendered redundant. As a result, the political situation became more complicated when the two players turned into three forces — each trying to consolidate one’s own power base with a view to taking on the other. The parties seemed the weakest of them for lack of armed strength.

Since the King took over the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers, it has become clear that he is not interested in remaining a constitutional monarch. He has his own roadmap under which he wants to mix the facade of the parliamentary system of government with his model of constitutional monarchy, in reality, a constructive monarchy. The Maoists have their own roadmap for establishing the People’s Republic. The notion of constitutional monarchy has already become outdated. The country would go either the King’s way or the republican way. What is required of the parties is to be clear on it rather than harping on the outdated or discarded concept of constitutional monarchy. They have to decide whether to go along with the line charted by the King or to embark on the republican system and join hands with the Maoists, at least, in the short run to fight against the monarchy. They would look ludicrous if they stuck to constitutional monarchy at a time when the King himself has shown no liking for it.

Had the sense of rationality prevailed on the three principal actors to join hands for resolving the ongoing conflict and not lose the opportunity during earlier negotiations, everybody would have been a gainer and the country would not have suffered to the extent it has suffered now. Consequently, the country got badly trapped in a bloody war that is likely to go on for many years.

Against this background, the continued division of the political actors into three groups is neither going to serve the interest of the country nor going to help in the resolution of the ongoing dispute. Of the different actors, sooner or later, the parties have to make a choice. It is, thus, time for this force to take stock of the fast political developments taking place in the country, especially the younger generation pushing for a radical idea of democratic republic, and decide which side they want to take — republican stand or aligning with the King’s new dogma of constructive monarchy. There is another important factor — the external powers playing their role in resolving the current political turmoil. It is too early to say how they would react to the growing political polarisation in the name of the right to protect the Nepalis. Nonetheless, the present trend of moving of three national groups, turning into only two sides, is going in the right direction.

Dhungel is executive director, IIDS