nepal ousts king
by Mark Hunter Mulvey
Published: May 19, 2008
People think they have taken quite an extraordinarily bold step forward when they have rid themselves of belief in hereditary monarchy and swear by the democratic republic. In reality, however, the state is nothing but a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy.
- Friedrich Engels (German Socialist philosopher, collaborator of Karl Marx, 1820-1895)
‘Begin at the beginning,’ the King said, very gravely, ‘and go on till you come to the end: then stop’
- Lewis Carroll (English writer and logician, 1832-1898)
—
The end of The Nepalese Monarchy is imminent, as Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala has set May 28th as the start of assembly meetings bent on ridding Nepal of King Gyanendra’s rule. This announcement immediately followed King Gyanendra’s appearance at an an animal sacrifice in honor of the Hindu goddess of power, Kali. Or, as the Reuters team so artfully phrased it in their headline: “Nepal King makes animal sacrifice to power goddess.”
Indeed, there is no reason to immerse oneself in the world of fantasy fiction when such tales are unfolding in the harsh reality of 2008 A.D.
The pendulum now swings back, and a Maoist uprising is poised to establish a democratic state in the Himalayan nation. This group of peace-seeking insurgents will soon declare Nepal a republic, with a 601-person assembly redrafting its constitution in an attempt to reset the government’s future. It is a tale that seeps with American Revolution-era undertones, as an oppressed and stolid group of rebels methodically escapes an oppressive monarchy in order to chart a political course of their own.
Of course, the Maoists are still considered a terrorist organization by the United States. (They were formally known as the Communist Part of Nepal prior to the re-branding effort.) Whatever their designation, they are getting results. On Tuesday, May 18th, the Prime Minister presented a declaration to parliament establishing Nepal a secular state. The declaration also calls for a new national anthem, as well as control over the Royal Nepal Army (now the “Nepal Army”). The uprising that led to this democratic result occurred in 2007, when the Maoist contingent entered the peace process in order to reunite Nepal’s parliament with its government, a peace process that left 13,000 people dead. There is always room in politics for irony, and one could make an argument that political discussion thrives on it.
This case in Nepal is a tricky one: is it an organized Communist movement disguised as well-intentioned democracy, or a genuine heir to the success of American rebellion against England’s monarchy? After all, the American Revolution tells of high death tolls, new constitutions and the establishment of a state that separates religion from government.
As per usual, the marching of time will be the army that decides this war of ideologies.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
