Nepal's Lesson in Democracy
DEVELOPMENTS
On July 21st, Nepal swore in its newest president, Ram Baran Yadav. But this inauguration is particularly noteworthy because it was the Himalayan country’s first presidential inauguration. After 240 years, Nepal’s monarchy was brought to an end with a change to the constitution in May. The abolishment of the monarchy was one of a number of steps taken to bring democracy, peace and reconciliation to a country that has been plagued by violence in recent years.
Ironically, this historic move towards democracy wouldn’t have been possible without the help of the Maoist party, a revolutionary communist movement which had been responsible for violent attacks in the country since 1996. The complexity of Nepalese politics makes the Maoists integral to the democratic movement in Nepal. In April, they won the most votes in the constitutional assembly and led the effort to establish the new republic.
But after their candidate, Ramraja Singh, was defeated in the presidential election, the Maoists announced plans to withdraw from the newly formed government. Now the stability of this nascent democracy is in jeopardy.
BACKGROUND
Nepal is arguably best known in the U.S. as being home to Mount Everest and the Himalayan mountain range. But for about a period of ten years it had a more unfortunate claim to fame. From 1996 to 2006, the country was host to one of South Asia’s deadliest conflicts in recent years. Over 13,000 people died in a complicated three-way conflict between the King, the government he disbanded, and the Maoist rebels. It was not until 2006 that the Maoist insurgents announced their willingness to lay down their arms in order to restore peace on one condition: the dissolution of the monarchy.
Although the insurgency began in 1996, the Maoists’ distaste for the royal family peaked in 2001, when Prince Dipendra allegedly murdered the rest of the royal family with an Uzi before taking his own life. Under the laws of succession, the dead King’s brother, Gyanendra took the throne. Meanwhile, the Maoists had effectively shut down a portion of industrial activity using their affiliation with trade unions to trigger nationwide strikes.
Stories of the massacre, which began to affect the country’s luxury tourism industry, only made things worse for King Gyanendra. Frustrated with government’s inability to deal with Maoists, King Gyanendra suspended Prime Minister Deuba’s government and called for a general election, while attempting to negotiate a cease-fire with rebels. By the time the King reappointed Deuba in 2004, the cease-fire with the Maoists had long since ended. To make matters worse, the government coalition had split. A year later, King Gyanendra declared a state of emergency, sacked the government and assumed direct rule. According to the U.N. and other NGOs operating in Nepal at the time, King Gyanendra had detained political party leaders and journalists and also suspended civil liberties including the right to a free press. In addition, the Royal Nepalese Army was allegedly responsible for brutal attacks on civilians, including the murder of a local communist party leader, which resulted in countrywide protests in February 2006. At the time, the Maoists, working with the All Nepal Trade Union Federation, forced the closure of many major international companies including Coca-Cola’s bottling operation in Nepal.
Many residents of the Nepal’s countryside were caught in the middle of the conflict. Not only did they have to worry about daily extortion attempts by the Maoists rebels, but they had to brace themselves for the Royal Nepalese Army which would harass them for information about the Maoists and even occasionally burn homes down. Many young men left the countryside and the country itself, rather than be caught between these two dangerous and unpredictable armies. The Global Internally Displaced Persons database of the Norwegian Refugee Council estimates that anywhere between 100,000 and 200,000 Nepalese people crossed the border into India as a result of this conflict.
In April of 2006, the bloodshed, public demonstrations, and the devastating effect which the conflict had on the country, drove King Gyanendra to restore parliament and relinquish power as political head of state. Subsequently, the Maoists signed a peace deal with the new coalition government. These developments eventually led to a call for new elections in 2007 and a push by Prachanda, leader of former Maoist rebels, to end the monarchy.
ANALYSIS
The new republic, which exists in part thanks to former Communist rebels, has strong ties to both China and India. As a result, this experiment with democracy will be of interest to the United States as it tries to balance China’s influence in the region. If the Maoists, one of the country’s most popular parties, refuse to take part in parliament, the other coalitions may not be stable enough to hold the government together. Whether the country would revert to a state of violence is unclear. But if the Maoists do engage, show commitment to the political process, and renounce violence, the U.S. may be willing to provide support to the country. The likely first step for the U.S. will be to remove Nepal’s Maoist party from the State Department’s terrorist exclusion list, opening the door to increased aid and assistance.
---
Olivier Kamanda is Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy Digest.