Nepali Politics 101: a condensed political history

I am obliged to begin with a disclosure, to be certain that it is clear. This post is not in any way meant to support any political party over another. It is simply meant to be a (relatively) concise, informative piece describing the recent history of Nepali politics and the current political situation.

– – –

“I’m annoyed,” she told a couple regulars as she sat down for a moment’s break. “They’re asking me not to vote. What will they do if I vote? What if I want to vote?” Her voice contorted. “Will they break me? Will they break my restaurant?” Another customer called her to his table. The women (who I will not name) owns and works as a waitress at a well-esteemed American restaurant in Kathmandu. Tables are neatly arranged between a porch and a brick patio, sheltered by a large tree decked in twinkle lights. Tucked away far off the busy street, one could easily believe herself to be in the United States or Europe, rather than in the middle of Nepal’s chaotic capital city. She returned and sat down again. “I’m apolitical,” she stated with disdain and clarity. “I believe in working hard. I came back to my country. I treat my staff well. But they come and try to intimidate me with pictures.” The photographs, presumably, were of vandalized property or beat-up people. When asked what she planned to do, she responded, “They come back on Monday and I’ll give them a couple thousand rupees.” They are representatives of the alliance of political parties who were bent on disrupting Nepal’s November 19th election. She hoped the bribe would protect her restaurant from potential vandalism, should things have turned violent in the days before the election.

An election – not even for legislative seats, but simply for a Constituent Assembly. It seems a simple enough event to those of us from countries where election proceedings have become practically mundane. So why was the restaurant owner afraid of violence? Because of events in Nepal’s recent past. Unless you’re a political correspondent, have studied Asia’s recent history, or are a die-hard news junkie (or have read about it in this blog), my guess is you probably didn’t realize that Nepal is still recovering from a violent civil war, nor that the civil war was but one of many episodes in Nepal’s struggle to establish a stable government over the past 60 years. It remains true that when someone mentions “Nepal” to the majority of westerners, an image of a shangra-la – a peaceful Himalayan country with smiling sherpas, yaks, and brilliant green rice terraces – comes to mind. Not a country that remains rife with political rivalries, struggling to agree upon a form of governance and to write a constitution.

So – how did Nepal get here?

– – –

Historically, Nepal was the world’s only Hindu Monarchy and was controlled in absolute by hereditary lines for nearly two hundred years without disruption, until the citizen’s first attempt at democratic elections in the 1950’s. Granted, over these centuries power shifted between the monarchy and another hereditary line called the Ranas, who held the seat of Maharaja (essentially a de-facto Prime Minister). The sudden outcry for a representational government in the late 1940’s didn’t come out of no where. For over a century, Nepal had been supplying the British military with its prized Gurkha warriors – soldiers known for their fierce, tough demeanor and ability to kill enemies with a single swing of their kukuri knives. After fighting overseas in World War I and World War II, many Gurkha soldiers returned homes with ideas for change in their head. In the 1940’s Nepal’s first political parties began to form, but remained mostly underground due to violent out lash by the Maharajas. During this period the roots of today’s Communist parties and the Nepali congress party formed. Eventually giving into the pressure of increasing demonstrations and labor strikes, the ruling Maharaja ceded the demands and wrote Nepal’s first Constitution in 1948. While it established a bicameral legislation and a high court and lay the ground work for local government councils, it also maintained the hereditary inheritance of the Maharaja (Prime Minister position) within the Rana family.

1950’s: FIRST ATTEMPTS AT DEMOCRACY 
The Nepali Congress Party opposed this constitution on the grounds that it wasn’t a true democracy. In allegiance with the exiled monarch, the Nepali Congress successfully led a revolution in the hills demanding the Maharaja renounce his power and establish a true democracy. The resulting compromise was a 10-member interim cabinet, made of five representatives of the Nepali Congress and five representatives of the ruling Maharaja family, that was meant to set up a Constituent Assembly which would then write a democratic constitution. In concept, through this arrangement the king would return to his throne as a constitutional monarch in a democratic system. For those paying close attention, yes, this week’s election was held to establish a new Constituent Assembly. So you may easily guess the outcome of the first attempt in the 1950’s. The decade was marked by a classic “game of thrones”, if you will – with the Maharaja clan, Nepali Congress leaders, and the monarchy quibbling over the prime minister seat and role of the throne. The result was perpetual turn-over of interim-governments – nine years of equally many temporary governments unable to settle into their ranks long enough to agree upon much of anything. They abandoned their initial intent to establish a Constituent Assembly to form a democratic constitution. Instead, in 1958 the King (back in power) hand-picked a commission to draft a quasi-democratic constitution in his favor, one that acknowledged the ultimate supremacy of the King’s rule. In the least it can be credited for the one true step toward progress of the decade: the holding of elections. In 1959, Nepal successfully implemented a parliamentary election – marking its first nationwide exercise of democracy and establishing it’s first truly democratic government. But it was short lived. The common people felt let down by a “democracy” that failed to deliver any real development over a decade; the elite classes opposed the new democratic government because it threatened to disrupt their life styles. In 1960, as the parties and the citizens fell into disarray, the King exercised his supreme power to dissolve the government, ban political parties and reestablish the direct rule of the monarchy.

