The future of democracy in Nepal

The future of democracy in Nepal

King Gyanendra has succeeded the throne from Dependra who himself had succeeded being crown prince his slain father Birendra his two day reign spent on artificial respiration in the history's most tragic court massacre in June 2001. He has restored to the final option-direct royal rule enforced by the Royal Nepal Army (RNA), knocked out in the process was the political parties and the institutions of multiparty democracy. On 1 February, 2005, the King Gyanendra dismissed a party-based government and seized all powers. He imposed a state of emergency in the country in which fundamental rights were suspended and a kind of martial law was imposed (Nepalese constitution 1990 doesn't provide for a martial law).
Invoking Article 115 of the constitution, the king suspended all the fundamental rights of the Nepalese citizen, including the freedom of opinion and expression, the freedom of the press and publication, the rights to information, the rights to constitutional remedy and the rights to property. Placing key political party leaders and democratic rights activist in jails, imposing press censorship, even (temporarily) curtailing communication links within and without the country. The military captured the telecommunication offices, turning the phone lines off to prevent the people from meeting and networking with each other. The army's signal corps disconnected all the transponder satellite links. Even the Amadeus satellite link serving commercial airlines connectivity was shutdown. The international airport was sealed. Up to a dozen armed security personnel guarded the house of prominent civil society personalities. Nepalese can no longer assembled peacefully public rallies of any kind - except those supporting the coup have been fired upon and scattered by the security forces. Protesters had been killed, beaten, arrested and tortured in detention. This last exception is a concession to the fact that Nepal had, for over a year, the highest number of 'disappeared' people in the world. Thus Nepal has been turned into the largest prison for the people. This unconstitutional, undemocratic, anti-people activities and actions of the king itself proved that "in Nepal constitutional monarchism and multiparty parliamentary democracy can't run simultaneously" this experiment has already failed.
Modern Nepal was founded in 1767 by King Prithvi Narayan Shah a ruler of Gorkha, a central highland principality in west Nepal. In early 15th century, his ancestors persecuted by Muslim invaders of India, migrated from Udaipur (Rajasthan) to mountain hide-out in the north-eastern Himalayas and founded a small principality with its administrative seat in Gorkha. By 1767 Prithvi Narayan had already subjugated "Baisi" and "chubisi" minor principalities of western Nepal. The conquest of east Nepal, ruled by Sen and Kirati rajas, was followed by unification under Gorkha banner of the entire kingdom in its present dimensions. Earlier, the state of Nepal was virtually run by the families belonging to Shah and Rana clans with support from smaller groups of Bhardars or aristocrats. When Prithvi Narayan Shah conquered Kathmandu and made it his headquarters, he introduced a simple aristocratic system of administration inherited from his predecessors. The system was known as 'Thar-Ghar' in which members of six elite families belonging to Aryal. Pandey, Khanal, Pant, Thapa and Basnet clans supported the Shah kings as military generals, advisors and administrators. Madheshee communities of the Terai were highly discriminated and marginalized along with Dalits and Janjatis (hill ethnic groups). The capital of Shah rulers shifted from Gorkha to Kathmandu. The Gorkha Kings of Nepal ruled the state directly till 1846.
In 1846 Jang Bahadur Rana, captured the power, after the successful "kot massacre" conspiracy and became prime minister and army general. In 1856 he forced the king Surendra Bikram Shah to surrender to him all powers of the state and remain a nominal ruler. Jung Bahadur, who had risen by court intrigue and bloodshed, obtained from king a decree conferring in perpetuity on him and his descendants the hereditary office of Prime Minister with the succession passing on to the seniormost brother in the family.
The Rana Prime Ministers kept the Shah Kings under strict vigil in the royal palace. They assumed "Sri Teen Maharaja" while the king's title remained "Maharajadhiraj". Political power during the following 104 years remained close preserve of the Rana family. All political activities in Kathmandu centred on intrigue and conspiracy for power. The Rana family ruled the country with absolute power replacing the system by Ranacracy in which members of the Rana family occupied all the higher echelons of administration and military. The system was extensively misused for expropriating the wealth of the peasant, especially that of Madheshee and indigenous people and their territories using a centralised taxation system, privatising land tenure, imposition of corvee labour and birta land grant practice. The Shah and Rana both sharing of the appropriated resource with groups of parbatiya (hill) high caste lead aristocracy and bureaucracy benefited both the groups greatly. While this Mechanism helped sustain their monopoly over powers, the economy of the people became stagnant if not irrecoverably damaged. More specifically, the loss of land which was the base of subsistence livelihood of the Madheshee, indigenous and ethnic people contributed to loss of their land, history, culture and national identity. So Madheshee people still have identity crisis.
