Just five years after his spectacular ouster, former King Gyanendra’s stars seem to be on the rise again. The growing crowds that have greeted his public appearances across the country have sparked a lively debate across Nepal’s political leadership.
Normally on opposing sides of any debate, NC President Sushil Koirala and two former Prime Ministers, CPN-UML’s Madhav Kumar Nepal UCPN (Maoist)’s Baburam Bhattarai are unanimous in their stand against letting Gyanendra come back to power. [break]
Bhattarai, with characteristic bluster, says he wants to throw Gyanendra in prison to foil his “come-back strategy”. Meanwhile, Kiran Baidya, a diehard anti-monarchist until recently, says he is willing to work with the ex-king to protect Nepal’s sovereignty. Under pressure from major political parties, the Election Commission flagrantly restricted Gyanendra’s civil rights by ordering him to stop his charity work on the absurd basis that this would influence the national election—it is extremely unlikely that Gyanendra will be a candidate in the election.
The fact that the ex-king’s future is being debated just before the election with such intensity is remarkable. He was ousted by an overwhelming vote of the Constituent Assembly filled with members of UPCN (Maoist), NC and UML. Ordinary Nepalis railed against the corruption of those close to the palace and the extra-constitutional powers they wielded. They danced on the streets when they heard of Gyanendra’s fall. Now many are turning to this once-disgraced man to liberate them from the “liberating” politicians who have been almost solely responsible for the country’s mess. The politicians are the new dregs of the society; Gyanendra is the emerging hero. How did we get here?
Nepal is not the only country where politicians who replaced the traditional system, such as a monarchy or colonial power, have pushed the country to disaster. After the fall of their respective monarchies, Afghanistan collapsed under sectarian conflict, helped along by foreign forces; Mullahs took control of Iran; and Khmer communists turned Cambodia into a killing field.
Paulo Freire, a left-of-center educationist, commenting on the failure of struggles for change, writes: “the ideal of the leaders of struggle for change is to be men; but for them, to be a ‘man’ is to be an oppressor. This is the model of their humanity.” (Italics mine). In simple terms, struggles fail because, at a subconscious level, the leaders of the struggle are driven by their envy of the incumbent rulers, not by compassion for the oppressed. That is how the cycle of oppression continues.
Nepal’s experience after Gyanendra bears Freire out. The new rulers turned out to be worse than Gyanendra in their thirst for power and disregard of the people they are supposed to serve. When UPCN (Maoist) led the republican government of Nepal, there was much excitement that things would be better. Ordinary Nepalis had hoped that leaders of an insurgency, which took the life of 15,000 Nepalis, would have the moral burden to deliver a government that worked for people’s security and prosperity.
Things turned out the exact opposite. Under Nepal’s two Maoist Prime Ministers, Dahal and Bhattarai, political corruption reached a new low; in comparison, the royal loot looks like shoplifting. The Prime Minister’s power brokers acted with shameless entitlement. Political interference made every institution in the country dysfunctional. The Maoists’ much-hyped anti-Indian nationalism was exposed as a cover for the support they were receiving from the Indian intelligence wing, RAW.
NC and UML were also disappointing. At every opportunity, their leaders unabashedly vied for their “turn” to lead the government, instead of working with the people to address their issues. These parties had no qualms endorsing the flawed terms of reference (designed to protect political criminals instead of protecting the rights of their victims) of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and compromising the separation of the executive and judiciary by supporting a government led by the sitting Chief Justice. In this they seem to have lost their vision, self-confidence and sense of direction.
That many Nepalis are even mildly nostalgic for Gyanendra, whose rule itself was characterized by corruption, authoritarianism, and deception, is a testament to the failure of the political leadership. While the former king basks in this newfound warmth, his propagandists claim that he wants to return only as a constitutional monarch.
He had that chance, and he failed us. The period following the Second World War saw the fall of many monarchies; few were restored. Gyanendra’s return will be a setback to the country. If he does come back it will be because of our self-seeking, double-talking politicians whose unfettered lies and betrayal of public trust is his oxygen. Restricting his civil liberties with phony arguments will only enhance his image as an emancipator and expedite his return. We need new blood, not regurgitation of old, failed leaders. And not desperate options! Nepal deserves more.
The author is an NRN living in Vancouver, Canada. He is not a monarchist.
naresh@shaw.ca
Related story
Why did Xi hold back-to-back calls with Putin, Trump?
_20191222200001.jpg)
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
