Let’s not make monarchy an absolute political necessity.. read more below..

[AMBASSADOR] MORIARTY’S MESSAGE

Let’s not make monarchy—which has chosen to keep itself shackled to the past—an absolute political necessity. Nepalese have readied themselves for an unconventional solution, if need be, so must the international community.
BY JOHN NARAYAN PARAJULI

AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO NEPAL JAMES F. MORIARTY has been one of the most vocal critics of the current royal government. Lately he has been blunt and harsh—much to the chagrin of the palace and its appointees. But the palace officials are not the only ones who have come under his scathing criticism. The Seven Parties are at the receiving end of his informed criticism too—following their 12 point agreement with the Maoists.


Ambassador Moriarty brings to the fore some points that are either being deliberately overlooked or have been forgotten in between the parleys. He has spoken out against the Seven Parties-Maoists agreement umpteen times. What seems to alarm him is the “silent endorsement” of the Maoists’ violence by the seven parties in the aftermath of the agreement and in run up to the municipal election. Needless to say that Moriarty speaks for the Bush administration.
Moriarty’s criticism is more than just habitual criticism on ideological grounds. He has gone to length in recent days to explain his government’s opposition to the Maoists and the king.

In his article published in The Wall Street Journal-Asia on February 15, Moriarty makes a grim prediction: “Unless the King and the seven major political parties reconcile, this mountain kingdom could slide into chaos.” He puts the lion’s share of blame on the king for exacerbating the crisis. Although the prediction itself may not be new, the manner in which he singles out the palace for failing to make efforts towards reconciliation certainly is an indication of Washington’s hardening stance.

Washington’s position on Nepal is mixed, at best. Not many believe that America is pursuing its twin objectives in Nepal with equal zeal: prevention of a Maoist victory and restoration of democracy. Caught between the Devil and the deep sea—the Maoists and the King, the United States has seemingly soft-pedaled towards the latter. This American attachment with right wing dictators is not new. It dates back to the Cold War era’s ideological battle. The Cold War may be long ended, but isolated cases of Communism’s revival have still given a lease on life to Washington’s antiquated policy of the bygone era. Well, it may be a Hobson choice for the United States, but it militates against making realistic assessment on the ground. This is not to disagree with the ambassador’s contention that the Seven Parties-Maoists alliance is fraught with danger. This is also not to disagree with his argument that the human “quota of sacrifice” that Baburam Bhattarai’s revolution seems to demand is unacceptable. This is however in disagreement with the implicit assertion that without monarchy Nepal can not have a genuine democracy.

Admittedly, a year ago I had found it hard to imagine a Nepal without a monarchy. But things have changed for me twelve months down the road. Arguably, many Nepalese have undergone similar metamorphosis.
It would be wrong to associate the mainstream deliberation on republicanism with the Maoists movement. The Maoists are responsible for starting the debate in 1996, yet this new increasingly popular idea of republicanism is purely a byproduct of the king’s political and constitutional misadventures. Just few years earlier the subject was a taboo, but the pace of the progression has caught everyone by surprise, including the Maoists.

There is a fine distinction between the concept of a “democratic republic of Nepal” that is being debated and pursued in the mainstream and the one being dreamt of by the Maoists. The semantic impatience with the term “republicanism” is understandable given the plethora of Maoist platitudes in circulation, yet it is utterly unacceptable to diminish the mainstream movement based on the Maoists’ fear. Fear is good as long as it serves as a forewarning and not as a hindrance to progressive thinking.
Ideal Solution?
Ideally the compromise between the King and the parties seems like a viable solution, rather than the path of republicanism. But often easy solutions are not the best ones. And it has the added danger of overlooking the Maoists, whose radical ideas may be dangerous, but there is no denying that they have genuine social and political underpinnings. A compromise with the palace, which has come to believe itself as a legitimate and rightful embodiment of the state, looks even more distant. As a self-appointed guardian of the state sans accountability, the palace seems to believe that it has inherent right to act on whims and fancies.

Many Nepalese have come to wonder why it is important to preserve such an instrument of oppression.

Nepal’s conflict has all the features of the American Revolution, except for the presence of the Maoists; oppressed by a tyrant King in distant England, the people of 13 colonies, instead of deliberating on having their own King, vowed to never have one. It makes perfect sense for Nepalese to think outside the box and nip the bud of one of the constant sources of their political misery.

Moriarty’s concern is understandable. He is against the idea of taking risk by tilting towards the Maoists. But tilting towards an ambitious palace is equally burdened with peril.
King Gyanendra has aspired for a role commensurate with his ambition rather than his weight. By suggesting a fixed template solution for Nepal (read “constitutional monarchy”), the international community is unwittingly endorsing the palace’s ambition, or so it appears. It also sends a wrong message about our ability to run a functioning democracy without the monarchy.

Let’s not make monarchy, which has chosen to keep itself shackled to the past, an absolute political necessity. Nepalese have readied themselves for an unconventional solution, if need be, so must the international community.