Relevance of Democracy Day in Nepal

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Last week, Democracy Day was observed in Nepal in commemoration of the day that marked the end of a century of Rana oligarchic rule and establishment of multi-party monarchical democracy in Nepal in the face of the popular uprising in 1951. Since then, the day is observed every year to pay rich tributes to those who made valuable sacrifices for the political change. As long as the monarchy was around, there was valid ground to mark this day as it restored the power of the king in Nepal. Now questions are being raised about the significance and relevance of marking this day especially now that Nepal has entered the republican era.
Conspiracy
It was the day that shifted power from the Rana family to the Shah dynasty. The political change that was brought about in 1951 did not transfer power to the people. When the popular uprising was building up, a serious conspiracy was hatched both in Kathmandu and New Delhi to abort the movement, and a power-sharing formula was devised between the Ranas and the Shah king under India’s midwifery.
Although this was known as the tripartite Delhi pact between the Ranas, Shah king and the revolutionary force - the Nepali Congress - the deal was mainly reached between the beleaguered Rana Prime Minister Mohan Shumsher and the exiled king, Tribhuvan. The revolutionary force which forced the Rana rulers to bow down had also been kept in the dark about the agreement but was informed only after the deal was formally signed and announced through the media.
Under the new arrangement brokered by India, the king, who had gone into exile, would be restored whereas a new coalition government comprising representatives of the Ranas and the Nepali Congress would be formed under the leadership of Rana Prime Minister Mohan Shumsher.
In fact, the deal was a humiliation to the revolutionary forces that had launched a determined struggle to abolish Rana rule. However, the deal ensured the continuity of Rana rule, and the revolutionary forces had to join the government under the very person against whom the revolution had been launched. In the beginning, the Nepali Congress had rejected the deal, but it came under tremendous pressure to accept it.
The new arrangement was definitely better than the earlier Rana regime because it, to some degree, reduced the power of the Ranas. But it was still not the one that the people had fought for. The new arrangement was a shift of power from the Ranas to the Shah kings. The real and genuine democracy for which the Nepali Congress and the people of Nepal had fought for was not achieved. Despite its initial reservation, the Nepali Congress quietly accepted the Delhi accord, thereby aborting the popular movement.
It was this reason why some people, especially the communists, had condemned the Delhi agreement and described it as a betrayal of the people. Some of the revolutionary commanders, too, rejected this deal and vowed to continue with their fight for total democracy and freedom. Dr. K. I. Singh was one who continued his war in parts of the Terai, but he was later captured with the help of Indian troops and kept behind bars under tight security. The Communist Party had also opposed the Delhi agreement, but it, too, was banned. This is how the 1950 popular uprising was ended in a compromise for power and positions.
The king slowly started consolidating power by creating political instability and pitting one force against the other for almost eight years. Although he had promised to hold the election for a Constituent Assembly within a couple of years, he delayed the process to fully consolidate power. After the king became fully confident that nothing would happen even if elections were held, he announced the general election for Parliament in which the Nepali Congress won. This was once again a betrayal of the people.
The Nepali Congress, too, made a blunder by quietly accepting the parliamentary election instead of the election for a Constituent Assembly. Although the Nepali Congress won a landslide victory in the general election, there was a fundamental flaw in it because this election was held under the constitution given by the king, which had reserved special prerogatives for him. The king later used the same prerogative given by the constitution to disband the elected government and trample on democracy. Had the Nepal Congress insisted on a Constituent Assembly election and had the constitution been written by the people’s representatives, the king would not have gotten so much power to scuttle democracy. The Nepali Congress failed to visualize this situation largely for power. As a result, the country had to remain under monarchical dictatorship for more than 30 years.
Even after this incident, the parties failed to learn lessons from past mistakes. The parties, mainly the Nepali Congress, continued to back the monarchy. B.P. Koirala, founder of the Nepali Congress, defined and described the monarchy as one of the twin pillars of democracy. BP had repeatedly said that the monarchy was the symbol of national unity and that Nepal’s national identity would be jeopardised in the absence of the monarchy. Even parliamentary communists subscribed to this view. But the revolutionary communists continued to insist that the monarchy was an undemocratic institution which must be abolished to institutionalise democracy and strengthen nationality.
The CPN-UML, which has a revolutionary history behind it, had initially adopted a republican programme, but it, too, eventually degenerated into a parliamentary reformist party which accepted the rightist agenda.
The 1990 political uprising ended in a power sharing agreement between the parliamentary parties and the monarchy. Under the agreement, the monarchy was retained in the name of constitutional kingship whereas the parties were able to enjoy political freedom to carry out activities in the name of multiparty democracy. The constitution drafted by representatives of the king, Nepali Congress and the United Left Front (a front of parliamentary communist groups) in 1990 immediately after the political change reserved some key powers for the king that included the power to declare an emergency and suspend the constitution. By exercising the same power, former king Gyanendra disbanded democracy and took over power in 2005, thereby, marginalising the role of the political parties.
The eyes of the parties opened wide only after this incident. The major parties, mainly the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, became desperate when the people did not respond to their call for a movement against the king’s authoritarian move. This did not mean that the king’s move had the people’s support, only that they wanted to teach the parties a lesson. Further frustrated by the people’s lackluster response to their call for a movement, the parliamentary parties, mainly the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, hastened to reach an accord with the Maoists through a 12-point agreement. Earlier the parliamentary parties were die hard critics of the Maoists, but they changed their strategy to join hands with the rebels against the king.
The alliance between the parliamentary parties and the Maoists was not a choice but compulsion under the existing situation. This agreement paved the way for a joint movement that toppled the monarchy and declared Nepal a federal democratic republic.
Relevance lost
Since the country is already a federal republic, the celebration of Democracy Day that marked the shift of power from the Ranas to the king has lost its relevance and significance. Celebration of this day gives a sense that the monarchy still exists and implies that the monarchy is necessary for the country. In fact, the monarchy is an anti-democratic force that always suppressed the people in the name of either religion or nationalism. Nowhere in the world has the monarchy been democratised willfully.
The modern age is an era of democracy - republican democracy. So is it with Nepal. In this modern republican era, celebration of the day that glorifies a feudal institution that has already been scrapped is an insult to the people and their sacrifice made for the establishment of a republican set up.

Comments