Nepal
in Crisis 2006: Facts
|
The
political context of the crisis in Nepal
|
 |
KATHMANDU,
20 February 2006 (IRIN)
The
1 February 2005 takeover of executive powers by King Gyanendra has led
to a new era of uncertainty in the tiny mountain kingdom of Nepal. The
king now rules the impoverished country of 25 million directly as chairman
of the Council of Ministers.
The
decision by the king to assume direct rule is the latest move by the monarch
to undermine democracy in the country. Parliament was dissolved in May
2002 and elections - planned for November of the same year - remain postponed.
 |
The
king's cabinet consists of administrators and politicians from a pre-democracy
era, including elderly vice-chairmen who helped the king's father establish
a party-less political system in the 1960s.
The
detention of other political leaders has worsened relations between political
parties and the king. King Gyanendra has said he wants to restore democracy,
but the government he heads has censored the press and stifled criticism
by non-governmental organisations.
While
elected local governments in close to 4,000 villages and 75 districts ended
their terms in office in July 2002, a recent attempt by Gyanendra to consolidate
his power by holding municiple elections on 8 February in some 58 urban
areas has proven unsuccessful. |
|
Turnout
was low amid an opposition boycott and a strike ordered by rebels, which
was called off as polls closed.
Washington
criticised the elections, calling them a "hollow attempt to legitimise
power" by the king.
The
political vacuum and lack of elected representatives in government has
helped Maoists gain support among many people who feel robbed of democracy
and view the king as an antiquated authoritarian figure.
As
a result, Nepal remains entangled in a three-way fight between the monarchy,
political parties and Maoists who say they are fighting to establish a
communist state. In November 2005, the Maoists and the parties closed ranks
to oppose the monarchy.
Recent
political developments |
 |
 |
<<
Like many other women, this young girl in Khotang district, joined the
Maoists to try to change the low status of Nepali women. However reports
suggest that gender discrimination persists even with the Maoist movement.
The
king has banked on growing public frustration over the poor performance
of Nepal's political parties, with his direct rule beginning after three
years of consolidating his authority.
Political
groups in Nepal have a history of division and mistrust, and have been
accused of failing to put the interests of the country ahead of their own
ethnic or regional interests. |
|
Nepal's
recent political history unfolded in 1990 after popular protests forced
late King Birendra - King Gyanendra's elder brother - to agree to a constitutional
monarchy in April of that year. A new constitution was drawn-up in November
1990, and general elections held in May the following year.
The
elections returned the Nepali Congress party to power with a simple majority,
but fighting within it caused the government to collapse in mid-1993. Elections
in November 1994 brought in a hung parliament, with the unified Marxist-Leninist
faction of the Communist Party of Nepal becoming the largest party in the
new parliament.
Six
minority and coalition governments of different political hues, combinations
and sizes, ruled Nepal between November 1994 and May 1999, when a third
general election again returned the Nepali Congress party with a workable
majority.
Even
the post-1999 government was unable to provide a stable administration.
Infighting again caused the Nepali Congress to change prime ministers three
times in as many years, before the party split in mid-2002.
Another
incident jolted Nepali politics in 2001. King Birendra, his entire family,
and five royal relatives were killed in a bizarre shootout at the royal
palace on June 1, after which the present King Gyanendra was enthroned.
Frustrated
at what he saw as the failure of the political process, King Gyanendra
began to reel in the parties, starting with the sacking of the elected
prime minister in October 2002.
Parliamentary
parties condemned the royal move as "unconstitutional" and launched street
protests, refusing to join all successive governments except the last one
- dismissed by the king on February 1, 2005 - which represented four parties
and royal nominees.
Maoists
capitalise on political chaos |
 |
 |
<<
The
government and Royal Nepalese Army are sceptical about the Maoist-declared
ceasefire, saying the Maoists are buying time for military training and
the purchase of weapons.
Aided
by political instability and lapses in governance, Nepal's Maoist insurgency,
which began in a handful of districts in February 1996, spread rapidly
to other parts of the country.
