The elusive middle way: Nepal _ once again _ sees politicians pushed aside by royal absolutism

TIM SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer
AP Worldstream
02-04-2005
Dateline: KATMANDU, Nepal
The king may have seized control in this Himalayan nation _ clamping down on political activity, stifling the press and ordering a communications blackout _ but one of his top aides wants to make one thing clear.

"His Majesty's commitment to multiparty democracy is total," Ramesh Nath Pandey, the newly named foreign minister and a longtime adviser to King Gyanendra, said Thursday. "This is a commitment of the king to his people."

And if it seems contradictory that many of the country's politicians have been jailed or put under house arrest, Pandey disagrees.

"It's a precautionary measure," he said without elaborating.

Nepal, the impoverished former hippie haven wedged between India and China, a place still renowned among trekkers as a Shangri-La despite a Maoist insurgency that has seized control of much of the countryside, should be accustomed to such political contradictions.

It has spent more than half a century searching for an elusive path between royal rule and democracy, bouncing between edicts from god-kings and legislative elections, where the term "constitutional monarchy" has often meant the politicians decry the king and the king fires the politicians.

"That's the only way we can ensure the survival of this country _ in the middle ground between democracy and monarchy," said Yuvraj Ghimire, editor of the current affairs magazine Samaya and a prominent political observer.

But Nepal has grown increasingly dubious about both the royal family and the political class. Many people simply want a government _ royal or otherwise _ that can end the Maoist revolt that has killed more than 10,000 people since 1996, jump-start the failing economy and end the constant political infighting.

"If the king is able to settle the Maoist troubles, then what he's done will be OK," said Prakash Pradhan, a teacher in Katmandu. "But if he fails, this is all going to backfire on him."

For now, though, democracy has been pushed aside.

On Tuesday, the king lashed out at the interim government in a televised speech, saying it was unable to complete either of its two main tasks: bringing the Maoist insurgency under control and holding parliamentary elections.

So he dismissed the government of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, stationing soldiers outside his house, declared a state of emergency and cut all phone lines and Internet connections. Days later, there was still no way to call next door, to the nearest town or to anywhere else.

"This is absolute madness, cutting Nepal off from the rest of the world," said Ghimire, who called the king's shift to absolute power "the most extreme state you could imagine."

But, he added, "We can't just blame the king."

You also can blame the politicians.

Nepal also has a notoriously immature political class, filled with squabbling parties and political leaders who barely try to hide their corruption or nepotism.

That's not surprising, given Nepal's history.

Until the mid-20th century, Nepal was one of the most isolated countries on Earth, a place governed by feudal lords, where most peasants had no right to own land until 1923. The first airplane did not touch down here until 1942 and the first cars had to be ferried over mountain passes by porters.

In 1950, Nepal had its first taste of democratic rule, when a dispute between the figurehead king and the Ranas, the feudal caste that held real authority, lead to a power vacuum. By the time it was over, the Ranas were ousted and power was shared between the king and an elected government.

Ten years and nine shaky governments later, the king staged what is known as the "royal coup" and took back absolute power.

The situation shifted again in 1990, when massive street protests forced the king to again share power.

The past 15 years, though, passed uneasily. Political infighting was rampant, and while Nepal's standard of living and literacy rates inched up, it remains one of the world's poorest countries. Voters grew increasingly cynical.

Things grew much worse in 2001, when Gyanendra, 55, assumed the crown after his brother, Birendra, was gunned down in a palace massacre apparently committed by Birendra's son, the crown prince, who also died.

Riots shook Katmandu after the killings, and fighting intensified between government forces and the rebels.

Now, the politicians are again out of power, and the pressure is all on Gyanendra. He has vowed to end the insurgency and pave the way for stable democratic rule.

But if he cannot, he will face the wrath of the Maoists _ and the wrath of a nation that has already shown it can rise up in frustration.

Copyright 2005, AP News All Rights Reserved