1960-1989: THE PACHAYAT SYSTEM and “constitutional monarchy”
In 1962, the King instituted a new constitution outlining a new “Pachayat system” of government, which was to last for the next 30 years and remains the blueprint for Nepal’s contemporary government structure. The Pachayat system essentially established a local, regional, and national representational government, but maintained King’s absolute power. Villagers elected representation to village-level Pachayats (councils), who in turn elected members to 75 district-level Pachayats, who in turn elected members to 14 zonal-level councils, from which 90 across the country were elected to the national-level 125 seat Pachayat, or Parliament. Of the remaining 35 seats, 19 were elected by special “class organizations” (special interest groups, essentially), and 16 were directly appointed by the King – including the Prime Minister. While clearly seeped in social hierarchy and still dominated by the crown, in the least Nepal finally had some form of representational government.

Despite the King’s ban, political parties remained active underground, surfacing now and again to stage student demonstrations or labor strikes – still want of democracy and a truly representational government. Nepali congress lead numerous assassination attempts on the crown, and the communist party gained strength from the examples in Peking and Russia. Unfortunately when taken in vacuum by the general public, these events only strengthened support of the monarchy for “saving them from the destruction of political parties.” But these events went unnoticed by the rest of the world, for whom Nepal appeared a peaceful shangra-la, continuing to draw many vagabonds from the west to enjoy the mountains and legal hash. Beneath the appearance of calm, civil dissent and police corruption continued to brew side by side. The Kathmandu bourgeois learned to keep their mouth shut to government criticism, least they be accused of being a political party activist and thrown into jail. A tide of student demonstrations led the King to hold Nepal’s first and only referendum in 1979, in which the people could vote to maintain the King’s Pachayat system or scrap it for a multiparty democracy.

Using state funds, the King led wide-spread campaigns across the country for improvements to the Pachayat system, should it be maintained. The political parties, still technically illegal, had to organize their campaigns for democracy underground, had many leaders held as political prisoners, and remained disorganized and divided. Thus by a 54% vote in 1980 the people of Nepal agreed to maintain the Pachayat system. True to his word (remarkably), some positive reforms were made: the Prime Minister was now elected by the Parliament rather than chosen by the King, and the Parliament members themselves were directly elected by their constituents. But the King still maintained ultimate power above the law, including control of the army, the ability to investigate and imprison anyone he chose.

Over the next decade, the underground parties gradually infiltrated the National Pachayat (Parliament); the educated class in Kathmandu remained confused about who was really in power and with whom their loyalties lay, unable to shake the indoctrinated fear of the political parties but growing increasingly critical of the lack of progress by the monarchy; and the image of an non-alligned country of poor-but-happy mountain people proliferated around the world.

1990: THE PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT.
In 1989, seven communist parties set aside their differences to form a coalition called the United Left Front, which in turn joined hands with the (democratic) Nepali Congress to form an alliance of “progressives” and “democrats” – calling themselves “the People’s movement.” Even while the communist groups and the democratic Nepali congress clearly had different visions for the government, they were together in wanting an end to the Monarch’s corrupt power. As the demonstrations started, the head party leaders were rapidly arrested, but young activists maintained the street presence, demonstrating and evoking riots despite increased police brutality and arrests. Over time the “liberal intelligentsia” joined the movement, as did the upper classes of Kathmandu valley, eventually convincing the King to, finally, lift the ban on political parties. He even conceded to the demand for a parliamentary democracy and a new constitution.