Democracy was first introduced in Nepal, in 1951 following a popular uprising which ended the century-old family oligarchy of the Ranas, Nepalese Society, until then, kept in isolation lacked even the minimum political and civil infrastructure to practice democracy and democratic governance. Caste-based hierarchical discrimination, exploitation and superstition had been the fate of average Nepalese people. The Ranas in Nepal never permitted any civil and political organisation or activities within the country. With neither institutions nor legal provisions, there was little basis for civil administration.
King Tribhuvan, who was restored to the throne in 1951, promised a democratic constitution to be framed by an elected Constituent Assembly based on adult franchise. Until then an interim constitutional arrangement was instituted which provided for the 'king-in-council' system to run the government and administration. The interim government, a Rana-Congress coalition, was short lived. The king assumed power to appoint and dismiss the government at his discretion and exercise full state authority. Election for the Constituent Assembly, as promised by the Delhi settlement between king Tribhuvan, Rana Prime Minister and Nepali Congress, were never held.
In 1959 king Mahendra, who assumed the throne in 1955 after the death of Tribhuvan, approved a constitution which provided for a parliamentary system of government based on the westminster model following which general election was held for the Parliament. Elections demonstrated that the Nepali Congress, own the election by two-third majority. The legislature Nepali Congress party elected B.P. Koirala its leader. First elected government was formed in the history of Nepal under the leadership of B.P. Koirala.
The king Mahendra for his dramatic coup of 15 December 1960, however, dismissed the elected government, dissolved the Parliament and political leaders detained. On 5 January 1961, the king banned the functioning of political organisations under his emergency powers. In 1962 the new constitution was proclaimed and king Mahendra envisaged a new form of government - the partyless panchayat system which provided a cover to the absolute powers of the monarchy. The monarchy remained at the helm of the political affairs for a long period between 1962-1990. Rastriya Panchayat, a Parliament of sorts, with members both nominated and elected on an individual basis. Rastriya Panchayat was also dominated by segments of society with high ritual status who were loyal to the king. Subsequently in 1963, similar panchayat or assemblies were created at the district and village levels by setting up of 75 districts and 14 zones as political administrative units within the country. The autocratic constitution of Nepal, had for the first time declared Nepal as a 'Hindu Kingdom' pushing the agenda of 'National Integration' through the process of homogenisation and assimilation of cultural diversity. Since common culture was thought essential to the nation-building, policies of one language, one dress' (i.e. khas language and hill people's dress) were officially promoted, privileging the khas - Nepali language and parbatiya (hill) Hindu culture as 'National'. During this era debate and action pertaining to ethnicity and culture other than 'national' cultural was discouraged as 'communal' and 'anti-national' and therefore, ensure strong official opposition. Discriminations based on religion, language and culture of the Madheshee, Janjatis or ethnic groups, indigenous people, Minorities, Women and dalits and their further exclusion and marginalisation emerged as major issues of contestation, contributing to a delegitimization of the panchayat government.
Even though the autocratic panchayat system, compared to the previous Rana regime, increased involvement in state structure, it only included the population belonging to hill peoples traditional high caste ruling elites.
In 1990, the people revolted against the partyless panchayat system, and Janandolan (people's democratic movement) launchedimensions. by the Nepali Congress and United Left Front succeeded in persuading the king to introduce incomplete and limited multiparty democracy, paved the way for the institutionalisation of constitutional monarchy. King Birendra, agreed to abide by the principles and norms of democracy and limited his role to that of 'constitutional monarch'. Later on the constitution of the kingdom of Nepal 1990 was proclaimed by the king Birendra with consent of Nepali Congress and United Left Front as the settlement of the dispute. The new constitution was framed on the bass of multiparty democracy, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary system of government based on westminster model. Relatively the new constitution had some positive features 'first articulated the people as the source of sovereign authority', second the king was designated as a 'constitutional monarch'; Third, Article 4(1) officially recognised the country as 'multi-ethnic and multi-lingual' and last, it guaranteed freedom to political parties, associations and expression.
