A constituent assembly is designed to provide the monarch a soft landing. But I don't believe the monarch sees it that way. And I don't blame him. The guy did not trust even the RPP to participate in the February 8 polls on its own. He inducted a bunch of RPP people into his cabinet so as to force that party to take part in the slated polls. The RPP ministers could have forced a split in the party on the issue, but instead they opted for a compromise that the district units get to decide, one district at a time. Most will likely stay out. This shows the RPP ministers see this regime going down. If they side with it too strongly, they basically say goodbye to any political futures for themselves post-democracy.
For the king a constituent assembly is tantamount to a republic. Two years back that would not have been true. But by now the political landscape has fundamentally altered. So for him to say, okay, let's go for a constituent assembly is the same as saying, okay, here, take away my crown.
What if he does not like the idea of the monarchy coming to an end? Then what?
He could opt for a bloody showdown and act irrational, and risk everything, not just his crown but possibly his life, if not life, much or all of his property, his liberty. Saddam used to be all powerful in Iraq: now a country tribunal is on its way to hanging him. The king might be above the law in Nepal, but that is not true of international law.
Or he could try and stall it for as long as possible. For now I think he is doing the latter. He is stalling.
It is not true he is doing February 8 for the international community. The international community is very aware of the sham exercise the polls are meant to be. All the so-called international community needs is basic internet access to know exactly what is going on. It is not possible to draw one picture at home and another abroad, not in this day and age.
The king is doing February 8 for himself.
I think there is some fear among the seven party alliance leaders that the king might have one last hiccup. He might try and take the irrational path, even if it might not fly. Feelings are not valid because they are logical, but because they exist. I am not going to judge them from the safety of New York City.
When I talk to the seven party leaders in Kathmandu on the phone, especially the leaders of the small parties, it is so obvious their phones are tapped, and they know it.
But I do feel as long as there is a clear adherence to non-violence, there is little that the seven party alliance has to fear.
A revolution does not always need a leader. In France much of the revolution just happened. The milk boiled over. If something similar were to happen in Nepal, I don't think the seven party alliance is going to try and calm things down. In fact, I think they are hoping the revolution will boil forth on its own.
But providing outright leadership is proving a little problematic.
The UML is one member of the seven party alliance that is taking clear lead. The UML is against the idea of holding talks with the king, and it is clearly for a democratic republic.
I don't see talks possible. The king's idea of talks is for the parties to come around to his roadmap. He is not interested in talks. He thinks of these party leaders as people beneath him. You don't talk to people beneath you.
Two words are clarity. The 1990 movement was organized around a simple phrase: multi-party democracy. This movement needs something similar. The problem with having a constituent assembly as that simple two-word goal is that it totally relies on the king coming along. What if he does not come along? That is like giving the king the power to decide if or not the movement will succeed. The king gets to have the final say on a movement for democracy, for a republic. That makes no sense.
And a constituent assembly is not exactly a revolutionary slogan. Few people know what a constituent assembly is, and I don't blame them: there are many possible versions.
The movement will have to have an action plan that leads to success regardless of what the king does or not. Right now it does not.
I suggested a Pyramid Of 10 In Kathmandu. That was a lesson learned from Ukraine.
The UML leaders want to amass a million people and then march towards the royal palace, surround it. That will work. But before that can happen, the eight party alliance will have to come around to a two word program: democratic republic. They will have to move beyond the 12 point agreement. They will have to summarize it all in two simple words.
I have offered a Proposed Republican Constitution that the eight party alliance could adopt.
I don't think there is any one roadmap that is the right one. But there are questions that have to be answered now. We have to think through things. We have to think through all possible scenarios.
One person will have to be projected as the interim Prime Minister. (Nice And Easy: President Nepal)
Asking the people to come out into the streets in the hundreds of thousands for some vague "12 point program" is a little too ambitious. You have to be able to say it in 2-5 words, preferably two. If you are instead offering an essay, you have not done your homework. The onus is still on you, not on the people.
The Nepali diaspora in the US fares even worse than the seven party alliance. There are too many armchair intellectuals talking among themselves. There is little effort so far to reach out to the masses of Nepalis in the US. I intend to work to change that. I want thousands participating.
In The News
UN ‘deeply concerned’ at end of ceasefire in Nepal Daily Times, Pakistan
NEPAL: Maoists resume war with series of bomb attacks
Nepal steps up security after explosions rock towns; rebels end ... Brandon Sun, Canada
China's priority for proposed Koshi-Lhasa highway in Nepal People's Daily Online, China
People No More Love Royal Palace: Nepal NewsLine Nepal, Nepal
Time Ripe for Decisive Agitation: Nepal
Maoists abandon Nepal ceasefire