Things seemed to be looking up, but – history repeats itself. For all their liberal ideals, the leaders of the political parties were still upper-class, upper-caste old men who lacked the gumption to reach for dramatic change (aside from gaining their own seats of power). They drafted a constitution that looked much the same as before – the King remained the head of state, with control of the Defense Council (the army) and the ability to declare absolute power in the state of an emergency. And it defined Nepal as a Hindu kingdom, denying the rights of the ethnic and religious minorities. Very soon the parliament fell apart once again, the fragile allegiance between the communist parties and the Nepali congress unraveling. Corrupt elections ensued, parliaments rapidly formed and dissolved, Prime Ministers were elected and forced into resignation, party members bickered among themselves and political leaders focused on bettering themselves in their new position among the Kathmandu upper class. The citizens who had been elated at the promise of democracy and all of the equality and development it would bring were let down yet again. All the while, communist propaganda from China and Russia had spread across the countryside, inspiring many frustrated peasants, setting the stage for a grass-roots insurgency.

1996-2006: THE MAOIST INSURGENCY
In 1996, after the parliament failed to respond to a list of 40 demands, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) began a violent grass-roots insurgency that gripped the nation for nearly a decade. Before its end, over 13,000 civilians, politicians and armed forces would meet their deaths. Why did they rise up? Poor people in remote regions were tired of the government turnover, tired of the governement’s lack of action to effect their lives, tired of the games for power. So they turned to the idea of communism. They turned to the Maoists, who promised to defeat the current monarch and bourgeois dominatedparliamentary government and instate a new government, a government that would be free of religion and free of caste boundaries and that would deliver on development promises; a government that wouldn’t forget the rural poor. The current Parliament had done little in the way of social rights, and what little it had done only occurred after mass uprisings of the people. Well, the people learned. When the Maoists took force, they saw violence as a necessary means to an end. The “People’s war” as they called it began small – with bank and police station attacks, land-deed burnings and the vandalism of numerous manufacturing plants. They were attacking established wealth. Many of the rural poor felt liberalized – their loans had been forgiven, landless-farmers had the opportunity to reclaim land. In its strongholds the Maoists bombed government buildings and set up their own local leadership and laws. These laws were often strict: such as the policy of non-religion, and a prohibition against alcohol and gambling. Punishment included public humiliation and being sent to labor camps “in the name of the people.”

At first the government and upper classes of Kathmandu didn’t take any of this seriously. It seemed far away from their day-to-day lives, unreal. Some speculated that it was a new attempt of the Monarchy to destabilize democracy. The police began to respond with greater force. In 1998, an operation called Kilo Sierra 2 involved the razing of entire villages and the torture and arrest of their inhabitants in 18 districts across the country. The Maoists responded with increased violence, and a period of mutual distrust began. If a villager wasn’t with the Maoist’s than they suspected he work for the government, so they threatened him and demanded bribes. If the army suspected a villager was a Maoist, they’d shoot him without question. Shootings, arrests, and disappearances increased dramatically across the countryside.

At the same time, the country’s tradition of nation-wide strikes, or “Bandha s” began in earnest, as various social and interests groups demanded policy changes. In a true Bandha, all traffic is halted and many businesses close. This hit the Economy hard. In February 2001, the members of parliament effectively boycotted their winter session, unable to reach any discussion beyond bickering. This dysfunction supported the Maoists criticisms, and fueled some to dream of a new royal coup. Out of desperation, the Prime Minster deployed even more armed forces – both to battle the insurgents and in attempt to regain popular support by starting much needed infrastructure projects. In response the Maoists fought back even harder – and blew up a lot of infrastructure.

In the summer of 2001, just when it seemed things couldn’t get any worse – there was gun fire inside the palace.

2001: the Royal Massacre, the Royal Coup, and the loss of human rights
On the evening of June 1st, 2001, the entire Nepali Royal family was murdered. Yes, nine members of the family were killed in a single evening, survived only by the King’s brother, Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah. The official story is that the crowned Prince got drunk and in a jealous stupor shot everyone before turning the gun on himself. But the bodies were creamated the very next day, without proper autopsy nor much of an investigation. It remains suspicious that the King’s brother alone survived, for just over a year later, in October 2002, he “relieved the country of its sovereignty” and took power once again.

The Maoists took advantage of the haze, continuing to force school shut downs and attack police posts throughout the countryside. Out of panic, the Army entered a search-and-destroy mode, which led to many acts of horrific misconduct. Local governments had dissolved, the members five-year tenures having expired and the unrest making new elections infeasible. A cease fire was reached in 2003, but remote regions remained extremely tense – Maoists rebels on the ground completely lacked trust in the security forces, the security forces continued to accuse and shoot innocent people as Maoists. They were dark days in the far west hill districts. In 2003 representatives from the Security Forces and from the Maoists met to hold peace talks, but rumors of an execution-style shooting of 19 unarmed Maoists by security forces the day before caused the Maoists to pull out of peace talks and the insurgency to continue for another two years. At this point, the political parties stepped up their movement for democracy and began holding more mass rallies and strikes in Kathmandu.