Increasing
corruption, bad governance and the inability of governments to meet popular
aspirations, meant the Maoists' manifesto of a communist utopia was easy
to sell to Nepalis who felt cheated by their leaders. |
|
The
Maoists were clever enough to realise that ideology alone would not win
them popular support, and began to take up issues close to the hearts of
most rural Nepalis - exploitation, discrimination, poverty, corruption
and inequality. Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, they brought about an
uneasy stability, though they were intolerant of dissent or even debate.
Although
many Nepalis appeared to agree with the aims of the Maoists - namely an
end to the absolute rule of the monarch and the introduction of a more
equitable society - their methods soon alienated them from much international
and local support.
Kidnappings,
abductions, killings, rapes, disappearances and taxing the peasantry became
widespread, along with a generalised offensive against the state that involved
ambushing security forces and bombing district headquarters. Many civilians
were killed in these attacks.
Then
the notion that the monarchy represented continuity and stability, was
dashed in June 2001 when a drunken Crown Prince Dipendra wiped out the
entire royal family at the Narayanhity Palace, Kathmandu. Prince Gyanendra,
the only direct member of The Former Royal Family who survived, was crowned king
on 4 June.
An
investigation said the prince carried out the killings because of a longstanding
family dispute over the choice of his would-be bride, before turning a
gun on himself.
Rebel
consolidation |
 |
The
Maoists, who by then had expanded their presence to all of Nepal's 75 districts,
saw the royal transition as an opportunity to extend their grip on the
country, and launched a fresh wave of violence.
 |
<<
Teachers have been especially targeted in the conflict, allegedly by both
rebels and the army. Narjit Basnet's hand was chopped off by Maoist rebels.
He still manages to teach the children at a community school.
The
Royal Nepalese Army was deployed to combat them and a state of emergency
declared. The government issued a new anti-terrorism law giving security
forces the authority to detain suspects for up to six months.
Since
February 2005, the king has been subject to heavy international criticism
and pressure to give up his direct rule. Several countries, notably Switzerland
and Denmark, have suspended their aid. The political crisis has led to
very high profile international visits from the UN and the European Troika. |
|
King
Gyanendra has given himself three years to restore peace and security and
restart the democratic process - a huge task in a country where politics
is conditioned by caste, class, poverty, religion and the exclusion of
minorities.
On
17 November 2005, the Maoists and seven of Nepal's largest political parties
announced an understanding to jointly oppose the monarchy. Though the modalities
for implementing it remain unclear, generally the political parties have
agreed to demand the holding of constituent assembly elections ? a key
rebel demand ? and to the writing of a new constitution. For their part,
the Maoists have agreed to join mainstream politics.
The
government and Royal Nepalese Army are sceptical about the Maoist-declared
ceasefire, saying the Maoists are buying time for military training and
the purchase of weapons.
Credit:
Sagar Shrestha/IRIN
The
rebels have also agreed to disarm under UN monitors before any constituent
assembly elections are held.
Some
differences between the Maoists and the political parties remain, however,
unresolved. One is that the rebels want to appoint a new interim government
to hold constituent assembly elections, whereas some of the parties want
the last parliament, dissolved in May 2002, restored to oversee such elections.
The
Maoists extended their ceasefire by a month on 2 December 2005, a move
aimed at supporting protests by the main parties to create pressure on
the government to work towards peace. The government though had made no
peace overtures towards the parliamentary parties or the Maoists by early
December.
The
Maoists have categorically said they will not negotiate with the monarch
until democracy is restored. On 7 December, the king reshuffled the cabinet,
tasking it to hold February's municipal elections.
So
in 2006, Nepal faces two differing scenarios: The country's political parties
want larger democracy restored first, a tension that could lead to increased
confrontation. Alternatively, the outcome could be more peaceful, with
a ceasefire and the front formed by the political parties and the Maoists,
increasing public demand for peace, forcing even the king to make concessions.
Credit
IRIN 2006
Copyright
© UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2006
[
This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]
Integrated
Regional Information Networks (IRIN), part of the UN Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
|