The chief parties of the SPA coalition and the Maoists have their differences increased after the removal of the King and the institution of monarchy. The Monarchy was a common enemy for both of these parties to blame for their inefficiencies and the mistakes they made in the past. But, now after the removal of monarchy, they seem to have increasing conflicts.
Read More...
Sure, the monarchy is responsible to a certain extent for the backwardness of Nepal. However, why blame the monarchy for the entire mess we are in at the moment. In the interviews of the constituent assembly representatives, just before the elections, everyone had a common thing to say - "We have left a black age, and are moving into a bright future. The 248 years of bloody monarchy rule is now over. We are very happy."
I find a fault with this judgement of monarchy in the past. Sure, the institution had a lot of bloodshed, incompetencies, and errors in the past. So had every other institution. Moreover, the monarchy is also responsible for some good deeds in Nepal. Everyone seems to be vilifying the institution now it is no longer in power. As I saw the welcome messages of Ganatantra, I found the same organizations advocating a Federal Republic and deriding Nepal that had welcomed the Royal takeover and derided the political parties in the past. Those are opportunists - and we have no lack of such people in Nepal.
Just yesterday, Prachanda, Baburam and other Maoists leaders and a leftist leader gave their speeches in Khula Manch of Nepal. It seems that they have moved on to the next phase of their struggle to capture the state. The Maoists have always talked of the friendly forces and the enemy force and they have reiterated time and again that they change their friends and enemies according to their needs. That was a reason of their success in the past, and they are using that policy quite successfully at the moment.
Prachanda blamed the Nepali Congress and the UML for the delay in the meeting of the constituent assembly. The meeting was scheduled to be at 11 am but it started late in the evening because the chief leaders including Prachanda, Girija Prasad Koirala, Jhala Nath Khanal and others were busy discussing behind closed doors. What they discussed there is purely a matter of speculation for me. However, Prachanda yesterday disclosed in a public program the contents of the meeting.
The NC and the UML were trying to extend the declaration of republic, he said. It was the Maoists that had forced them to declare the country a republic even if late at night. He further accused them of trying to retain Gyanendra as the King, if the Maoists didn't agree to their proposal of a separate President and a Prime Minister.
I do not know what Prachanda said about what others said is true or false. Time and again, Maoists have made conflicting remarks, so there is enough to doubt him. Moreover, the other parties including the NC and the UML have shown their utter lust for power in the past. There is also a reason to believe Prachanda. Let's leave this to them and see what befalls the country.
However, how can the Maoists claim to have both the President and the Prime Minister posts for themselves. Isn't it true that the two armies have not yet been merged? And, how can the Maoists expect to lead both the armies themselves at this crucial juncture of the peace process. The argument they give is that there will be two power centres if the posts of the President and the Prime Minister were given to two different parties. They say it will cause inefficiency and a lot of troubles in creating the new constitution. They also say they have the mandate of the people to have both the posts.
I did not have enough knowledge about what the constituent assembly election was when they were publicizing the elections. However, I remember leaders of different political parties saying - "This is not like any other election in the past. Other elections were for executive powers of the state. But, this is solely for writing the constitution."
Now, it seems that the election was solely for the posts of the President and the Premier.
This is New Nepal for us.
People around me say I am pessimistic, and that I should be optimistic. Why? The country these days seems to be ruled by mobs, and crowds. The country is not a rule of law anymore. Law is in the hands of those in power - in the name of a politics of understanding, it seems that they can do everything.
I hope for better. But Nepal seems to be going even more backward. I am afraid that in the place of a royal autocrat, who had been educated in Harvard, Oxford and the likes, we would have a farmer dictator.
