Republic now

The Himalayan country turns from a kingdom into a federal democratic republic, and the transition has been relatively smooth.

in Kathmandu

ON May 28, the first sitting of the newly elected Constituent Assembly voted resoundingly 560 against 4 in favour of a republic. The move came almost 13 years after the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) began a war to abolish the monarchy, seven years since the royal massacre destroyed the traditional legitimacy of kingship, and barely three years after the former King, Gyanendra Shah, took over absolute power through a coup.

The Peoples Movement of April 2006 changed the countrys politics. It put an end to the Palaces political ambitions, consolidated a coalition of mainstream political parties and the Maoists, and paved the way for a peace process and Constituent Assembly elections. The declaration of the republic was a landmark step in this historic process of political transformation under way in the erstwhile Hindu state.

Monarchy had been under suspension for all practical purposes since the promulgation of the interim Constitution in January last year. The Prime Minister had been performing the functions of the head of state and was also discharging the cultural duties of the monarch. But the King was in the Palace; he had comprehensive army security; the Palace had made attempts to derail the peace process; and there were doubts if the political class would ever be able to get rid of the institution completely.

The doubts have been put to rest. The vote was a resounding mandate against monarchy. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) at the forefront of the countrys republicanism emerged as the single largest party. The Nepali Congress (N.C.) and the CPN (Unified Marxist Leninist) had also committed themselves to a republic. The royalist parties did not win even a single seat in the direct elections.

The outcome of the Constituent Assembly meeting was therefore a foregone conclusion. Nepal became a republic on the basis of a political consensus that spans party, ethnic, and regional lines.

The Baneshwor area in Nepals capital was crowded on May 28. Though the police had cordoned off the boundaries of the International Convention Centre (ICC), the venue of the first meeting of Constituent Assembly, its vicinity was swarming with people. Processions of all parties, particularly the CPN (Maoist), congregated outside the centre. There was revelry all around. And there was a common cry Ganatantra Nepal Zindabad or Long Live the Republic.

As people across the country waited patiently outside the venue, listening to radio, or glued to television sets the meeting, originally scheduled for 11 a.m., commenced at 9-30 p.m. Inside the Assembly, the most inclusive and representative one in Nepals history, it was colourful, with members dressed in their traditional attires and speaking their own languages.

The oldest member of the house, K. B. Gurung, took the chair and started the proceedings. A frail-looking Girija Prasad Koirala made short introductory remarks. Such a day comes only once in an era. My dream has come true today. We need to continue the politics of consensus and trust. A letter of greetings from Indias Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee was read out by the Chair.

Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula tabled the resolution that formally declared Nepal a federal democratic republic, abolished the monarchy made the King a commoner, asked the King to vacate the palace in 15 days, and declared that the Narayanhiti Palace would be converted into a museum. The resolution won the approval of the House, bringing an end to the 240-year-old Shah dynasty.

A few days before the Assembly met, when asked if the King would abide by the decision, Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai, N.C. leader Shekhar Koirala and Madhesi leader Upendra Yadav in separate interviews to Frontline said: He has no choice. With the government having sent a letter to Gyanendra Shah to vacate the Palace, the King indeed has no choice. It is now clear that he will not try to provoke a confrontation and will instead leave for his private residence north of the Palace, Nirmal Niwas, his home as prince until the 2001 massacre. While all the palaces have been nationalised and the late King Birendras properties put in a trust, Gyanendras private business interests a stake in Kathmandus Soaltee Hotel, Surya Nepal (a collaboration with ITC), and some tea estates will not be touched.

The possibility of a conservative backlash is remote. While royalists will relish contradictions and differences between various political parties and the Maoists, their ability to derail the process is very limited. The only danger is from Hindu right-wing forces. Yogi Adityanath of Gorakhpur, Ashok Singhal of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, royal aide General Bharat Kesari Simha and others held a meeting at Balrampur in Uttar Pradesh in April and stressed they would continue to fight for a Hindu monarchy and Hindu rashtra. The Hindutva forces may try to capitalise on fears in parts of the Terai plains that a secular republic will be anti-Hindu. But their limited organisational strength inside Nepal, complete marginalisation from mainstream politics, and absence of any strong leaders means they cannot do much. It looks like the republic is here to stay.

The gradual abolition of the monarchy the Kings powers were being clipped step by step in the two years has meant that the change has been relatively smooth. The ad hoc republic of the past two years has made the newly declared official republic stronger. The monarchy was more a symbol of divisiveness than one of national unity as King Gyanendras spin-masters tried to portray. As political consciousness grew, people realised that the Palace was the fountain of multiple levels of discrimination and oppression. Gyanendra himself turned out to be the biggest help to republican forces by making one blunder after another.

