Nepal's fragile democracy

Facing the Test

Nepal is an important crucible for the idea of democracy. Can democracy as a system accommodate, moderate and discipline political forces that owe their existence to revolutionary violence and populism directed against an authoritarian establishment? Or will democracy unravel itself amid irreconcilable differences? Western democracies’ stability is ascribed to a certain level of socio-economic development and broad agreement over the fundamentals of the political system. In the absence of such conditions, are postcolonial democracies like Nepal doomed to be forever fragile?
The ongoing political crisis in Nepal — the sacking of the army chief by the Maoist government, followed by the president’s declaration of the act as unconstitutional, and then the resignation of the powerful prime minister Dahal (more commonly known as Prachanda) — comes as a jolt to the international community. The absence of Nepal from international news circuit in recent months provided a false sense of satisfaction that democracy and peace had won there.

The sequence of largely orderly elections, Maoists moving into the government and working along with other political parties, the abolition of the monarchy and the constituent assembly’s declaration that there will be a new constitution by May 2010, had indicated that a democratic system was finding its feet in the shifting sands of Nepalese politics. But beneath the surface lay the unresolved tension over the basic principle of statehood — monopoly over legal violence. The key question was and is, who controls the armed forces?

Distrust

The tricky task for the new government headed by the Maoist-led alliance was to integrate the former rebels into the army. Stable representative systems require the civilian government’s control over armed forces. In Nepal, the peace process left the two fighting sides — the army as well as the Maoist rebels — fully armed and, more crucially, in distrust of each other.

The army chief in question, an establishment man to his boots, acted in defiance of the orders of the government by continuing a recruitment drive while keeping former rebels out. His behaviour must be seen in the context of the old establishment’s contempt for the Maoists’ victory in democratic elections, divisions within the governing coalition over the pace of change and the tacit disquiet India had with the Maoists’ warmer relations with China.

The crisis was in the making for weeks, but finally blew up because the Maoists in power were being made to look weak against the defiant army chief. By resigning, the prime minister has clearly decided to play the game of brinkmanship rather than compromise for he was losing credibility within the Maoist rank and file.