Nepal’s political crisis continues unabated

The political crisis in Nepal shows no sign of resolution as King Gyanendra’s hope of reshaping the political order is met by thousands of protesters shouting antimonarchy slogans in Katmandu and Maoist guerrillas attack district headquarters in preparation for a final offensive.

Nepal is divided into 75 administrative districts. A district headquarters is an administrative center and generally includes a police station, prison, court, tax office and Royal Nepali Army (RNA) barracks.

Since early April, the five parliamentary parties have organized public protests, saying the country faces a “decisive movement” after King Gyanendra ignored their political demands.

Instead of reconvening the dissolved parliament and forming an all-party government, the king proposed late last month while visiting the western town of Pokhara to hold elections to the House of Representatives by mid-April 2005. On Tuesday, in a Nepali New Year’s message, the king repeated his call for parliamentary elections within a year.

But many observers believe that free, fair elections are impossible in Nepal amid the ongoing civil war. They say free elections for whatever purpose — to elect a new parliament, choose a constituent assembly, or hold a referendum on monarchy-versus-the republic — are not possible unless combat between government security forces and the Maoist insurgents is halted by a temporary truce under a neutral third party, such as the United Nations.

In late March, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appealed to the government and the Maoists to establish peace in Nepal and offered his good offices.

The Maoists were quick to welcome Mr. Annan’s offer but the government declined, saying that Nepal’s problem is internal and that the Nepalese could solve it without third-party intervention. Furthermore, backers of the king argue that because Nepal is located between China and India, third-party mediation is likely to offend Beijing and New Delhi.

Many analysts see this argument as self-serving: If the problems were truly internal, then why does the government seek foreign military aid to fight its own people?

These analysts argue that Nepal’s royal regime would not survive a week without the military assistance coming from Washington, London, and New Delhi; hence the regime will continue to spurn U.N. mediation until these powers stop supplying arms or tell the king to agree to neutral, third-party mediation.

While the leaders of the five-party alliance say their movement is directed only against King Gyanendra’s actions, the rank and file are demanding a republic. Several professional organizations of lawyers, engineers, doctors, university professors, nongovernmental organizations and students have joined the antimonarchy movement.

Maoist top leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who goes by the name Prachanda, backs the five-party alliance in its movement against Gyanendra.

The king promised to be a “constructive monarch” on Oct. 4, 2002, when he dismissed the elected prime minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, calling him incompetent to hold elections within the constitutionally required six months. Eighteen months later under the king’s active leadership, Nepal’s political, economic and social situation has deteriorated to the point that international observers have begun to express concern that Nepal could become a “failed state.”

At the heart of the crises since Oct. 4, 2002, is a struggle among three protagonists — the king, the five parliamentary parties and the Maoist rebels — each trying to unseat the others.

Monarchists blame the parties for mismanagement of the country, paving the way for the Maoist rebellion.

The Maoists, whose aim is to establish a communist republic, have been suggesting a round-table conference, an interim government, and election of a Constituent Assembly as necessary for immediate peace.

Story Continues →