Jana Andolan II And After
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
We have entered the fourth year after Jana Andolan II succeeded in restoring democracy by clipping the wings of the feudal monarchy. We have come a long way since that eventful day that not only restored people’s sovereignty but also cleared the path for a republican set up in Nepal. By all account, this incident is a historic one, which can be compared with all the big political changes that have taken place in the world like the French Revolution, American War of Independence, October Revolution of Russia and India’s Independence Movement.
Important movements
Nepal has seen important movements in its history. But all movements in the past got aborted in compromises, which failed to establish people’s sovereignty in the true sense. The first popular movement for democracy was against the Rana family oligarchy. When the anti-Rana movement gathered steam in 1951, it was aborted by a tripartite Delhi pact that shifted the authority from the Ranas to the Shahs.
Although the 1951 political change ushered in a relatively more open political environment and provided the people with some democratic rights, the real sovereignty and power rested on the monarchy, which was repeatedly misused by the kings against the people and democracy. The Nepali Congress, which led the 1951 movement, also failed to understand the gravity of the problem and contributed to strengthening the monarchy and its power. As a result, Nepal again fell into the trap of monarchical dictatorship for over 30 years.
However, the Nepali Congress tends to learn little from history. The Congress along with some other parties, including the CPN-UML, made another mistake of accepting monarchical democracy in 1990. But the monarchy never kept its promises made to the people and betrayed the people every time. The monarchy repeatedly proved to be an anti-democratic institution in Nepal that ultimately invited its abolition.
Right from the beginning, the Nepali Congress had been a strong advocate of constitutional monarchy. Until the last moment, the Nepali Congress had given the monarchy a chance to correct its mistake and accept the people’s sovereignty and democracy. Even the CPN-UML, which, in the beginning, had republican programmes, agreed to accept constitutional monarchy in 1990.
But there were some parties that had been consistently advocating a republican set up right from the beginning. Even during the 1951 political change, the communists, whose strength was not as strong as it is today, had opposed the Delhi agreement and demanded an end to the feudal monarchy. As their strength was not strong enough, their voice was not heard. As a result, the monarchy became so powerful that it ultimately marginalised the parties and imposed its authoritarian regime in the name of the Panchayat system.
Even in 1990, the political forces mainly the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML accepted constitutional monarchy as the then king promised to abide by the rules of democracy. The then king Birendra, indeed, respected the norms and principles of constitutional monarchy and refrained from political adventurism, despite repeated pressure from his family members, relatives and rightist elements to take over power. He consistently rejected the idea of rolling back to the old Panchayat days.
But the king and the family were wiped out in a shootout at the palace in June 2001. After King Birendra and his family’s assassination, Gyanendra rose to the throne, who within two years of his enthronement, staged a coup and took over power. This political adventurism proved costly for the monarchy, which forced the parties to abandon their monarchical policy and embrace the republican line. Had Gyanendra not taken over power, the monarchy would not have been abolished so quickly. In other word, Gyanendra dug his own grave and the people buried the monarchy in it.
The abolition of monarchy is perhaps the biggest and most important political achievement so far. In the abolition of the monarchy and establishment of a republican set up, the role of the Maoists was crucial. The republican set up and Constituent Assembly were the agenda of the Maoists which the other parties later accepted under compulsion. The acceptance of the Maoist agenda was necessitated to launch Jana Andolan II in collaboration with the Maoists. In exchange, the Maoists accepted multi-party democracy.
With the joint force and strength, Jana Andolan II succeeded within 19 days, which is described as a fusion of the Maoists’ ‘People’s war’ and the seven parties’ peaceful struggle.
Jana Andolan II not only restored democracy and abolished the monarchy but also brought the Maoists to the peace process. The Maoists had been waging a guerilla war for more than a decade, which had reached a state of equilibrium, which meant that there was no possibility of either side winning the war. Thus, it was necessary to seek a middle way to end the crisis and establish peace in the country. Jana Andolan II did that.
Jana Andolan II was not a complete revolution in itself but paved the way for epoch-making political change in Nepal. The immediate gain of the Jana Andolan was the restoration of monarchical democracy. Gyanendra was forced to reinstate the once-dissolved parliament. Jana Andolan II clearly aimed at dismantling the old system and bringing about new but radical change. Based on the mandate of Jana Andolan II, several historic decisions were taken that turned Nepal into a federal democratic republic.
The real change took place after the old constitution was abrogated and a new interim constitution came in its place. The interim constitution formally brought the Maoists into the political mainstream. The interim constitution also suspended the monarchy until its formal abolition by the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly. The election to the Constituent Assembly was held successfully to write a new constitution which provided new optimism that it would establish lasting peace in the country by resolving all the outstanding issues.
But even after the Constituent Assembly election, the situation did not improve significantly. The real problem began after the Constituent Assembly election as the parties breached the coalition culture. This was started by the Nepali Congress as it opted to sit in the opposition. The interim constitution had not visualised the provision of ruling and opposition parties until the new constitution was written. The very concept of not having the ruling-opposition provision was guided by the motive that all the parties would work together to write a new constitution and complete the peace process successfully. But the Nepali Congress pressed for the amendment of the constitution to include the provision of an opposition bench. This was the beginning of the present political deadlock.
Political vacuum
Now a new political crisis is likely to brew as the parties have failed to write the constitution in time. There will definitely be a constitutional and political vacuum after May 28. Now the parties need to intensify consultations and hold dialogue to find an amicable solution. The best option would be to set a new deadline for writing the constitution. Although this would set a bad precedent, there is no option.
