Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by South China Morning Post on 05/01/2007

Last Thursday marked the anniversary of Nepal’s King Gyanendra relinquishing power after months of mass protests. While it should have been a day for celebrating democracy, Maoists warned against any celebrations when true democracy has not yet been fully achieved.

A Nepali election scheduled for June 20 was postponed, threatening to dash hopes for the coalition government and further set back aspirations for a stable democracy under a new constitution. Unfortunately, external pressures may have caused the delay. Three reasons were officially given: more time was needed for “technical reasons”; new “voting pattern preconditions” were required; and the troubled “security situation”. Many feel these excuses were contrived by certain interests seeking to delay the constitutional process.

For example, Nepali Congress president Sher Bahadur Deuba, now leading a split-wing faction of the mainstream right of the party, said that he was “happy” with a delay. Why?

Nepali diplomatic circles have speculated over the reasons. “It is one thing to say, based on a set of rational reasons, why the elections might be delayed, but to just declare happiness makes us question the motivation,” said one diplomat. Mr Deuba is allegedly the candidate most favoured by the US administration.

Shadowy patterns from the past linger. In 1951, a mass democratic movement changed the reigning interests of the Rhana royal families who had ruled from behind the throne for nearly 140 years. The movement spread power between congress and the king: on February 21, the king announced the formation of a constitutional assembly, to be followed by a free election. The assembly never convened, due to “interim conditions” and the election was put on the backburner. In 1959, King Mahendra proclaimed monarchic rule from that year onwards, and democracy became a dream. Today, many Nepalis see history repeating itself with the same delaying tactics.

The irony in the political impasse is that the Maoist party is seeking to institute a popular and transparent election as early as possible, and has called for this repeatedly. Meanwhile, US diplomats in Nepal wish to see the timetable pushed back. Nepal’s diplomatic circles recall how excuses that “it is not the right time” for an election have been repeated during each stage of the peace process: first, in delaying Maoist participation in parliament, then the government, and now through delays in the poll.

This tactic could be interpreted as a move in favour of the Nepali Congress party, which would surely lose seats to the Maoists if an election was held imminently. Such a delay could only be motivated by hopes that surging Maoist popular support might lose momentum, leaving an encumbered and ineffective government, and people dissatisfied with the result. Clearly, this is what the US administration wants.

Another rival communist party, the Unified Marxist-Leninists (UML) seemed to go along with the delay at first, perhaps hoping it could oust Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and replace him with one of its own. But under popular pressure, the UML is aligning with the Maoists. The result could be a sharp bipolarization of Nepali politics. The Congress party could find itself in a minority against the larger communist bloc. In a way external interference, to try to fashion an outcome preferred by certain western powers, might actually elicit the opposite result.

In the past, Maoists lauded India for supporting the natural and organic development of democratic institutions in Nepal. Recently, they have become concerned that New Delhi, possibly influenced by US interests, may be supporting a delay. Sympathisers see a direct link between US policy to isolate Maoists from democratic participation in Nepal’s political process and polarisation of the parties.

Regardless of whether such claims are true, finding a consensus between the eight parties is the way forward, with a timetable for Nepalis to determine their own constitution. Now is the time for a legitimate election. Nepalis, who have suffered for so long, deserve it. Without further external interference, maybe it could happen.

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top