As of May 28, the 240-year monarchy of Nepal has been replaced by the new Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal amidst surprisingly little violence, and the king has been politely asked to vacate the royal residence-turned-heritage-museum. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) dominated the April 10 elections for the 601-seat constituent assembly, the body charged with writing a new Nepalese constitution over the next 30 months, securing 33% of the popularly elected seats. Their success shocked not only the Nepalis and the rest of the world, but the Maoists themselves as well.
So how did the Maoists do it? This Economist article proposes that three factors contributed to the Maoist victory. First, there was some manipulation of the results, and the Maoists openly warned they would return to war if the election results were unfavorable to them. Although this is incentive enough for some, it does not account for their domination. The second reason proffered is a general urge for change by people tired of the conservative Nepali Congress (NC) party and the traditional communist Unified Marxist-Leninists (UML) party. But the final reason, and perhaps the one most often overlooked, is the Maoist agenda itself. It aims to attract foreign investments for Nepal’s hydropower industry, wage a war on feudalism, and promote social and cultural rights for the country’s various ethnic populations, all attractive features for the common Nepalese. Hindsight being twenty-twenty, perhaps it is no small wonder that the Maoists won.
Several governance issues are likely to crop up, which is not entirely unexpected for a country fresh out of a 10-year civil war that has left over 13,000 people dead, many at the hands of the Maoists leaders. Compared to the 2006 Countries at the Crossroads report on Nepal, citizens are enjoying much improved civil and political rights. In terms of general stability, there is the worry that the NC, the UML, and other smaller parties may band together to subvert the Maoist rule and leave the rocky coalition that was formed in November of 2005 between the Maoists and the seven main political parties in an effort to force the king to re-establish parliament. Constitutional amendments require approval by two-thirds of the assembly, of which the Maoists only make up one-third, so these parties have the power to gridlock the political process through intentional non-cooperation. Many argue that those parties would have stuck by the monarchy had they known that the Maoists would have been so successful and will do whatever it takes to remove them from power.
Additionally, the rule of law is implicated regarding the relationship of the Maoist party and its two military arms, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Young Communist League (YCL). In a recent briefing by Human Rights Watch, South Asia researcher Meenakshi Ganguly recapped Nepal’s previous history of unpunished violence and stated that "the new government should send a strong message that it is committed to breaking with the past and will strictly enforce the law." However, as recently as the April elections, the YCL reportedly beat an NC representative for having won a seat in the assembly. So long as such violence is committed with impunity by a Maoist-associated entity, respect for the rule of law is unlikely to be established. Additionally, the Maoists want the PLA integrated into the standing Nepalese army, an arrangement that the army chiefs are unlikely to agree to peacefully. Even if these erstwhile rebel fighters are successfully absorbed into the army, questions have been raised as to whether they can learn to act within the rule of law.
Another issue is raised by reports that indicate that public civic education is extremely low, with a 2007 poll showing that most Nepalese do not understand the meaning of the terms "federalism", "republic", and "constituent assembly." Such ignorance in a well-established democracy may have little impact on the democratic process (to say nothing of the quality of leadership), but it may prove fatal for infant democracies with a history of autocratic rule by permitting a dictatorship to sneak up on unaware citizens. Debates are raging over how much power the president, likely to be Maoist front man Pushpa Kamal Dahal, otherwise known as Prachanda (the "fierce one"), should wield. No longer able to insist on housing at gunpoint, the "common" Maoist complains of becoming homeless while Prachanda is accused of getting a politician’s make-over and forgetting his party’s pro-equality stance. As he inches closer to true power, it may take a highly educated and civic-minded population to keep this ambitious, charismatic, and, at times, ruthless man in check.
Thus far, though, Maoists seem to be genuinely working towrads cooperation and reform, and Prachanda’s speech recognizing the Maoists’ initial success was his most "conciliatory yet", promising compromise at home and abroad. This should help to reduce anxiety in Washington, where the Maoist rebels have long been listed as terrorists. That being said, New Delhi is flustered as Maoists continue to insist that the Nepal-India Treaty of Peace and Friendship be scrapped, an agreement that grants a variety of rights to the Nepalese while ensuring that India had military access to the Nepal-China border.
Photo Credit: Flickr user Artistelnconnu-Back
