After
three and a half weeks without a functioning government, King Gyanendra has
appointed Sher Bahadur Deuba as the new prime minister on June 2, 2004. This
royal step means a revoke of his putsch of October 4, 2002 when he dismissed the
then elected Deuba government without any constitutional backing (I have
discussed this at length in my contribution
to the Social Science Baha conference of April 2003).
Deuba’s
reinstatement can be seen as a first royal admission that the step of October 4
was wrong and that King Gyanendra is willing to return to a democratic system of
government. But it means everything else than that Nepal’s future is shining
bright again. It is only a very first step, and it has come after great pressure
from the people who have been demonstrating on the streets since April 1, from
the donor countries of development aid, and from national and international
human rights organizations that have vehemently criticized the way in which the
royal system has been crushing oppositional opinions and critics.
One
must also be aware of the fact that there has been no constitutional provision
for the reinstatement of Deuba. The constitution of 1990 has been destroyed by
the royal step of October 4, 2002. There is no parliament that could be
reinstalled and legitimize the new Deuba government, since new elections would
have fallen due in May 2004. One can only argue that King Gyanendra, in
remembrance of article 127 of the 1990 constitution, has removed difficulties to
lead the country back to the way of democracy and people’s sovereignty; and
these difficulties had been caused by himself.
In
recent weeks, the king has tried to participate the five political parties that
have been the instigators of the street demonstrations in search of the new
prime minister. Of course, their common candidate, if they had been able to
nominate one, would have had no more legitimacy than Deuba. They could only have
argued that they represent far more than half of the MPs of the 1999 House of
Representatives. But this house is dissolved since May 2002 and its term has run
out either. Besides, it has been one of the greatest shortcomings of the MPs
since 1991 that they have missed to prove that they have been the
representatives of the people. The lack of democratic structures within all
parties and the corresponding exclusion of greater sections of society,
corruption, nepotism and inconsiderate struggle for power have been the
characteristic feature of party political leaders since 1990. The way in which
the five demonstrating parties have now failed to nominate a common candidate
have once again proved that their leaders have learnt nothing. How can these
leaders claim to be the representatives of the people if they only think of
themselves? It is in the same way an exaggerated self-assessment as in 1990 when
they called the handful of mainly high caste males, that had been nominated by
the party leaders to write the constitution, the representatives of the people.
So,
Deuba’s reinstatement may be the smallest possible measure to revise the royal
mistake of 2002. Power is back in the hand of that person from whom it had been
taken away in an unconstitutional manor. This does not free Deuba from what I
have just said on the party leaders in general. He is one of them, and he has in
the same way been responsible for the many shortcomings and failures of
democratization after 1990. On the contrary, he was the prime minister who
disregarded the Maoist demands in January 1996, he was the prime minister who
failed to lead the first dialogue with the Maoists to a success in 2002, he
declared the state of emergency in November 2002 and mobilized the army, thus
leading to the escalation of death figures, he was the prime minister who
introduced the infamous Terrorist and Destructive Activities (Control and
Punishment) Act (TADA), he was the prime minister who asked the king to dissolve
parliament to save his premiership, and he was the prime minister who dissolved
the elected local bodies and replaced them by government officials in July 2002.
So,
the reinstatement should be used by Deuba to weed out his earlier mistakes. His
tasks are manifold and difficult. He has to prove that the political parties can
solve Nepal’s problems in a better way than an autocratic royal regime, and he
is not allowed to fail. For this, he needs the all-out support of the other
political parties. Those leaders who continue to put personal prejudices and
ambitions higher than national welfare should be outed by the people.
The
solution of the Maoist conflict and the restoration of people’s sovereignty by
electing a new parliament and local bodies are the main tasks of the government.
Both tasks are interrelated and their solution demands a great number of
constitutional, legal, political and social changes. The party political leaders
of the 1990s have not been willing or able to introduce such changes; the Maoist
conflict has only been the most striking consequence of this failure because of
its violent look. Elections are a condition for the restoration of people’s
sovereignty and democracy, but they can only take place if the Maoists and the
army stop their violence. The government must be open to Maoist demands that
challenge the position of the traditional elites. The second round of peace
talks in 2003 was doomed to failure because the Maoists main demand, that for an
elected constitutional assembly, was supposed to put the interests of the
traditional elites into danger with the institution of monarchy at its apex.
Padma
Ratna Tuladhar has recently hinted that the Maoists may even drop this last
fundamental demand. This means that chances for a renewed dialogue could be
better than in 2003. But everybody should be aware that the discussion will not
be about the Maoists accepting the status quo and entering the existing main
stream of party politics. Nepal must use this chance and introduce fundamental
changes that are necessary to prevent conflicts like the Maoist one in the
future. A better general education and a more or less well formulated guarantee
of fundamental rights by the constitution has contributed to a growing awareness
among sections of society that are still non-included or disadvantaged. These
changes must start in the mind and thinking of the elites that have to introduce
them, and they must be reflected by the constitution and subordinate laws.
Little has been done in this respect after 1990 so far.
Such
changes will have to deal with the definition of the state, with the limitation
and control of powers, including royal powers, with the control and command of
the army that has to be in the hands of the democratically elected government
and that has to be controlled by parliament, with the democratization of the
structures and the organization of the political parties, with the organization
and working style of the two houses of parliament. For example, it will be
necessary to transform the National Assembly into an organ that represents all
groups of society. The election system has also to be renovated. It cannot be
called democratic if a party gains almost two thirds of the seats in parliament
with only about one third of the votes; this is not representative democracy
since two thirds do not want this party in government.
The
exclusion of greater sections of society has been part of royal politics ever
since Prithvinarayan Shah started to unite the country some 250 years ago. A
sustainable solution of the ongoing conflict will not be possible without
providing special advantages to deliberately non-participated sections of
society, like women, Dalits, ethnic groups and Madheshi. Special regard will
have to be laid to regions that have been more or less disregarded in the past.
The languages and cultures of the different ethnic groups must get the same
respect and value as the Nepali language and the culture of the currently ruling
elites. The latter have to be broken up in every respect; ethnicity, gender or
regional origin should not be of any importance for becoming a member of such
elites.
These
have only been a few arguments I have thrown into discussion. Politicians like
to talk words they don’t mean. But talking without following actions is
useless. Let’s hope that Sher Bahadur Deuba, the other party leaders, King
Gyanendra as well as the Maoists finally wake up and avert further harm from
this lovely country and her citizens.
Karl-Heinz
Krämer
South Asia Institute
University of Heidelberg