NepalPOLITICAL DYNAMICS, NEPAL
Royal Palace, Kathmandu
Courtesy Janet MacDonald
The Panchayat System
For centuries the government had been run by a number
of
interrelated aristocratic families. Despite the
limitations of a
royal ban on political parties and other impediments,
political
parties did exist and operated clandestinely. To escape
harassment
or imprisonment, many political leaders went to India,
where they
also received logistical and other support.
Under the panchayat system, there were six
government-
sponsored class and professional organizations for
peasants,
laborers, students, women, former military personnel, and
college
graduates. These organizations were substitutes for the
prohibited
political parties and provided alternate channels for the
articulation of group or class--rather than
national--interests.
The professional and class organizations were warned
repeatedly
against engaging in political activity; nevertheless, they
offered
the only political forum open to many Nepalese, and even
some
Nepali Congress Party and communist partisans considered
them
worthy of infiltration.
The king also launched an independent national student
association, the National Independent Student Council
(Rashtriya
Swatantra Vidyarthi Parishad), to control the political
activities
of the students. The association failed to gain support,
and
successful student agitation in 1979 forced the king not
only to
abolish it but also to initiate constitutional reforms
leading to
the national referendum of 1980. Also in 1980, a group of
dissident
pancha brought a no-confidence motion against Prime
Minister
Surya Bahadur Thapa on charges of bureaucratic corruption,
food
shortages, and lack of economic discipline. Surya Bahadur,
however,
was a perennial political survivor and was returned to
office in
1981.
King Birendra devised the Back-to-the-Village National
Campaign
(BVNC) in 1975. The BVNC was intended to circumvent the
possibility
of opposition within the panchayat and to create a
loyal
core of elites to select and endorse candidates for
political
office, thereby neutralizing the influence of underground
political
party organizers in the rural areas. Although it was
envisioned as
a means to mobilize the people for the implementation of
development plans and projects, the shortlived BVNC--it
was
suspended in 1979--was in reality an ideological campaign
to
reinforce the importance of the partyless system. The
campaign
stressed that the partyless system was appropriate to the
ways of
the Nepalese people; the party system was a divisive and
culturally
alien institution.
Each zonal committee had a BVNC structure, with a
secretary
nominated by the king. The BVNC network was extended to
the
district and village levels so as to reinforce a national
communication system. However inasmuch as the government
paid the
BVNC central and zonal committee members and restricted
chances for
popular participation, the committees carried out the same
activities as the panchayat. In actuality, the BVNC
was
created by the king to ensure a loyal organization and
circumvent
active party members from gaining seats in the
panchayat
elections. The BVNC became an organization of centrally
controlled
loyal panchayat elites and an insurance policy for
palace
initiatives.
The only significant opposition to the monarchy came
from the
Nepali Congress Party, which operated from exile in India.
Other
parties either accepted and operated within the
panchayat
system on a supposedly nonpartisan basis or merged with
the exiled
Nepali Congress Party, polarizing politics over the issue
of
monarchical rule. Even the Communist Party of Nepal,
divided on the
tactical question of whether to seek the direct and
immediate
overthrow of the monarchical system or to work within it,
had split
into factions--a radical wing operated in India and a
moderate wing
underground in Nepal. Some party members, to gain tactical
advantage over the Nepali Congress Party, entered the
panchayat system with the tacit approval of the
palace.
Ethnic plurality, income disparity, linguistic
diversity,
pervading regional loyalties, underdeveloped
communications, and a
paucity of written and electronic media also hindered
party
organization. The dominant high-caste political leaders
were more
interested in sharing or gaining access to power than in
developing
lasting foundations for party politics.
Reportedly, before political organizations were banned,
there
were sixty-nine political parties, most of which were
characteristically fluid in their membership and
inconsistent in
their loyalties. Personalities rather than ideologies
brought
individuals and groups under the nominal canopy of a
party.
Fragmentation, recombination, and alliances for
convenience were
the outstanding aspects of party behavior.
In the polarized political climate, the monarchy looked
at the
panchayat system as its only dependable support
base. The
panchayat apparatus provided access for politically
motivated individuals to form a new elite. Although the
political
leadership and following of the Nepali Congress Party
initially
stayed away from the panchayat system, over time,
and in the
absence of an outlet for political activities, some
defections took
place. Nevertheless, the lateral entry of some pro-Nepali
Congress
Party elements did not substantially change the character
of the
panchayat leadership, which was dominated by rural
elites of
the Hill Region rather than the urban Kathmandu and Tarai
Region
elites who had been in the forefront of political
activities. The
system was designed so that the established parties would
gradually
shrink and lose their influence and control. Once the new
panchayat leadership matured, however, some members
became
restive under the excessive control of the palace. This
group of
the panchayat elite opposed the system from within
and
overtly joined the prodemocracy movement.
In the last four decades, there was significant
progress
towards democracy in Nepal's traditionally authoritarian
political
system. The first national elections in Nepal took place
in 1959--
some eight years after the overthrow of the Rana system.