The democratic and progressive people, for example argue that the king still holds real sovereign authority since he is characterised as the provider and the protector of the constitution [Preamble and Article 27 (3)] and emergency power is vested in him (Article 115). The ethnic activists on the other hand contend that the constitution carries the basic characteristic of a 'communal' state from the past and contradicts the real democratic spirit, the new constitution, for example, reaffirms Nepal as a Hindu state where the king has to be a 'descendant of the great king Prithvi Narayan Shah and adherent of Aryan culture and the Hindu religion [Article 27(1)]. It fails to recognise the country as 'multi-religious or secular' and Article 4 privileges that the Nepali language as the 'language of the nation' and to be used as the official language. The present structure of Nepali state doesn't reflect the socio-cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity of the society and nation necessitating the need for restructuring the state as a federal system.
The constitutional provisions to acquire citizenship is targeted against the nationality or national identity of the Madheshee people similarly, contrary to the fundamental rights granted by the constitution, Article 112(3) prohibits formation of any political organisation or party on the basis of religion, community, caste, tribe or region.
Thus, institutions of the state, even after the restoration of multiparty parliamentary democracy, continued to draw upon its past legacy of Shah-Rana regime and autocratic panchayat system. Even after the major political changes of 1990, aristocracy continued to control national politics and state affairs, with major landowners and comprador bourgeoise and the so called high caste of the hill community dominating the higher echelons of police, military and bureaucracy. The structure established as an out-come of the 1990 democratic movement also failed to ensure a sharing of power and resources among Madheshee, Janajatis, women, dalits and other ordinary people. According to the new constitution, the executive power of the kingdom of Nepal is vested in the council of Ministers and all functions of the king and royal palace, except those to be discharged by him, should be carried out with the advice and consent of the council of ministers. However, in practice the king still holds the key to power in the country as the chief of the military. Senior officials of the military and police are usually related to the members of the royal family.
Political change and the constitution of Nepal 1990 failed to properly settle the question of 'state sovereignty' traditionally claimed by the monarchy leaving the final 'state authority' and control over the Royal Nepal Army (RNA) in the hands of monarchy. The political change of 1990, gradually returned to the fold of the monarchy. The structure of the monarchy and palace could not changed. In Nepal's 235 years old history, maximum time period was under the active monarchy and it remains a central element of Nepalese polity. There had always been conflict between the king and the people, be it in 1950, 1960 and 1990. King Tribhuvan promised election to the Constituent Assembly but the did not comply. King Mahendra usurped power militarily and king Birendra continued the same. The present king also seems to be doing the same. We need to settle this issue once and for all because assertive monarchy itself is the real barrier to democratisation and development in the country. Monarchy has never been linked with the substance and essence of democracy and democracy needs to be redefined independent of monarchy. The position of monarchy was not made clear when the constitution was framed. The democracy we introduced in Nepal was basically the representative liberal democracy with several compromises with the palace. The 1990 constitution did not keep the king within the constitutional boundary. Article 127 in the constitution allowed the king to play with the constitution. Unfortunately, the resumption of multi-party democracy following a people's movement in 1990, failed to provide responsible governance and up hold the aspiration of the Nepalese people.
Three general elections 1990, 1994 and 1999 all returned fractured verdicts. The political parties proved incapable of structuring stable coalitions or even avert splits in their own organisations. The role and functioning of the political parties and their leaders had been far from satisfactory. They had indulged in politics of expedience and sought to achieve short-term advantages for themselves rather than strengthening the democratic system in the country. In 14 years of multi-party democracy, Nepal has had 14 governments all failed to make an impact on the lives of the vast majority of the country's 24 million people. Moreover, the parliamentary forces during their 15 years long rule inbetween, did nothing to bring about a progressive transformation in the traditionally feudal and increasingly comprador and bureaucratic capitalist socio-economic and cultural base of the society. The basic challenge of consolidation of democracy, and ensuring the sovereignty of the people, the parties have not been able to take a stand on the fundamental issues. They have a tendency to compromise. There was insufficient progress in improving the development indicators. The behaviour of political parties, both within and out side the Parliament, contributed to sullying their image as self-seeking and corrupt, more bothered about personal and sectional ends than national good. It is difficult for outsiders to appreciate the exclusionary, and thus non-representative, character of the Nepali system, with a few hill based, upper caste male Hindu groups hegemonising the position and resources in all domains - legislative, executive and judiciary in the process marginalising a vast majority of citizens from any effective participation in formal decision making.
