Is Nepal Ready for a Republic?

.There is no doubt that people have demanded change and it must be delivered. While implementing the changes, let’s hope the leaders will not make any other blunders and force the country into yet another crisis. The CA results have clearly favoured the Maoists. NC and UML cannot blame anyone but themselves for their failure. It was their strategic and analytical failure to reckon with the Maoists as a democratic force. In less than two years, Nepali leaders were convinced that the Maoist guerrillas had made a U turn from the ‘Shining Path’ to the ‘Path of Nirvana’. Now monks have started to hear the philosophical rhetoric about Buddhism from Prachanda & Co. What a shame. 

I do not agree that the Nepali people actually know the difference between a CA Election and a Parliamentary Election. But I expect these are known to the national leaders. . CA election was not an election to make a government. Right from the beginning of the 12-point understanding, governments are to be formed by consensus. Though it’s a real pity that only eight parties are involved in this consensus and the rest of the parties are left behind. SPAM is the unofficial authoritarian regime in Nepal. So, why are the Maoists so desperate to form a government on their own? What do they mean by the danger of ‘power polarisation’ if high profile portfolios (President, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Home Minister etc) are shared? They do not have the authority to form the government on their own and they should be watched carefully for years to come. Their hands are still red and the political dramas are not over yet. However, they should be allowed to lead the next government. 

The country is only a week away from the first sitting of the CA. And if parties followed their election promises, we are only a week away to becoming the newest republic in the world. The biggest question at this time is: DO WE REALLY NEED TO BE A REPUBLIC? I do not think there is a straight forward answer. If there is, why is there so much confusion even after getting a mandate from the people? None of the major political parties backed the monarchy while going to the CA election. The Maoists, who promised to abolish the monarchy right from the beginning of their peoples war, and in the recent past, withdrew from the government to pressure for a republic in the interim constitution. But, they are the first party to propose a space for the monarchy. So, it is not as simple as they speak or promise. And if we look at it globally, countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are still debating on republican issues. As a student of political science, I do believe politics is a science, where you need a balance of power to run a country or a party or a community. I still see monarchy as an institution, and as a power in Nepal. We have 240 long years of royal history. Kings only represent an institution. We cannot blame the institution if some representatives are bad. Consider the monarchy, NC, UML, MJF, RPP, Maoists etc. Who is good? We have to pick someone good from the worst. If we start to judge the institution with just a few rulers, that may not be ‘fair dinkum’ for the institution. And further more, we are talking about millions of people who are connected to this institution by emotion. Everybody should be heard in an inclusive democracy. The country cannot provoke or isolate any marginalised people. The Maoists know these things better than anyone else because they know their history and rise to power. Having said that, the bad royals should learn lessons from history and appropriate action needs to be taken against them. The country neither needs Gyanendra nor Paras, but it needs the institution. The country should look for the best avenue to overcome this crisis. A redefined model of monarchy should be activated in Nepal. Minimum ceremonial and cultural powers with limited allowance should be given to the monarch. CA debates should go on to impose new powers and restrictions to the Institution. A provision for abolishing monarchy by a referendum should be secured in the new constitution. 

Declaring a republic may not sound like a gigantic step at this stage but to face the consequences after the declaration are the prime challenges. Leaders have repeatedly proved that they work for the day but not for the future. Who will be responsible if, by declaring a republic, the country is plunged into another chaos? Is monarchy alone responsible for all failures? The time has come to make a sensible decision. Even if monarchy has to go, it has to go through a transition. If we look back from BS 2007 to today, the monarchy’s power has shifted a lot. They are losing than gaining. Their desire for more has made them losers. So, it is trouble-free for the people and the CA to make them even weaker. This is how people should be punished in politics, cutting the power and narrowing the space to move; if we believe in democracy. Abolishing the monarchy by a simple majority of votes in the first CA sitting is not a democratic exercise, whereas, in the same interim constitution, to change a government we need a two third majority. As long as politicians recognise people as FORCE rather than POWER, the country cannot move forward and we cannot expect actions and decisions that are in the national interest. Aggressive and premature action filled with vengeance may throw the country into long term volatility and political catastrophe. (The author is currently a student of political science in Canberra, Australia)