Great opportunity does not come along all the time in one’s political career. But when it comes it does not, unfortunately, stay for long. We have seen how such opportunities come and go unused or misused by our leaders.

Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala now has such a great opportunity before him. Despite his ill-health, he is by far the most powerful man standing as the pivot of political events at this critical period.

He can go down in Nepal’s history as the most popular and decisive leader if he can use this power for lasting peace, security and prosperity. It is the most opportune time for him to grant the Nepali people a gift that will definitely be considered a parting but long-lasting one in view of his age and health conditions. In fact, he is in the best position of giving without expecting anything in return, philosophically as well as practically.

For himself, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala should be satisfied with democracy reinstated after its derailment for a couple of years and, all the more so, with the dissolved parliament restored with new life and greater strength than before.

He has reasons to be personally content to preside over a cabinet participated in by seven parties unthinkable under the normal functioning of the constitution. He has more points to be proud of — enjoying the confidence of the king divested of all state powers and the support of the international community. Is there anything he could wish to attain in the remaining period of his life? At least, I cannot think of any.

But would he not wish to be remembered for something that is truly unique? Let us look back to find one good achievement with which he could unquestionably be identified. He became the prime minister four times. The first time he dissolved the parliament and lost his majority, the second time he headed a lacklustre coalition government and the third time he regained parliamentary majority paving the way for his party’s division. Is there any big

development project in Nepal that can be attributed to him like the East-West Highway to King Mahendra? As far as the 1990 Jana Andolan is concerned, its father figure was Ganesh Man Singh and not Girija Prasad Koirala.

Even in the 2006 Jana Andolan, Koirala was merely the-first-among-equals nothing comparable to the image of Singh. For what reason, then, should the future generations of Nepal remember him as a great leader?

The only way under the circumstances he could make a long-lasting difference is by delivering a secure peace to the Nepali people. The only way to achieve this under the existing situation is to disarm the Maoist insurgents willingly.

And the only way to do so is to declare Nepal a republic. If Nepal is declared a republic immediately, the Maoists will have no rationale to hold on to their arms. If the issue is left to the decision of the proposed Constituent Assembly, nobody knows how and when it will be settled. Koirala does not have all that time to make his presence felt in the settlement of this question. If, by any chance, the country relapses into violent conflict over this very issue, he will be in no better position than what King Gyanendra is in today.

Think of the four years of royal administration when the king had great opportunity to deliver peace and go down in history as one of the greatest kings of Nepal. He was “in the best and strongest position to shape the future events.”

All through, he commanded the position of strength vis-à-vis the Maoists and the political parties. “That was indeed the best time for a new king to play a crucial role and establish his mark in history,” (THT 7/5/2003). But he missed it to his own dismay.

I had raised a similar question in 2004. “If the king is effective in his position, constitutional or constructive notwithstanding, the logical question arises as to why he does not take a proper step towards bringing about peace and security the people are craving for?

To be more precise, why does he not come forward to deal headlong with the Maoist rebels to find an amicable settlement? After all, it is only he who can negotiate a deal with the insurgents on sensitive political issues like the role of the monarchy in the new national dispensation or a possible agreement on a Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution,” (THT 8/6/2004). Time has shown that the king did not use the opportunity and he landed himself in trouble.

Is Prime Minister Koirala not in a similar position today to call the shots as he wishes? He has clear choices lying before him. Declare Nepal a republic through the parliament or the interim constitution and secure a position in Nepal’s history as the most popular, powerful, decisive and democratic prime minister. Or keep the issue open with a doubtful position for himself. The choice is his.

Shrestha is a freelance journalist