The Jana Andolan 2006 is unique in many respects. The newness of the movement lies in its spontaneity and broadness, as it has now turned out to be a movement of all sections of the society. In 1990, the people’s movement was limited to a few towns of the Kathmandu Valley and outside and had reached its peak only after 49 days of the movement. This time, to the great surprise of the political forces behind the movement and others, the movement soon spread like a wildfire covering the length and breadth of the country.

Some principal reasons responsible for igniting the movement are: King Gyanendra’s project of turning the wheel of political history into absolute monarchy; the 12-point understanding reached between the seven-party alliance and the Maoists; formation of a broad coalition for establishing democracy; and point of no-return situation faced by the parties due to the King’s stubbornness. The strong disapproval of the royal move by the international community at large has also provided an impetus to the movement.

The calculation of the King that he can set his political agenda on the grounds of the loss of credibility of political parties has backfired due to the dismal performance of his own direct rule. The image of the royal regime was so grotesque that all thought of the revival of the post-1960 regime in the garb of multiparty system. King Gyanendra seemed to be so naïve that he didn’t even understand the political awareness created by the democratic exercises and the emergence of professional groups committed to freedom and democracy. Since the King has neither mobilisation ideology nor the vision of taking the country into the progressive path of development, the old idioms and strategies of divide and rule with the help of sycophants and courtiers, whose objective is only to please the master for self-aggrandisement, could not project a new image.

The King’s men were no other than the diehard former panchas or political renegades. Such image plus the zero-level delivery of the regime shored up by the sheer force made people more disillusioned with it. People who had already developed the taste of freedom could not be silenced by the empty promises made by the King for peace and democracy. End of “terrorism” by the use of force could not convince the enlightened people because solution to the present crisis is political. How could a mon-arch whose orientation and style is anti-democracy settle the present crisis without taking the popular upsurge into account?

The 12-point understanding gave a new hope to the people that the ongoing violence could be brought to an end by bringing the Maoists into the democratic mainstream. It means that the monarchy has no role to play in deciding the course of future Nepali democratic politics based on popular sovereignty. Realising that the 1990 Constitution was increasingly becoming irrelevant to address the emerging trends, political forces and others have come to the conclusion that the King can no longer be considered as a player because monarchy and democracy seem to be antithetical to each other in the given context. Instead of playing a constructive role in helping develop the democratic process, the King used the weaknesses of the parties and the Maoist insurgency as an excuse to restore monarchical power. When the King failed to fulfil his promises he had made while dismantling the constitutional order one after another, the political parties, despite being discredited for the time being, continued to blaze the trail of democracy and freedom. Supported by the civil society and professionals, the parties came to realise the emergent political realities of the country and went on to forge an understanding with the Maoists for thwarting the rising ambition of the monarch. Now the country is undergoing the trauma of yet another change — Jan Andolan — that in all probability is likely to be qualitatively different from most of the changes of the past.

The parties-Maoist understanding has accepted the need of coalitional politics because any single party or leader cannot steer the course of a movement or of the future political developments. As the coalition building is a positive development in the emerging trends of Nepali politics, the political parties have understood the significance of the Maoist change of heart when the latter accept the competitive multiparty democracy. The Maoist emergence as a factor in Nepali politics has prompted the parties to forge an understanding for both taking the anti-King movement to its height as well as for managing and consolidating democracy in its aftermath. So a Maoist leader’s assertion that both the seven-party alliance and the Maoist cooperation for developing a peaceful movement are mutually exclusive to each other is logical. Thus, given the 12-point understanding and the stubborn attitude displayed by the King that he is not at all concerned about the transfer of actual power to the people, the King seems to be the greatest loser.

Prof Baral is executive chairman, NCCS