By Jan Sharma

Hopes for reconciliation between the king and the political parties for an early return to democracy are fading as positions harden on both sides. But the American envoy to Nepal remains optimistic.

Ambassador James Francis Moriarty’s interviews have dominated the Nepalese media for the past fortnight. The most useful, I believe, is the one conducted last Friday and published in today’s edition of Jana Aastha weekly where he reiterates his optimism.

“Yes, I remain very optimistic but obviously I think what we are in right now is probably the most crucial time in Nepal’s modern history,” he told when asked whether he still remains optimistic as he was when the weekly had interviewed him last July.

“If the government and the parties get together, reconcile, figure out the way forward as to how to address the twin questions of return to democracy and dealing with the Maoist insurgency, things will be a lot better and surprisingly quickly.”

“And in some ways the Maoist insurgency is casual. But if the parties and the government do not find the way to reconcile, the Maoist insurgency will again strengthen and will figure out how to use the divisions to its advantage.”

Such optimism is sadly not reflected in the ground realities. The political parties have agreed to launch a movement for the restoration of “total democracy” and have made no secret that they would rewrite the constitution once they return to power.

The political leaders give the impression that the greatest threat to Nepal’s democracy comes not from the Maoist insurgency but from the king and that the best course would be to further curtail his power in the political process.

On the other hand, the government headed by the king has been barring journalists and scholars who do not support the royal takeover from traveling overseas without any reason. Civil liberties remain suspended. Arbitrary arrests are common.

If the king says he will never allow the dissolved House of Representatives to be revived because such an act would be unconstitutional, the political parties say they are not convinced that parliamentary elections are possible because of the security situation.

Such an absence of mutual trust does not augur well for the spirit of national reconciliation between the two legitimate political and players in the country. The prolonged confrontation will only produce unpleasant authoritarian alternatives.

Recent developments indeed indicate that the return to post 4 October 2003 multi-party democratic rule will perhaps never be the same again. But most important, another experiment is fraught with risk of instability and uncertainties.

Reconciliation looks unlikely because of the wide divergence of views. The political parties point out that the constitution does not provide for the king to head the council of ministers, nor is there any provision for the “vice chairmen.”

The appointment of the regional and zonal administrators is rewriting the constitution, as was the royal commission on controlling corruption on top of the commission for the investigation of abuse of authority that got all powers it wanted without the ability to use them.

In the interview, Moriarty also explains the US objective vis-à-vis the Maoist insurgency: it is to force “the vast majority of the Maoists coming into the mainstream and fighting their fight in parliament and standing for elections.”

A Maoist takeover of Nepal would be “horrible, terrible,” he said and explained that while Washington was using a leverage to encourage a move back to democracy, it was also avoiding doing anything that might help the Maoists to make a major breakthrough.

The United States is the largest supplier of arms to Nepal after India. Since 2002, the US has shipped 17,000 M 16 rifles, and 3,000 more are to come.

He dismissed accusations that US arms will help human rights violations by the Royal Nepalese Army: “Obviously a soldier with a 100 year old weapon can commit human rights abuses if he wants but would be less effective against the Maoists.”

So what does the future look like? Ambassador Moriarty quoted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as saying (during consultations with Washington) that “what the king had done would crystallize events.”

That meant processes here would accelerate either for better or for worse. Reconciliation would perhaps be better. The alternative is confrontation.