By Jan Sharma

Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy thoroughly disappoint me. This is not to question their integrity and their deep and sincere commitment to an independent, sovereign, strong, prosperous, and democratic Nepal .

Senator Leahy supports “a political process that is open, transparent, inclusive and accountable to the people.” Few in Nepal would disagree.

Democracy, then says Leahy, “is the only viable alternative, and we should make it clear that we unequivocally reject the King’s imperial ambitions, that the days of an active monarchy are over, and that we support the political parties.”

The restoration of democracy in Nepal , argues Senator Daschle, is the only way to achieve progress and peace. The people of the United States and other friends in the international community stand ready and willing to help in this critical effort, he pledged.

“It is incumbent upon the King, given his stature, to call upon the political parties to become partners in a dialogue to restore democracy and peace to Nepal and make this a priority of his government,” he concludes.

Even President George W Bush and Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh agree that it is going to be critical for King Gyanendra to “restore civil liberties” as soon as possible. In practical terms, this means political parties work together with the King.

Recent developments suggest it is easier said than done. The political leaders have publicly ruled out any reconciliation with the King. They have taken a “line of confrontation” and speak the language of provocation.

“What has the monarchy given to Nepal in the 235 years of its political history except poverty, injustice and oppression?” claimed Madhav Kumar Nepal, general secretary of the CPN-UML.

He described monarchy as the “main stumbling block” for the country’s progress, and threatened, “The alliance of the seven parties will end the vestiges of despotisms.” Others are calling names.

Such threats marginalize moderate leadership all across parties, damage any remaining prospect of reconciliation, and enhance the rise of a despot to address the threats.

The seven-party alliance itself is a curious mix. All except two are communist parties. Anyone familiar with their party literature and following their party debates will have little doubt on their ultimate goal of establishing “the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Except Nepali Congress, none of them has fully supported the multi-party political dispensation, giving only “qualified support” which is clearly tactical.

It is hard to believe how a group committed to political freedom and private property can work together with one that wants one party rule with no freedom and private property. Besides, each party has the rule of multiple personality cults and internal divisions.

Or have the Nepali Congress and its president-for-life Girija Prasad Koirala changed their spots? How can Koirala be friend of communists, who started digging his political grave the same day he was inaugurated in office in May 1991?

Zbigniew Brzezinski describes the failure of communism all over the world as “The Grand Failure.”

“By the next century,” Brzezinski once wrote, “communism’s irreversible historical decline will have made its practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human condition.”

“Prospering only where it abandons its internal substance even while retaining some of its external labels, communism will be remembered largely as the twentieth century’s most extraordinary political and intellectual aberration.”

As for the current crisis, there is still hope. The US envoy in Nepal, James F Moriarty, suggested the other day in Biratnagar that political parties should engage in dialogue on the proposed local elections for an early return to democracy.

Municipal elections open opportunities for political parties to engage in issue-based politics by formulating clear-cut policy positions on ensuring free and fair elections. It has been long since the parties ceased to be instruments of interest articulation.

The continued indifference and apathy of political parties on issues that affect the lives of the ordinary people will ultimately harm democracy. This apathy was one of the several reasons why not a single ordinary Nepali protested the February 1 royal takeover.

This does not mean that the Nepali people want the King to ban political parties. They support the King’s shock therapy. But reforms in the culture of political party are therefore equally critical for democracy.

Except for the CPN-UML– which is ironic– and Nepali Congress; all political parties are run by non-elected tyrants. Unless they establish internal democracy, transparency and accountability, as Senator Daschle suggests, return to democracy will be a farce.