Nasser Amin
Thailand’s coup has hit close to home in Nepal’s capital. Here, a hereditary monarch, who like his South-east Asian counterpart claims to be the incarnation of a god, sits in his palace brooding -- or Internet gambling, depending on the rumours -- after being forced to return power to the people in April, following three weeks of swelling street protests.
But few would grant King Gyanendra the unwavering support that Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who has fully endorsed the government takeover, enjoys from both his armed forces and the general public.
Nepali Prime Minister Girija Koirala was quick to dismiss the possibility that the army would join with King Gyanendra in a replay of the ‘royal coup’ of Feb. 1, 2005. “Nepal now has (people’s sovereignty). I can never believe such a thing could happen,” Koirala, who leads the Nepali Congress Party, told journalists Wednesday.
But his reluctant partner in the seven-party alliance (SPA), which even more hesitantly joined hands with then outlawed Maoist rebels late in 2005 to oust the king, said the slow pace of reform set by Koirala’s government makes such an act possible. “Another military coup cannot be ruled out in Nepal just like in Thailand if the present transitional period continues for a long time,” said Madhav Kumar Nepal of the moderate United Marxist-Leninist wing of the Communist Party of Nepal.
The Maoists themselves believe that the king is only biding his time, watching for signs of disunity before making another attempt to seize power. At a press conference on Friday, Maoist leader Dinanth Mishra warned: ‘’The king will not hesitate to take over if the SPA and the Maoists break their ties.’’
King Gyanendra actually began his public meddling in Nepali politics in October 2002, when he fired the then prime minister, replacing him with his own appointee. By Feb. 1, 2005 the monarch had gone through three leaders and when he yanked Sher Bahadur Deuba from the position in a bloodless coup -- with the army providing cover by cutting all communications with the outside world and blocking flights in and out of Nepal -- it was for the second time.
After declaring a state of emergency, the king went on TV to inform Nepalis that Deuba, like his predecessors, had run a corrupt administration that bumbled its way through the Maoist war. With the army at his side he would soon put things right and return full democracy in three years, was King Gyanendra’s pledge.
Many Nepalis wanted to believe the promise of a return to peace and normalcy -- despite rumours often repeated in elite circles that the businessman-king had opposed his brother King Birendra’s decision to grant multi-party democracy during the first “people’s movement” in 1990.
Gyanendra, it was said, had spent the years since then working behind the scenes to sabotage the political parties’ efforts. April’s people’s uprising put the king back in his place -- even more emphatically than 1990 had forced the monarchy to take a backseat to people power, according to some observers.
The revived lower house of parliament moved surprising fast to symbolically and practically strip the king, and his successors -- if they have a place in a new constitution slated to be written by a future constituent assembly -- of his powers. ‘His Majesty’s Government’ became ‘Government of Nepal’ and the ‘Royal Nepal Army’ changed to ‘Nepali Army’. On Friday, parliament unanimously passed a bill formally ending the monarchy’s role as supreme commander of the army.
Koirala and Maoist leaders continue to spar over whether the monarchy should be included in the interim constitution now being drafted, the Prime Minister arguing that to deny it a ceremonial role could provoke a backlash from the palace. And some international players contend that to erase Gyanendra from Nepal’s political equation now would create a vacuum that could too easily be filled by the still-armed Maoists.
But Maoist leaders and other senior politicians repeatedly warn that “reactionary” (read ‘pro-king’) forces are gathering strength while Koirala’s government lurches toward fulfilling the mandate of the “people’s movement” -- the first step being to end its own mandate by dissolving parliament.
Many among Kathmandu’s middle-class also believe that Gyanendra is plotting a comeback and that the army, with its deep cultural ties to the palace, would be at his back. New Chief of Army Staff Rukmangad Katuwal is keen to counter that impression. “The Nepal army is committed to democracy and peace and will remain active under the directives of the government,” he told reporters after being sworn in last week.
Human rights groups here strenuously opposed the move, blaming Katuwal for a major role in suppressing April’s movement in which 18 people were killed and at least three mortally wounded.
Results of a poll published in Friday’s ‘Nepali Times’ newspaper might deepen concerns among plot watchers. It found the public split right down the middle concerning the monarchy -- 48 percent agreeing the country should have a king, 49 percent opposed (although 81 percent said a democratically chosen government should control the army versus 8 percent who said that is the king’s job).
Among the opinions heard here after Thailand’s coup is that the move could not be repeated in Nepal since Gyanendra has no real public support.
“The situation is very different than that of Thailand,” constitutional expert Bhimarjun Acharya told IPS on Friday. “There the king was extremely popular but the prime minister was very corrupt. Here, although things are not going well (for the government) if you ask, almost everyone will speak against the king -- he has not become popular,” added Acharya, expressing scepticism at the newspaper poll’s results.
Also, army chief Katuwal “has many times publicly given his commitment to democracy”, added Acharya.
