The political dance floor in Nepal is getting crowded. A WAR Report’s Editor’s Choice of November 30, 2005, noted: “Nepali civilians have seen quite a political dance since early September 2005. Vying for their attention (if not affection) is the reigning monarchy of King Gyanendra (see photo above), the Maoist rebellion led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal also known as Prachanda (“the fierce one”) (see photo below), and a coalition of the seven largest political parties led by the Nepali Congress party.” Since January 2006, a proverbial bandleader has begun refining both the tune and tempo of the dance, and a chaperone has stepped into the spotlight. Nepal’s Supreme Court made two significant decisions in late 2005, disrupting the rhythm of both the King and the Maoists and jibing, at least minimally, with the beat of the political parties. The chaperone is an increasingly vocal United States , which has openly warned against the political parties dancing too closely with the heavily-armed Maoists. Local election results in February confirmed the civilian population is certainly not dancing with the regime, but whether their reluctance to rumba is out of fear of the rebels or opposition to King Gyanendra’s authoritarian style is not yet clear.
In mid-February 2006, the Supreme Court stepped forward and ruled that the establishment and operations of the Royal Commission for Corruption Control were unconstitutional. The anticorruption body had been established by the King shortly after he dissolved Parliament and assumed authoritarian control in February 2005. The six-member anticorruption body was set up using emergency provisions of the constitution and continued to operate under a royal decree even after the state of emergency was lifted in April. The laudably named Commission was, in fact, a tool used by the King to harass and jail his political opponents and critics while he deployed the Royal Nepalese Army against the Maoist rebels. The Supreme Court’s decision had the immediate effect of dissolving the Commission and freeing dismissed Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba as well as jailed former Minister for Physical Planning and Works Prakash Man Singh among hundreds of others. In mid-March, the Supreme Court made a similar decision against the incarceration of Pradeep Giri and Bimalendra Nidhi of the Nepali Congress Democratic held variously under trumped up charges outside the scope of the previously dissolved anticorruption commission. Interestingly, as if to affirm its position against the rebels, on March 24, the Supreme Court upheld the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Control and Punishment) Ordinance of 2005 that enables the government to utilize preventive detention for up to a year without prosecution or trial for individuals posing a significant threat. The net effect of these new tunes was to strengthen the political parties vis-?-vis the King and supported at least one of the King’s significant tools against the Maoists, perhaps driving a wedge between the continuing feared alliance of the Maoists and political parties.
American diplomats, too, are anxious to split the rather bizarre pairing of heavily-armed militants and bumbling, ineffective, and often corrupt politicians. On February 15, 2006, US Ambassador to Nepal James Moriarty stated, “The United States views the uneasy partnership between the parties and the Maoists as wrongheaded. This stark scenario leaves the parties, and the people, defenseless against ideological partners long used to settling arguments with a gun.” Nonetheless, the US is not sympathetic to the King’s heavy footedness. Moriarty continued, “If the king and his government opt for greater repression their attempts will ultimately fail and Nepal will suffer greater misery and bloodshed.” The US Ambassador’s statement reinforces its actions, which have been to cut off military and diplomatic support since the King dismissed the government in February 2005.
Throughout the events this winter, politicians have remained comparatively quiet, hoping perhaps to gain sympathy from the wider population as an eligible partner. The people do not yet appear to be ready for the next tune, however. In late March 2006, the rebels launched intimidating blockades, stifling the economy leading up to a massive general strike proposed by the political parties for April 6, 2006. However, none of the political rallies of 2005 compare in size, scope, or frequency of the overwhelming spontaneous eruption of public support in the early 1990s that ultimately forced Gyanendra’s predecessor, King Birendra , to institute the democratic reforms and institutions upon which the recent decisions of the Supreme Court have been based. It seems that the Nepali people are beginning to tap their feet to the new tunes of the bandleader but are still acting as wallflowers waiting for an eligible partner to embrace the music and take them out to the floor. International support for the Court and political parties may finally prompt the King to reopen a dialogue with the political class and ultimately isolate the Maoists.