The political parties clearly failed to provide a stable government in Nepal. Political leaders got involved in personal and party interest rather than national. All most all the major political parties have been characterized by internal feud and fragmentation, groupism, leadership clashes, weak social bases, declineitutional monarchy and parliamentary system of go of ideology and rise of intra-party disputes. The political ambitions of party leaders and factionalism have given rise to splits and further weakening of the party system. Meanwhile the king has become powerful due to party divisions. The parties also failed to build up sufficient democratic space in the country. This may possibly explain why popular needs and aspirations remained unrealised and people's frustration increased. The composition of the governing elites of Nepal interms of caste, class, ethnicity and gender between 1846 and 1999 remained more or less the same. For example, the members from hill Brahmin and Chhetri caste groups, who constitute 28.5% of the total population of the country, continued to occupy about 60% of the position as legislators, while Madheshee constituting more than 50% of the total population occupied less than 20% seats, similarly, Janajatis or indigenous nationalities accounted for less than 15% of the MPs in 1999. The dalits are virtually non existent in the legislature. Condition of women, too, is not encouraging.
Hill high caste male people continue to dominate the major political parties too. The presence of Madheshee, ethnic groups, dalits and women in the leadership hierarchy of these political parties is negligible. As a result, Madheshee, various ethnic groups and dalits caste groups remain peripheral to both party politics and the national political main-stream. These groups have lost confidence in these political parties. Besides these, the political system, patterns of representation, party structure and leadership and over all political orientations have thus helped to reinforce the unitary system of government and administration and the continued exclusion of deprived castes and communities. It also fuelled Maoist insurgency in the country.
In February, 1996 a left extremist group, the communist party of Nepal (Maoist) launched an armed revolution in the name of 'people's war' with the declared objective of overthrowing the 1990 constitutional system to establish its own regime, a 'people's republic' based on Marxism-Leninism ad Maoism. The rebellion, beginning with isolated incidents of violence in the remote villages of some mid-western and few other districts, has now grown into a full-scale nation wide insurgency. As a result, the writ of the constitutional state has been drastically reduced to the district headquarters and a few urban centres. The constitutional process has been rendered dysfunctional, bringing into question the very legitimacy of the polity. The present polity has failed to contain them both administratively and politically.
The Maoists are not in a position to militarily overrun the Nepali state and capture power on their own, merely with the gun. They politically represent the legitimate aspirations of Nepal's long neglected and suppressed rural poor. That is why they are willing to work with the political parties within a multiparty political structure, if there is a complete and genuine transfer of power from the king to the people of Nepal.
The social composition of this party, the hill high caste domination in the leadership of the CPN (Maoist), which is currently involved in violent insurgency with the aim of establishing a people's republic with ethnic autonomy, shows that even a radical left party is also unable to ensure equitable representation. Single caste domination is a paradox for parties which claim to represent the people as a whole or a class of proletariat and workers. Without changing the composition and character of the party leadership, democratization in a larger context is impossible.
The extremist Maoist's savage and dictatorial methods are abhorrent. However, their popularity curve declined as the maoist adopted brutal tactics. Their basic demands are not, infact, the Nepali Congress Party and the Communist Party have, since the forties, demanded a Constituent Assembly and has also given up this demand upon various opportunities to share power with the palace-military complex. The Maoist have simply co-opted these demands strategically and claimed them as their own.
Then, the Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba negotiated a ceasefire and succeeded in bringing the Maoists to the negotiation table. Between August and mid-November 2001, three rounds of talks were held between the government and Maoists. However, the Maoists did not agree to accept anything less than the formation of a Constituent Assembly, a republican state and a new constitution for Nepal, while government was not prepared to accept any of these demands. The talks failed and the Maoist again resorted to violence.
