Excerpts:

Thapa: We are on the verge of a historic change. If we succeeded in properly managing it to move through the transition, we could achieve the objective of peace, stability and prosperity. But if we fail, it will only make matter worse.

Thapa: The political parties, instead of dealing with the real issues, are bickering on petty things. They have been hankering after posts and portfolios rather than working on the real issues. This is not the first instance they acted like this. If we look at the trend of their actions in the past two years, whenever they have come across any issue of national interest, they have never held discussions. But important decisions have been taken in haste. Their main attention is always on power-sharing.

The way the political development is unraveling, I mean if this is the indication of the future trend, I see — the writing is on the wall — there will be only two things: Either the extreme left will take over the state power, or there will be another round of confrontation. Except these two, I don’t see a third possibility.

Thapa: They are trying to implement this in haste and in an artificial manner. I don’t think this will yield any positive result because to make Nepal a republic is not only to change a government and a prime minister. It means an end of an era. It is not only the matter of a 240-year old institution; in Nepal’s context, it will be an end of a thousand years’ history. This will bring about a sweeping change in the social, cultural and religious values and norms.

The way the political parties are dealing with such serious issues in haste, and the way they are trying to do it artificially … they are in fact trying to implement that in an artificial environment … this will not yield good results. The decision will create a big void, and that will have a big impact on security organs of the state, in religious, social and cultural contexts, values and norms, administrative mechanisms, and similarly in the foreign policy. In the eventuality of the parties failing to manage it properly, a political disaster is inevitable.

Thapa: First, the parties have not been able to establish valid reasons to end the institution of monarchy. In fact the efforts to end it began as per the desire of foreign powers and ultra-left Maoists’ strategic objective. Therefore, no reason whatsoever has been established to justify that move.

Second, the way it is being implemented is totally unjust. Even to impeach a head of government, let alone to sack, we need sufficient political and constitutional grounds. Had they held a referendum on the future of monarchy, a constitutional and legitimate process would have been established.

The CA election was not only about republic versus monarchy. In a country like Nepal where the majority of the people are illiterate, they voted mainly on the basis of the parties or political identifications. And the way it is being said, that the first meeting will decide, is very artificial.

There is a provision of two-thirds majority to amend the constitution. But to end the institution of monarchy — which has such a long historical background, which is deeply rooted in our socio-cultural values and norms, and until of late which was regarded as a symbol of national unity — just a simple majority is said to be needed. It is supposed to be decided on the next two-three days, but till today, nothing has been discussed upon — the procedures, the methods for the same.

So everything is being done in haste, and there are not enough reasons established to take such a decision. Therefore, I say this will create a void.

Q: You spoke of basis or enough reasons for declaring Nepal a republic. Aren’t the results of the CA polls the basis? 

Thapa: Of course, the political parties came up with a republic agenda, they won a majority, but the parties themselves have not said it clearly what the crime of the monarch is. The monarchy is soon to be a victim of conspiracy of foreign powers, and strategic objective of the extreme left forces of this country. This is very unfortunate.

Those who like to see the monarchy existing in any form are not in a condition to speak openly. Of course, the monarchy might have taken some controversial decisions in the past, but those decisions cannot alone be the reasons for ending an institution that holds a long history. It has made several important contributions too — be it the unification of the country or in establishing democracy in the 1950; be it in heading nationalist movements or establishing Nepal’s independent identity in the world. The parties are ignorant of such contributions while taking political decisions about the institution. What I want to say is, agreed, they have won, but they have not made it clear why the monarchy should be abolished?

Thapa: You see the only force of the monarchy is the people. But the people who want monarchy are disorganized. They are rendered voiceless. They are helpless and confined to their homes. I believe there are still a large number of people who want monarchy. I don’t know how many in number they are. But there is a large section of people that wants monarchy. Today, if any one dares to speak in favor of the monarchy, s/he incurs a great risk of attack on his family. Therefore, they are mute.

And those who had to protect this institution have unfortunately betrayed and in that they have also betrayed the history of Nepal. They should have done it [protected the king].

Thapa: Yes. That is all clear. We know that there has been some sort of understanding between the agitating political parties and the palace. The statement read by the king was virtually drafted by the leaders of the political parties; the king simply read that out. It has been proved by the events that followed the announcement.

The parliament passed a historical document on May 18, 2006, which the leading media and the political parties termed it as Nepal’s Magna Carta. Where is that document now? Have we forgotten that? If that was a Magna Carta, what is the crime of the institution, particularly in the days after that agreement?

Thapa: I cannot say what the king will do. Nor can I speak on behalf of the king. As a political activist and an independent observer, what I say is if we look at the tradition of the monarchy, it never wanted to come in confrontation with the people, be it in 2036 BS (1980), 2046 BS (1990) or 2063 BS (2006). So I don’t think that monarchy will enter into a confrontation with the political forces.

But by default, the void created [by the decision of the first CA meeting] will have an immediate impact on the security forces of Nepal, then on the social, cultural and religious fabrics of the society, then on the administration and on the foreign policy. The impact will be so big that I don’t think the current political leadership will be able to manage it. In that situation one of two things that will happen: either a complete takeover by the Maoists or another round of confrontation.

Thapa: Yes, that comes as the second option. After confrontation I don’t rule out the possibility of one of the two taking over. But what will happen after the emotional bond between the army and the monarchy abruptly breaks? Nobody has thought about that. What will happen to the morale of the institution which is regarded as the last fortress of the country’ national security? Declaring Nepal a republic is not a big thing but the void created will be devastating.

Thapa: What will be the scenario of Nepal’s national politics after May 28th? Nobody knows. So I have been reiterating that let us not do things in haste. First, we cannot ignore the fact. Whether we like it or not there are major political parties who are in favor of republic. Another established fact is that they have a majority. So, it is not that they cannot decide. They have the capacity. But there should be proper study on the impact of the implementation of their decision. If that is necessary to implement, let’s do it at the end, when we will have a new constitution.

We have not even started the constitution drafting process. But, on the other hand, we are going to take such a major decision. To make a new constitution is not just to prepare a document. There is no political understanding and consensus among the major political parties about the guiding philosophy of the constitution.

First, there should be a common and basic idea, upon which the constitution is written. We have political parties which are polls apart ideologically. Second, there are several sensitive issues — right to self-determination, federalism, army integration, etc— about which there are serious differences among political forces. If we cannot sort them out, writing a new constitution may not be possible. There are examples. So, what I suggest is first let us complete the drafting of the constitution. But at a time when there is uncertainty over whether a constitution will ever be written or not, why are the parties in haste and are hell bent on taking such a major decision?  

Have we thought about what will happen after the end of the monarchy … the impact on the security forces … in their morale? When that confrontation occurs, they could be used by any one for someone’s advantage. They can be used as a weapon; that may invite a political disaster.

Thapa: I still don’t want to comment on that. I sill want to give a benefit of doubt to that institution, but the way the events will develop … what will the army decide … the people are watching.

Thapa: He has been saying that he has not come to transform himself as the NC and the UML, that they have never accepted parliamentary form of democracy. In a real sense, the Maoists have not renounced violence; they have said that both the peace process and the People’s War are the two sides of the same coin. These are not my words, they are on records. So what the Maoists want can be understood by their own words and deeds.

Maybe we can use the institution of monarchy even in drafting a new constitution; we can do that by consensus. What I say is the king cannot expect the monarchy of the past; the right and authority to govern rests on the representatives of the people. The king also should accept this. And the political parties, too, have a possibility to use the institution for a peaceful transition. So let’s first draft the constitution, and, if the representatives deem it necessary, the decision about the institution of monarchy could be taken during that process.