April 10 is the fifth anniversary of the historical Constituent Assembly (CA) elections in Nepal. The elected CA failed to draft a new constitution nationally agreed upon as a tool to manage the 10-year Maoist insurgency that had confined the deep-rooted ruling elites and its state apparatuses to its Kathmandu premises. Following a royal coup on 01 February 2005, the parliamentary parties that believed in peaceful politics and the warring Maoist insurgents that disrupted all state forces across the country agreed to manage the conflict peacefully through joint anti-monarchy political movement aimed at radically drafting a new constitution. However, the conflict developed in a different form following the emergence of former Maoist rebels as the largest political party while the most powerful traditional parties, viz., the Nepali Congress and the Emalay (UML), were propelled into defensive positions. Because of the fundamentally different perspectives and socio-psychological settings of the former Maoist rebels and the NC-UML forces, the CA became defunct and was dissolved by a verdict of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi, now the Prime Minister, extremely debated.
Following the dissolution of the elected Constituent Assembly that abolished monarchy on 28 May 2008, the political parties have not yet explained to people if they adhere to their previous declarations of federal republican system. People suspect that they may work with a more regressive mindset.
It is not yet known why Nepal’s Supreme Court–against the very principle of the Separation of Power–interfered with the historically elected CA and its delegated parliament by dissolving them with a political motive.
It is also not known why the same Chief Justice has agreed to become the country’s Prime Minister of the partyless government that includes monarchists and landlords, officially recorded as government ex-bureaucrats.
It is equally remains doubtful why Nepal’s former rebels–the Maoists–, the NC, the UML, and other parties have handed over their roles to a partyless autocratic team in the name of an election cabinet.
It, similarly, remains a surprise why ardent advocates of democracy, reputed critics and analysts have interpreted the political anarchy from business elites’ perspectives rather than from perspectives of the suffering masses.
But one thing is clear: the Nepalis are still ruled by oligarchies. Markets seem controlled by criminal forces with a political nexus. People feel they are helpless because no political organizations have apparently worked to alleviate their sufferings. The money that political parties get to run their party organizations and activities is absolutely non-transparent. They are extremely weak in moral terms. But they tend to use money, muscle and media to run their politics. This character of theirs clearly demonstrates a need for a radical way of politics based on moral principles.