But the institution did represent, for some, a certain notion of nationalism. This was a narrow, hill-centric, ethnicity-based notion of exclusivist citizenship. With the collapse of the monarchy, this version of nationalism has collapsed as well. This makes the task of the Constituent Assembly that much more urgent and important. It will now have to carve out a more political, inclusive, territorial idea of citizenship. The era of treating people like subjects is over.

The nation-building process will take time. In the short-term, the political parties and the Maoists will have to strike a deal on government formation, power-sharing, and the role and responsibilities of the new head of state, the President.

The almost 12-hour delay in the initiation of House proceedings on May 28 owing to a deadlock in the negotiations primarily between the N.C. and the UML on one side and the Maoists on the other about the powers and mode of election of the President, is indicative of bottlenecks in the future. On the streets, the excitement of the morning had given way to restlessness and fearful anticipation. Hence the political leaders decided, late in the evening, to push contentious issues for discussions later and declare the republic that day.

Over the past few weeks, two issues have taken centre stage. The first is that of amending the Constitution a two-thirds majority is needed at present to remove a government. The N.C., the UML and the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum have demanded that this requirement be brought down to a simple majority. They claim that the democratic credentials of the Maoists are still in doubt, and, to prove their point, cite instances of intimidation and continued killings by the former rebels. They fear that once the Maoists take over the reins of government, it will be difficult to dislodge them.

The Maoists have rejected this demand outright, making it clear that a change in the rules of the game is not acceptable to them. They argue that the two-thirds-majority clause was incorporated keeping in mind the need for a consensus on all issues; an amendment will lead to constant instability with all parties devising ways to bring down the government. Maoist leaders make it clear that they have won through democratic processes, and if anyone is acting against the spirit of democracy and the mandate of the people, it is the other parties.

The second contentious issue is that of creating a post of President. The interim Constitution does not stipulate any such provision. But the N.C. and the UML have been arguing that with the abolition of the monarchy, there is the need for a formal head of state. Even though they assert that this can be a purely ceremonial position, the underlying motive is to create a balancing force which will have command of the Army and emergency powers to keep the Maoist head of government under check. For the N.C., the natural candidate for such a position is Girija Prasad Koirala. The Army is also understood to be pushing for such a position, with a non-Maoist at the helm.

The Maoists, for their part, initially argued that the present system, where the Prime Minister combines the responsibilities of the head of state and government, should continue. They claimed that creating two centres of power would lead to frequent tension and hamper the constitution-writing exercise. However, the Maoists have now agreed to a ceremonial President, with the caveat that the person will have to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

But the former rebels have claimed they are entitled to both the posts of President and Prime Minister. At a rally to celebrate the republic, Prachanda thundered: We will not let losers become Presidents. We have more seats than the N.C. and the UML combined. How can they claim an equal power-sharing arrangement? The King made mistakes and that is why we have a republic. If the parties make such mistakes and block our ascent to power, a peoples republic is near. The Maoists are unwilling to give the post to Koirala as they feel that he will not be merely ceremonial and would try to push his agenda. The former rebels warn that if any attempt is made to deprive them of their rightful posts, they would sit out of government.

The other issue, linked with the amendment and the presidency, which the N.C., the UML and the MJF have to grapple with in the coming weeks, is whether they will join the government. The UML central committee has decided that the party should stay out, claiming that the mandate of the people is not in favour of them. There is pressure on the N.C. leadership from the rank and file to focus on organisation building and let the Maoists burn their hands trying to govern.

The MJF was successful in the elections by espousing an anti-Kathmandu agenda in the Terai plains. There are differences within the party about joining the government; there is a feeling that staying out and acting like the Opposition would be more beneficial for it politically. The Maoists have said the most reasonable approach is to have a Maoist-led government with other parties joining in as junior partners.

Once the key political actors get these issues out of the way, they will have to focus on the twin challenges of governance fuel and food prices are out of control while the law and order situation is worrisome and constitution writing.

With the common enemy, the King, out of the way, there will be additional challenges in terms of maintaining working inter-party and intra-party relationships. The Maoist-Army and the Maoist-bureaucracy relations will be critical. Issues such as federalism and land will be hotly discussed. Political parties will be tempted to take to the streets if their issues are not addressed in the Constituent Assembly. The Maoist leadership will find it difficult to control their violence-prone cadre. The trouble in the Terai has the potential to flare up again with multiple armed groups still operating. Nepal will hence continue to live in interesting times.