Facing ouster, Nepal king urges people to vote

“We call upon all adult citizens to exercise their democratic right in a free and fair environment.”

The irony is that when this dirt-poor Himalayan nation stages its first election in nine years on Thursday, hardly anyone will be sticking up for the king. Nor are Nepalis being given much of a chance to do so.

Maoist guerrillas fought a decade-long civil war to end the 240-year-old monarchy, but had promised a popular vote to elect an assembly that would decide the monarchy’s future.

But in the end, the decision to abolish it was taken behind closed doors in 2007 by the country’s main political parties. The elected assembly will now just rubber stamp that decision.

In a recent interview with Japan’s Yomiuri newspaper, Gyanendra said that decision did not reflect the majority view of the people, and Nepalis had the right to decide on the monarchy’s future. “This isn’t democracy,” he was reported as saying.

And although Gyanendra, who seized absolute power in 2005 and relinquished it the following year, is often described as the most unpopular man in Nepal, it is far from clear the monarchy would have lost in a referendum.

An opinion poll published in February found half the respondents supported the idea of at least a symbolic monarchy, but few supported the king himself.

“People want the monarchy, but they don’t want this king and they don’t want his son,” said Kunda Dixit, editor of the Nepali Times. “How do you reconcile that? For most people, including monarchists, it’s not worth the trouble.”

These days, it is tough to be a monarchist in Nepal. Royalist parties say Maoists have even prevented them campaigning.

“Especially in rural areas, psychological terror is still very strong,” said Kamal Thapa, head of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal and described by Dixit as the bravest man in the campaign.

“We are really finding it difficult to reach out to people,” Thapa said

He hopes his party will have at least a presence in the new 601-seat assembly, but admits it is weak. Observers say royalists may get a few seats, but not many.

The monarchy’s fall from grace has been as spectacular as it was sudden. In 2001, Nepal’s crown prince, apparently in a drunken rage, gunned down his father the king, his mother and seven other members of the royal family before turning his gun on himself. King Gyanendra, the murdered king’s younger brother, took the throne — and soon made matters much worse.

Fed up with the country’s corrupt, feckless politicians, he first ruled through puppet governments, and then in a moment of royal megalomania, seized absolute power for himself. It backfired spectacularly, as Nepal’s people took to the streets to demand the restoration of democracy. In April 2006, the king backed down, and his fate was effectively sealed.

He lost control of the army, his image was removed from banknotes and coins, his annual $3.1-million allowance was cut, and his palaces were nationalised. His retinue was slashed, and the queen even lost her official beauticians.

Gyanendra was a successful businessman before ascending the throne, with interests in tea, tobacco and casinos. What he does next is anybody’s guess.

“It depends on his decision and his behaviour,” Maoist leader Prachanda said.”If he wants to resist the verdict of the masses then he will be punished by the masses and he will be finished. If he wants to live as a common citizen and do his own business then our masses and people should forgive him.”

Royalists are demanding a referendum be held on the monarchy and are likely to mount a legal challenge to question the legitimacy of any decision to abolish it. But they are unlikely to do more than win the king a little time, analysts say.

“The monarchy is unlikely to disappear without some final, possibly violent, confrontation,” the International Crisis Group said in a report.

“If the move to a republic is achieved with a less than overwhelming public mandate, royalists may still nurture hope of a return at some future date.”