|
From "Democrazy" to Blackout
The Situation in Nepal
Atul Pokharel
For nearly a week, beginning Feb. 1, 2005, Nepal, a democracy since 1990, disappeared from the communications landscape—-no telephones, no internet, no newspapers, no radio, no flights, nothing. It was preceded by a Royal Proclamation in which the King sacked the government and assumed direct rule, and then imposed a suspension of some basic fundamental rights until further notice—-freedom of speech and assembly were two such. From what those of us abroad heard, political leaders had been jailed and the army had been deployed in the streets to maintain order. Whether this was true, none of us knew.
It was the second time in twice as many years that the King had sacked the government, but it was the first time that he had closed off Nepal completely from the rest of the world. The nature of the development itself was not surprising in light of Nepal's circumstances, although the method of isolation was indeed spectacular.
The main challenges facing Nepal when public agitation ended decades of monarchial rule with multiparty democracy in 1990 were related to development and the “strengthening of democracy.” However, political traditions carried over and the habit of depending on an all powerful leader persisted. A sorely neglected aspect of the strengthening process was education—-the rate at which citizens were taught about their roles in this new political system in which they were to have power was tragically slow. This was to be highlighted by two things: the impressive speed at which a well organized Maoist revolt spread throughout the countryside, a rebellion that systematically based itself on propaganda and persistent indoctrination of children, marginalized ethnic groups and women, and enforced itself through violence and fear; and the strength with which many of the remaining Nepalese citizens welcomed the suspension of democracy.
“Democrazy”
In the span of ten years, democracy had been given a nickname in Nepal: “Democrazy.” The many reasons for this included unbearable corruption in nearly every dealing with the government, infighting within political parties, a raw struggle for power that resulted in a new government nearly every year, the entrenched nature of aging political leaders (themselves considered corrupt), and a vibrant press which found itself naturally turning more and more towards the failures of leaders and, as people came to believe, democracy itself. Political leaders became synonymous with the multiparty democratic system. And the democratic system became synonymous with chaos.
There had been rumblings from the very beginning against the democratic system from those traditionally loyal to the King and also from extreme Leftist groups, which had immediately declared their intention to start a violent “peoples war.” The first group is now in power, and the second group evolved into the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), or Maoists for short, and became the main reason that the first could grab power.
The Maoist Problem
Since 1996, when the “peoples war” was officially declared, the Maoists have gained influence over all of the Nepalese countryside in the manner that a couple of landmines can take over a wide expanse. Their guerilla tactics proved precise and very useful against an unorganized police force accustomed to small-scale, unorganized domestic violence. It was only a matter of time before the Royal Nepalese Army, a well-equipped and well-trained force (usually used for international peacekeeping), became involved. It is worth noting here that even though the King had become a constitutional figurehead, the military would likely have remained fiercely loyal to the King after 1990.
In 2001, The Royal Nepalese Army began its own offensive. In subsequent years, it received significantly more aid from foreign governments (development projects, the traditional reason for foreign aid, naturally suffered), became more modern and also more powerful. However, this mobilization only happened five years after war had been declared by the Maoists and it may already have been impossible for the army to turn the tables convincingly. Many still wonder why this mobilization took so long. Nevertheless, the battle began.
Stalemate
Without any clear signs of victory for the next four years, and in the face of the increasing violence and influence of the Maoists, three important trends emerged. First, foreign governments—-India, United States, and the UK in particular, who believed in a military solution, or felt that enough force could force the Maoists to talk—-gave more military aid to Nepal and thus made the new King, who had promised to be more active, stronger. Second, political parties increasingly blamed each other, eroding what credibility they had and for this reason failed to make any headway. Third, Nepalese citizens began to lose confidence and hope in the ability of their elected government to take care of them. By the time the King took over, the Maoist presence had become so strong in some areas that systematic extortion had evolved into an organized tax system, and roadblocks into tollbooths. Furthermore, the central demand made of the government, by even the King himself, had now become peace and security. Peace talks with the Maoists had been tried in the past, some were even very high profile talks with rebel leaders coming out into the open, but none had come to anything more than temporary ceasefires and significant gains militarily for the Maoists who used this lull to rearm. Things were at a stalemate.
The King played his cards well. On assuming power he demanded that the Maoists either lay down arms and talk, or face unprecedented force. Since corruption was rampant, and many top political leaders were publicly held to be corrupt, he formed a royal commission with the powers of a court to investigate past corruption. The military proofread newspapers before going to press. All major politicians were placed under house arrest and public expressions of dissent completely prevented so that political parties who had taken to the streets the last time around could no longer cause any hindrance. Furthermore, even those who believed in democracy in Nepal were divided about whether the King did the right thing. Internationally, opinion was also divided.
International Opinion
Although instinctually one thinks of China when Maoists are mentioned, China declared the Nepalese group imposters at the outset. The bulk of support for Nepal’s flavor came from similar separatist groups in Northeast India, although it modeled itself after the Shining Path in Peru. Therefore, once the King simplified the game from three players to two and reduced the urgent issues from many to one, China preferred not to oppose the King, and India—-although it publicly condemned the King’s actions, admitted to having been left in the dark, and aligned itself with the now insignificant political parties—-found itself implicitly having to oppose the Maoists for fear that its own separatist movements in the region might flare up. The US has demanded immediate restoration of democracy, the UK and EU have expressed similar sentiments, as has India but international opinion remains divided on whether or not to discontinue, and not merely suspend, aid to a country whose military they strengthened and for which about 25% of total expenditures depends on foreign aid. This may be the only way to exert influence on the King, but it could lead to disaster by weakening the military and thereby providing the Maoists the opportunity to turn Nepal into a Communist Republic, or alternatively cause the King to turn to other sources for military aid.
Outcomes
Nevertheless, the King's actions may have many positive outcomes if one believes that Nepal will eventually have a democracy. The powerlessness felt by those abroad resulted in a reality check and groups formed such as the Nepal Democracy Network (www.nepaldemocracy.net) to come together and discuss what happened and what to do next. A serious and detached discussion on democracy and its successes as well as failings had never taken place in Nepal and this has emerged as an opportune moment with distance forced upon the participants. This can only lead to a finer-tuned notion of democracy for Nepal in the future. It also promises to bring together, out of necessity, those who may become involved in Nepal's future but who are now scattered throughout the world and engage them in debate and serious thought.
For those in Nepal, the streets are not only safe but clean. Although local calls are unpredictable, international calls are mostly open and Internet access has been restored. But the most impressive change may be that Government offices have become efficient to a heretofore unknown extent, the military having been posted at each one, a timetable of processing times for services posted to the public, and clients prevented from initiating any physical contact with the officials behind the desks. As a friend related to me on the phone, processes that would take weeks and twice the official fee now happen in a matter of hours and without any bribes. Even in departments such as customs, which are treasure chests for bureaucrats, this new efficiency seems to be pervasive. This taste for efficiency will likely linger into future governments.
Lastly, any democratic system that emerges from this will try its best to remove the constitutional clauses giving the King emergency power, and subsequently reduce the King’s power significantly, or turn Nepal into a republic and thereby prevent such an event in future.
The Future
It remains to be seen where this will take Nepal, and there has always been too much going on behind the scenes in Nepalese politics to even venture a guess. This is even more the case now that the press has been silenced and everyone, including the citizens themselves, left to their pre-1990 roles as political voyeurs. Much depends on how those now isolated from events, and who wish to become involved in the future, will use this opportunity.
Atul is a Senior majoring in Mathematics.
|