We have entered the fourth year after Jana Andolan II succeeded in restoring democracy by clipping the wings of the feudal monarchy. We have come a long way since that eventful day that not only restored people’s sovereignty but also cleared the path for a republican set up in Nepal. By all account, this incident is a historic one, which can be compared with all the big political changes that have taken place in the world like the French Revolution, American War of Independence, October Revolution of Russia and India’s Independence Movement.
Important movements
Nepal has seen important movements in its history. But all movements in the past got aborted in compromises, which failed to establish people’s sovereignty in the true sense. The first popular movement for democracy was against the Rana family oligarchy. When the anti-Rana movement gathered steam in 1951, it was aborted by a tripartite Delhi pact that shifted the authority from the Ranas to the Shahs.
Although the 1951 political change ushered in a relatively more open political environment and provided the people with some democratic rights, the real sovereignty and power rested on the monarchy, which was repeatedly misused by the kings against the people and democracy. The Nepali Congress, which led the 1951 movement, also failed to understand the gravity of the problem and contributed to strengthening the monarchy and its power. As a result, Nepal again fell into the trap of monarchical dictatorship for over 30 years.
However, the Nepali Congress tends to learn little from history. The Congress along with some other parties, including the CPN-UML, made another mistake of accepting monarchical democracy in 1990. But the monarchy never kept its promises made to the people and betrayed the people every time. The monarchy repeatedly proved to be an anti-democratic institution in Nepal that ultimately invited its abolition.
Right from the beginning, the Nepali Congress had been a strong advocate of constitutional monarchy. Until the last moment, the Nepali Congress had given the monarchy a chance to correct its mistake and accept the people’s sovereignty and democracy. Even the CPN-UML, which, in the beginning, had republican programmes, agreed to accept constitutional monarchy in 1990.
But there were some parties that had been consistently advocating a republican set up right from the beginning. Even during the 1951 political change, the communists, whose strength was not as strong as it is today, had opposed the Delhi agreement and demanded an end to the feudal monarchy. As their strength was not strong enough, their voice was not heard. As a result, the monarchy became so powerful that it ultimately marginalised the parties and imposed its authoritarian regime in the name of the Panchayat system.
Even in 1990, the political forces mainly the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML accepted constitutional monarchy as the then king promised to abide by the rules of democracy. The then king Birendra, indeed, respected the norms and principles of constitutional monarchy and refrained from political adventurism, despite repeated pressure from his family members, relatives and rightist elements to take over power. He consistently rejected the idea of rolling back to the old Panchayat days.
But the king and the family were wiped out in a shootout at the palace in June 2001. After King Birendra and his family’s assassination, Gyanendra rose to the throne, who within two years of his enthronement, staged a coup and took over power. This political adventurism proved costly for the monarchy, which forced the parties to abandon their monarchical policy and embrace the republican line. Had Gyanendra not taken over power, the monarchy would not have been abolished so quickly. In other word, Gyanendra dug his own grave and the people buried the monarchy in it.
The abolition of monarchy is perhaps the biggest and most important political achievement so far. In the abolition of the monarchy and establishment of a republican set up, the role of the Maoists was crucial. The republican set up and Constituent Assembly were the agenda of the Maoists which the other parties later accepted under compulsion. The acceptance of the Maoist agenda was necessitated to launch Jana Andolan II in collaboration with the Maoists. In exchange, the Maoists accepted multi-party democracy.
With the joint force and strength, Jana Andolan II succeeded within 19 days, which is described as a fusion of the Maoists’ ‘People’s war’ and the seven parties’ peaceful struggle.
Jana Andolan II not only restored democracy and abolished the monarchy but also brought the Maoists to the peace process. The Maoists had been waging a guerilla war for more than a decade, which had reached a state of equilibrium, which meant that there was no possibility of either side winning the war. Thus, it was necessary to seek a middle way to end the crisis and establish peace in the country. Jana Andolan II did that.
Jana Andolan II was not a complete revolution in itself but paved the way for epoch-making political change in Nepal. The immediate gain of the Jana Andolan was the restoration of monarchical democracy. Gyanendra was forced to reinstate the once-dissolved parliament. Jana Andolan II clearly aimed at dismantling the old system and bringing about new but radical change. Based on the mandate of Jana Andolan II, several historic decisions were taken that turned Nepal into a federal democratic republic.
The real change took place after the old constitution was abrogated and a new interim constitution came in its place. The interim constitution formally brought the Maoists into the political mainstream. The interim constitution also suspended the monarchy until its formal abolition by the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly. The election to the Constituent Assembly was held successfully to write a new constitution which provided new optimism that it would establish lasting peace in the country by resolving all the outstanding issues.
But even after the Constituent Assembly election, the situation did not improve significantly. The real problem began after the Constituent Assembly election as the parties breached the coalition culture. This was started by the Nepali Congress as it opted to sit in the opposition. The interim constitution had not visualised the provision of ruling and opposition parties until the new constitution was written. The very concept of not having the ruling-opposition provision was guided by the motive that all the parties would work together to write a new constitution and complete the peace process successfully. But the Nepali Congress pressed for the amendment of the constitution to include the provision of an opposition bench. This was the beginning of the present political deadlock.
Political vacuum
Now a new political crisis is likely to brew as the parties have failed to write the constitution in time. There will definitely be a constitutional and political vacuum after May 28. Now the parties need to intensify consultations and hold dialogue to find an amicable solution. The best option would be to set a new deadline for writing the constitution. Although this would set a bad precedent, there is no option.
Comments
Post a Comment