Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

Politico-Economics Of Royal Takeover In Nepal

Surendra R Devkota, Ph.D. - 8/27/2005

"Democracy is the only viable alternative, and we should make clear that we unequivocally reject the King's imperial ambitions, that the days of an active monarchy are over, and that we support the political parties"
-US Senator Patrick Leahy's statement on Nepal to Congress on July 28, 2005.

As democracy spurs, the monarchs in Nepal get up in arms. This fact is supported by two royal coups in past 50 years. The first royal coup of 1960 orchestrated by the King Mahendra not only lasted for thirty years, but also resulted to a massive incidence of poverty in Nepal. Further impacts on sociopolitical aspects are discussed in many publications. The second royal coup of February 1st 2005 is leading to insurmountable damages in the socio-economic and political fronts. King Gyanendra's royal coup not only suspends the Nepalese people's fundamental rights, including freedom of assembly and expression, right to information and privacy, and protections afforded by Nepal's constitution against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of individuals but also drives the country into an un-destined direction. As an absolute head of both the state and government of Nepal king Gyanendra's execution of six months aren't easily forgotten. The king defied the national and international concerns about the royal takeover and suspension of fundamental rights, but failed to realize how his actions are reversing the socioeconomic development in country.

The King has victimized the democracy in order to control insurgency initiated by a rebel group - Nepal Communist Party (Maobadi). King's self-promotion to an absolute decision maker in the country is nothing new in royal history. The foremost activity the king initiated was dumping off of the people's constitution of 1990, abolished democratic values and institutions, and started his own Rules promulgated by his own decrees. Impunity to his supporters and intimidation of opposite thoughts are routine works of security forces and his Council administration. As King Gyanendra joined a club of the South Asian of dictators along with Pakistan, Burma (Myanmar), Bhutan and Maldives; he might have excelled other dictators in the region championing for a bogus democracy. The king's noble achievement so far is a bargain of guns with India, China,
UK, and USA over the democracy in Nepal.

It is unfortunate that the royal council is failing to realize the power of invisible hands of economics, and general people have yet to suffer as the cumulative cost of multidimensional conflict in Nepal is consolidating. Recently, Asian Development Bank estimated an account of cost of conflict in Nepal. For example, economic growth slowed at an average of 1.9 percent over the period of 2002-2004, and if it will be the trend for future years (2005-2009) then the country will lose about 57 percent of the economic growth due to decline in development expenditure. Local production of goods and services are far below the potential level, and it is predicted to be around 2 percent that is equal or less then population growth rate. The Nepal Rastra Bank's latest report says that foreign grants recorded a slower growth, government could not spend development expenditure due to the on-going internal conflict in the country, and distorted terms of trade between India and other countries.

The report further says the remaining foreign reserve can finance merchandise imports of 12.4 months. The economic survey report of fiscal year 2004/05 released by the government indicates the economic growth scenario is comparable of seventies and eighties. By the span of six months period of royal takeover of the executive power by the king, the development indicators are nose diving. Further, for the fiscal year of 2005/06 king's royal budget of nearly $ 1.8 billion has dual objectives of peace and development. In order to bring peace, this budget allocates nearly 20 percent of resources for security, which is more or less equal to the socioeconomic development activities. It is unclear who will fund the royal budget, as donors are shying away owing to king's political ambition.

The entire world knows that donors complement nearly two thirds of budget and that are working in many remote regions had already left the areas. After February 1st, it is estimated the more than $ 250 million development aids are either suspended or postponed that directly hampered major programs such as poverty reduction, rural development, education, health, and forestry. Very recently, for instance, Norway a major development stakeholder of Nepal decided not to support to a half billion dollar project of water supply in Kathmandu. To which, the World Bank had already withdrew its 65 million investment. Consequently, Nepali communities are undergoing the great economical hardship, and psychological stress, and strain. People living in rural areas are being severely affected. The king simply has overlooked these rural masses (85 percent of total population of 25 million) as if they don't play any role in his power equation. In many rural areas mass exodus to either city centers or even in India is a compulsion due to abuse of guns by both the security forces and the Maoists.

Days are gone for the royalists to impose their autocratic ideas and values. In order to drive the nation for 21st century, political parties should come up with a comprehensive vision for the country and people of Nepal. The parties have now realized that the royal takeover not only violated the 1991 Constitution of Nepal, but subsequent activities of the King proved that a reconciliatory approach for coexistence of both parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy has failed. It is proven that the monarchy seems the major obstruction for the democratic intensification in Nepal. Meanwhile, an ongoing political understanding between the political parties and the Maoists may yield a positive resolution. As Baburam Bhattari recently said in the Washington Times (July 30) that "we are working for a negotiated political settlement either directly for a democratic republic or for the election to a constituent assembly." Henceforth, the political parties' consensus voices on holding an election of constitutional assembly, a due of past 50 years political campaign, receives a great salutation that will empower to the people of Nepal, and enhance a cohabitation between diverging interests, ideologies, languages, cultures, heritages within the Nepali nationhood. This should be an exit strategy to present political quagmire bringing progressive changes towards a complete democracy with sovereign people, and help bringing Maoists to mainstream politics by denouncing violent mode.

At a critical time of devolution of rights, resources, responsibility and accountability to local and regional authorities in order to speed up the developmental process, King's actions are abrupt brakes. The royal takeover complements that coexistence of monarchy and democracy in Nepal would be a failed political dogma. Nepal is in dire need of an overhauling of socioeconomic development philosophy and structure based on an innovative constitution that guarantees socioeconomic and political rights to people, an accountable and responsible system of judiciary, legislative and executive at different levels rather than a simple politico-administrative makeover at the central level. Political parties should not hesitate to honor the supremacy of people. It would be unfortunate to protect the engine of autocracy in Nepal.