The Nepali
Congress Party-dominated government, victorious in the
1959
parliamentary elections, was overthrown by King Mahendra
within two
years--resulting in the ban on political parties. The
pattern that
developed over the following decades was that of a
monarchy
reinforcing its power through the traditional institution
of the
panchayat. The panchayat system, co-opted
and easily
manipulated by the monarchy to suit its political ends,
nevertheless was slowly but steadily subjected to
pressures to
change. Over time the monarchy was forced by necessity to
expand
the role of elections in response to the mounting
discontent of a
citizenry living in an age of heightened political
awareness and
rising expectations. This trend culminated in May 1991
with the
first truly free elections in over thirty years, ushering
in a new
political era. The Nepali Congress Party obtained a
workable
majority within the framework of a constitutional monarchy
and
affirmed the rise of a nascent democratic force.
One of the ramifications of the prodemocracy movement
was the
beginning of a process of integration in national politics
and
decision making. With an elected Parliament and demands
for an
equitable allocation of resources to different regions, it
was
likely that all regions would compete for equality in
national
politics and that the monopoly of power by select families
would
erode, as would the excessive influence of the Kathmandu
Valley
Brahman, Chhetri, and Newar elites.
At the beginning of 1990, the panchayat system
still
dominated Nepal. Although the institution itself was the
object of
derision from opponents of the panchayat system, it
appeared
unthreatened. Within a few months, however, its position
eroded and
then crumbled with bewildering speed. The surge of the
successful
prodemocracy movement sweeping Eastern Europe, parts of
the Soviet
Union, and several Asian countries profoundly inspired the
Nepalese
people. Also contributing to the sudden transformation
were the
economic woes of Nepal, exacerbated by India's refusal to
renew a
trade and transit agreement; widespread bureaucratic
inefficiency
and corruption at all levels of government; the misgivings
openly
expressed by the international donors over the country's
inefficient use of aid; and a deplorable record on human
rights.
In January 1990, the Nepali Congress Party held its
first
national convention in thirty years in Kathmandu. It was
well
attended by party delegates from all districts and
observers from
all political parties. Also present was a multiparty
delegation
from India, headed by Janata Dal (People's Party) leader
Chandra
Shekhar, who subsequently became Indian's prime minister.
The
Nepali Congress Party cooperated with the United Left
Front
parties, a coalition of seven communist factions, in a
joint
program to replace the panchayat system with a
multiparty
political system and launched the Movement for the
Restoration of
Democracy, or prodemocracy movement.
Beginning on February 18, 1990--the thirty-ninth
anniversary of
King Tribhuvan's declaration of a multiparty democracy and
the
thirtieth anniversary of the antidemocratic usurpation of
power by
the palace--a series of spontaneous and sometimes
turbulent mass
demonstrations rocked major cities. People took to the
streets to
demand the restoration of a multiparty democracy, human
rights, and
fundamental freedoms. The success of the Kathmandu
bandh
(general strike) by prodemocracy forces on March 2 was
repeated in
other parts of the country over the course of seven weeks.
By the
time the movement succeeded in totally uprooting the
panchayat system, at least fifty people were dead,
and
thousands were injured as a result of the force used by
the
authorities in suppressing the agitation. The government
also had
incarcerated national and district-level leaders of both
the Nepali
Congress Party and the United Left Front.
Unable to contain the widespread public agitation
against the
panchayat system and the mounting casualties, and
fearing
for the survival of his own monarchical status, King
Birendra
lifted the ban on political parties on April 8. The unrest
persisted. In the midst of continued violence, a royal
proclamation
on April 16 dissolved the Rashtriya Panchayat and
invalidated
provisions of the 1962 constitution inconsistent with
multiparty
democracy. The next day, the king named Nepali Congress
Party
President K.P. Bhattarai, a moderate who had spent
fourteen years
as a political prisoner, as prime minister and head of the
interim
government. The government also freed all political
prisoners,
lifted control of all domestic and foreign publications,
and
established a commission, known as the Mullick Commission,
to
investigate the recent loss of life and property.
The eleven-member Bhattarai cabinet, composed of four
members
of the Nepali Congress Party, three members of the United
Left
Front, two human rights activists, and two royal nominees,
was
immediately entrusted with the task of preparing a new
constitution
and holding a general election. Pending the adoption of a
new
constitution, the interim government agreed that Nepal
should
remain under the 1962 constitution. In the interest of
continuity
and orderly management of public business, the interim
government
resisted demands from the left for a mass purge of the
bureaucracy
and die-hard panchayat elements. Bhattarai's goal
was
national reconciliation in a multiparty democracy.
After nine months of politicking, the constitution was
proclaimed on November 9, 1990. Elections to the House of
Representatives were held on May 12, 1991. The new
government faced
the immediate problems of restoring law and order,
providing
economic relief to the populace, and establishing its
claim to
sound administration, a somewhat difficult task because
the parties
of the interim government had been in the opposition for a
long
period of time. Furthermore, pro-panchayat thugs
who had
tried to foment chaos and law and order problems to
discredit the
new government had to be brought under control. The
situation
improved as many former panchayat leaders who had
previously
supported moves for a multiparty democracy openly
supported the
political changes and offered to cooperate with the new
government-
-taking advantage of political opportunism.
Data as of September 1991
|