
In a curious way, Nepal8217;s monarchy has been of great utility to the country8217;s Maoists. Much and often rightly reviled as it is, the institution provided an excuse last year for the Maoists to make a relatively easy transition from insurgency to mainstream politics. By placing their cadres so emphatically in protests against the king8217;s emergency regime, they won the cooperation of the political parties, paving the way for a peace process. Under the terms of the peace process, the Maoists became part of the interim government until the election 8212; scheduled for
November 8212; would determine the composition of a constituent assembly. On Tuesday, the Maoists threatened to upset this fragile arrangement by once again invoking the monarchy as a cover for a tactical political shift. They say they are recalling their ministers from the interim government because other constituents refuse to abolish the monarchy ahead of elections.
Observers argue that this refusal to abide by the original consensus that the constituent assembly would be best empowered to take a considered view on the monarchy8217;s existence is nothing but a way of evading a possible debacle at the hustings.
If so, this is unfortunate. To truly bring Nepal out of its long and acute crisis of governance, its forthcoming elections needed participation by its entire diversity of political opinion. These are, after all, not just elections. The assembly elected will decide upon a new constitutional framework. But if these exceptional circumstances demand a participative political spectrum, the Maoists must also be made aware that they gained respectability because of these exceptional circumstances. Having made such rapid transition from insurgency to parliamentary politics, they must know that the onus is on them to show themselves to be responsible participants.
They are certainly not doing so with such sudden repudiation of political accords. For Nepal the consequences could be destabilising. However, there will be consequences for the Maoists too. The next time around, their word may not carry much credibility.