In 2005, King Gyanendra responded by launching a military coup and declared his direct rule as a monarch. He banned freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right to information – essentially instating a dictatorship.

The political parties continued to meet in exile (in India), and, incredibly, had now found common ground with the Maoists: to remove the monarchy. At the close of 2005, a seven-party alliance formed to launch a unified movement for democracy, by peaceful means – and the Maoists agreed to be allies. In Spring 2006, millions of Nepalis took to the streets in an unprecedented show of unity and peaceful demand, defying curfews and government orders. After 19 days of public protest, the King announced the reinstatement of parliament, and the “people’s war” finally came to an end.

2006 to the present: A NEW REPUBLIC
After the King conceded power, the Maoists declared a cease-fire and entered peace-talks led by the United Nations. The outcome: to incorporate the Maoists into the political process as another major party, as they are to this day.

In 2008, the 240 year old Monarchy was finally fully resolved and Nepal became a Republic for the first time. Elections were held to form the first Constituent Assembly, which was tasked to create a constitution. While the Maoist party won plurality of the Assembly by popular vote, they lacked a majority. This combined with a stubborn lack of compromise by all major political parties caused many stark disagreements and staggering inaction. Over the past five years there have been at least as many governments formed and resolved, with constant Prime Minister turn-over, much like the 1950’s; in other words, the government has been anything but stable. The First Constituent Assembly was resolved by the Prime Minister over a year ago, and the election date to form a new, second Constituent Assembly has been set and postponed at least twice since. Finally, the date was set for November 19th, 2013. – earlier this week. And the government was ready to ensure it came to pass.

– – –

TODAY

Thus the commotion over the election – by proponents, opponents and the international community alike, abuzz with the fact that a peaceful, democratic election was in fact set to go through. And go through it did. On Tuesday, 70% of registered voters came to the polls to elect members to a Second Constituent Assembly, which will serve as an “acting” parliament and will try once again to create a new constitution. They went to the polls and voted, in defiance of one party’s threats that they would block the election at all costs. The election opposition – the one’s that threatened violence and took bribes from the restaurant owner, the ones that halting traffic nation-wide for a 10-day Bandha, and the ones who planted over 200 hoax bombs in urban areas over the week leading up to the election – was headed by a split off of the Maoists party (Officially called the “Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)”, and supported by numerous other small parties. They opposed the elections for a new Constituent Assembly in favor of a round-table discussion with representation from all party leaders to determine a new political course of action. Given the history of civil violence in this country, it’s no wonder that the Nepali government and international community alike took these threats seriously. It is fortunate that they limited their acts to vandalism and a very few episodes of violence.

Despite a relatively smooth election, few believe a Constitution will come any time soon. With 122 independent political parties vying for votes – which reflect the vast ethnic diversity of the country and the marginalized minorities sentiment of frustration after years without representation – it is unlikely that any one party will win a majority. There are three clear lead parties, but each seemed to have near equal support leading into the election: The (democratic) “Nepali Congress” party, the “Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist)”, and the “Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)”. We’ll see what news the election results bring. The election ballots were on paper and must be hand-counted in each district headquarters, which is expected to take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to complete.

Despite what such relatively high voter turn out may imply, a great many Nepalis didn’t bother to vote; they instead remain apathetic of their national politics, disillusioned by politicians promises. The fact of the matter is, regardless of spells of attempted democracy, partial monarchies and promised constitutions over the years, Nepali government has been a mess of political factions constantly fracturing and reuniting in a continuum of governmental chaos for over 60 years. In the eyes of the people, government-lead progress in infrastructure development and social change has always been too little, and has always been too late. The people have become accustomed to disappointment. Reading this short history, can you blame them? On the surface I can’t. But then – I look around and see how much progress has been made despite all the strife. I remember that somehow the government office I work with continues to function, despite the lack of a constitution. I recall the great strides Nepal has made toward achieving the millennium development goals. I know that much of this has come via an imperfect system – but much of it has been change for the better, and it has happened against the odds. Change is hard, it really is. But change happens – however slowly – and it all starts with action. Hopefully this latest election – this demonstration of peaceful civic action – will eventually, finally, lead to real governmental change for this country. One can always hope.