Sagar S Rana

The common agenda agreed upon by the seven political parties has brought together parties that united in the struggle for restoration of democracy in 1990. There are, however, critical differences in the situation then and now.

The emergence of another power centre is one: the Maoist attack was and remains directed against the monarchy and ‘bourgeois’ democracy which is in essence the political-judicial-social order envisaged by the constitution of 1990. Both sides will, therefore, need to move out of the morass of mutual mistrust and confrontation, and reach a position of unity, in order to face the questions raised by the Maoists.

Second, through the 12 years of democratic exercise, backed with the widespread reach of information, people even in remote regions are aware of the rights each citizen is entitled. They are not willing to go back to the groove of any kind of suppression. On the other hand there is little doubt that the present political leaders do not command the same level of trust and confidence that the leaders during the first four decades since 1951 did. Despite considerable progress in during the twelve years of democratic rule, the constant infighting within and between political parties, and the moral degradation have hurt the democratic cause and the large majority who stood by this cause. But it would be equally unwise to undermine the strength and importance of the chain work and linkages the main political parties have built nationwide. No other power centre could or can build such a voluntary work force.

The monarchy has, in the meantime, proved many analysts wrong. In the last sixty years, each of the four monarchs has played a pivotal role in the volatile turn of events. Many distrust the motives from time to time, and yet except for a select few, even the topmost leaders have courted his favours, often at the expense of the cause they vouch to uphold. Naturally, through the past decades of advances in science the divine halo of the monarch has all but vanished and the tragic event of June 2001 has further eroded the royal image. Yet in 2002 and 2005, the move to displace an elected prime minister or a multiparty government did not meet widespread opposition. Whether this was due to Maoist threat, political parties’ failure or loyalty to the King can forever be debated. But the fact that such a drastic transfer of power occurred without violent response, establishes the relevance and strength of the 200-year-old institution. But the institution’s fragility is demonstrated in the need for three changes of governments since 2002.

The challenge for the monarchy and the political parties therefore, lies in the ability to jointly harness the strength of each other. Unfortunately, the opportunities for such a fusion are being overlooked repeatedly. Other options could have been explored, and perhaps wiser ones found, if the political leaders were summoned before assumption of executive powers personally. Necessary trust has not been built to demonstrate the sincerity of purpose to commit to constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy expressed in the Royal proclamation, and thereafter. During the state of emergency and even after it was lifted, the manner in which the legal norms and values have been abused and misused not only raises doubts about the intentions but also erodes the proverbial belief in the sense of justice of ‘Gorkha Durbar’.

The seven party common agenda identifies reinstatement of the dissolved House of Representatives as the first essential step. This body will then form an all-party government to initiate moves for resolution of the conflict, to strengthen the authority vested in the people by the constitution, effect necessary changes, if need be in the constitution, to remove the monopolistic representation in governance, for a just society that ensures equal opportunity to all citizens and for holding national elections in a free and fair environment. For these objectives, referendum on important national issues and instrument of a constituent assembly are considered possible options.

The package is attractive. Whether they are practical in the present context will depend on the approach. Acting President of Nepali Congress (Democratic) has publicly declared that the struggle and search for dialogue should go hand-in-hand. As expressed earlier, the palace and the parties will need to unite; alone, both sides and indeed the country are vulnerable.

A joint code of conduct formulated for the movement includes a commitment to a peaceful and non-violent struggle. ‘Non-violent’ resistance practiced by the Gandhian movement propounded by Lord Buddha is a total way of life for a section of the Christian church, the Quakers. The concept includes abstention from violence in all forms, but the strength of the practice is derived from an unflinching moral and mental discipline. If the political parties induct some of these values in the movement it will impact on a favourable outcome.

Rana is a CWC member, NC(D)