Guest Column
By Jan Sharma
The multi-layered power struggle in Nepal intensifies with the announcement of the dates for municipal elections on February 8 and promises to have parliamentary elections by mid-April 2007. But the prospects for returning to the constitutional process are grim.
The developments have failed to draw spontaneous applause from key domestic and extraneous players, and the mood remains subdued due to a suspecting public, reluctant political parties, opportunistic civil society and India-led interventionist powers.
Ordinary Nepalis suspect the multi-layered power struggle has nothing to do with their economic and social well-being. All key political players are perceived to have their own vested interest to appease extraneous players to consolidate their domestic power base.
The credibility of the political parties, supposed to be the vehicles of popular will, has eroded so significantly that they have not even been able to produce a leadership committed to smooth transfer of power and return to democracy and stability.
Instead, they have already “boycotted, rejected and denounced” elections – municipal as well as parliamentary – even before they are formally announced. Some are ahead of times to demand a constituent assembly that would further worsen the crisis.
Both the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML claim to have a large public following but for strange reasons have decided to boycott the vote designed to transfer power to elected representatives, and thus help revive the constitutional process.
While poll boycott undermines their commitment to democracy, elections would have no credibility unless major political parties participate in the exercise provided they are held in a free and fair manner.
In his customary Vijaya Dashami message last Wednesday, King Gyanendra urged “everyone with faith in multiparty democracy” to participate in the municipal elections “to honour the collective wisdom of all enfranchised Nepalis.”
He hoped parliamentary elections would be held “by further strengthening the favourable environment created with the holding of the municipal elections”, and called on the international community to “actively assist” in making polls “dignified, free, and fair.”
The King’s consistent qualification of democracy with the term “meaningful” has obviously made the political parties and a section of the civil society suspicious of his real intents. Some even translate it as an attempt to revive absolute monarchy.
With credible and free elections, the King will not only prove such assertions wrong but also establish his honesty to his February 1 commitment to handover power to the elected representatives within three years.
Government functionaries have been insisting that elections will go ahead even if some political parties boycott or refuse to participate. Such hostile tone, combined with the draconian ordinance to curb media freedom, makes the intent suspect.
The prospects for a return to the constitutional process, therefore, remain doubtful. No one expected the 1990 Constitution to operate in normal circumstances because it was the product of a compromise between the King and political parties backed by India.