Only a few months ago, few Nepalese would have believed that not only would the ten-year violent Maoist insurrection, which has claimed 13,000 lives, be suspended but that its shadowy leader Prachanda would be visiting the capital Katmandu for talks about joining the political process.
Suddenly the future for this Himalayan kingdom seems transformed. It is however far too early to be certain of this. The broad-based multiparty government led by premier Girija Prasad Koirala will have a difficult task agreeing with the Maoist rebels the shape of a new constitution and the way in which they can participate in the planned elections. It is worth remembering that Prachanda has led a rebellion on fairly classic communist lines. From his point of view, the violent insurrection has brought him to the next stage — participation in elections — as part of a long-term plan to overthrow the state. He might hope to win sufficient seats to give his people control of key ministries dealing with police or security. He would then try to work from within to undermine the elected government and at the appropriate point seize power.
He might reckon the chances of such a strategy to be good, given the past record of Nepal’s divided and venal politicians. It took unpopular emergency rule by King Gyanendra to generate massive popular protest, which in turn threw the rival political parties together in an interim government. Prachanda may be hoping, when the time is right, to exploit their past political differences and again set politicians at each other’s throats. However, for the moment, he is content to see many of his terrorist fighters released from jail and the Nepalese police and army stop counterterror operations against him. He will use the time to regroup his forces and meanwhile do what he can to stymie the growth of a new attempt at democracy.
Yesterday’s talks threw up fundamental differences over the future constitutional role of the monarchy. Prachanda wants the institution abolished. Few ordinary Nepalese or the politicians who represent them would be happy with that. For all the controversy of recent years, culminating in King Gyanendra’s resumption of absolute power in February 2005, the population holds the monarchy in high regard. Indeed some might even argue that it was the King’s “coup” against his ineffective and bickering government, which in the end acted as a catalyst for the very peace process that is now happening.
It will be interesting to see how doggedly Prachanda and his Maoists insist the monarchy goes. Will they compromise so that they can win a toehold in government or will they feel it essential to remove the one institution that would assuredly resist them if they made a final bid for power? The risks however are not all with the king and the politicians. Prachanda’s fellow rebels and rural supporters now may be tempted to abandon the revolution and take advantage of a general amnesty to return to society, not least perhaps because doctrinaire Maoism in China these days warmly embraces capitalism.