In the middle of 2003, the king succeeded again in bringing the Maoist to the negotiation table but failed to reach any agreement. The monarch wanted to take credit of solving these problems in which he failed. But he did succeed in marginalising the political parties. The government and the insurgents had engaged in dialogue in 2001 and 2003. But on both occasions talks failed and after each interlude there was fierce fighting with the state losing further ground. Despite the Maoist dropping the issues of republic from their agenda of negotiation, no headway could be made to transform the armed rebellion into a legitimate constitutional political process. During the first round of negotiations the government insisted on a constitutional monarchy and reform within the limits of the 1990 constitution. The second time it was prepared to rewrite the constitution, which implied the framing of a new constitution, but insisted on retaining a constitutional monarchy. It also ruled out the election of a Constituent Assembly because that could threaten the monarchy. The Maoist inturn ruled out any possibility of seeking change through the existing constitution and demanded a new constitution to be framed by people through a freely elected sovereign Constituent Assembly.
The estimates of internally displaced persons due to the insurgency are above 1,00,000 while more than 12,583 people have lost their lives (insec). Among 1500 cases of disappearance, the state is directly accountable for more than 1000. Civilian life has only worsened - threat, extortion, torture, displacement, disappearance, rape and killings, have become a regular features of the people's lives in most parts of the country. There is no law in Nepal that can guarantee any Justice. The political parties on the other hand, failed to pressurize the king to either hold general elections or revive the Parliament. In a statement in Feb. 2004, king Gyanendra made it clear that the monarchy would not remain a silent spectator to people's sufferings. 'The days of the monarchy being seen but not heard are gone. We, cannot remain a silent spectator to people's tearful face'.
On October 4, 2002, he had invoked the constitution to sack Deuba as Prime Minister for "incompetence" and initiated a cycle of nominated governments headed by the panchayat era palace loyalists Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Surya Bahadur Thapa. When the king enacted the first step of his coup, the international community were near - unanimous in their support.
In the middle of 2004, Deuba was once again appointed Prime Minister. Deuba gave an ultimatum to the Maoists to agree to negotiations. This failed. An impatient king was no longer content to watch political events and decided to give a new direction to Nepali polity with the abrogationpulation of the c of the Deuba government. It is clear that the king moved in systematic and calculated manner. His intentions from the very beginning were clear. He wanted to create political space for the assertive Monarchy and at the same time blame political parties for the failure of democracy, peace and stability in Nepal.
On February 1, 2005, king Gyanendra sacked the council of ministers lead by Sher Bahadur Deuba and, as per Article 27(3) of the constitution, took overstate authority for three years. The king accused Deuba of failing to persuade the Maoist to agree for peace talks and to prepare the ground for general elections in the country. What is remarkable about the Feb. 2005 coup is that the king is claiming that he is taking absolute control in the interest of rescuing democracy from itself.
The outspokenly critical response of the international community is likely to embolden the resistance to the king's move. India, the United States, the United Kingdom and EU have categorically denounced the royal takeover. The most significant international development is the suspension of military aid by India, USA and UK alongside suspension of 'development aid' by a number of EU countries. International human rights organisation such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have publicly denounced the royal regime for its violation of human and democratic rights of the people. The Bush administration, which was backing the king and arming the RNA in the battle against "Maoist terrorist group' said, it was "deeply troubled" by the development in Nepal and described the king's action as "undermining the Nepali struggle with Maoist insurgency". Britain went a step further and suggested that it would review its assistance to Nepal. India which has made common cause with Nepal in the fight against the common threat of left wing extremism, said the king's move had 'violated' the basis of the peace and stability of Nepal founded on the twin pillars of the constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy. "The government of India should make it clear that this coup against the constitution and democracy in Nepal is unacceptable and respond in a manner which will help to restore the democratic system in Nepal" said a statement issued by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Japan, Nepal's largest aid donor, called for restoration of democracy and the release of the detained leaders.
Thus the autocratic royal regime has been totally isolated form the international community. Apparently, the international reactions was harsh because the king had gone against the assurance he had given to the representatives of the major countries.
Since Feb 1, 2005 when king dismissed the party based government and seized all powers. Three trends emerged simultaneously, political power was centralised, the Maoist conflict intensified, and Nepal was put almost at par with other pariah states by the international community. None of these trends has been reversed since the king lifted emergency rule on 29 April, 2005.
Though there is a political reassertion by the monarchy in Nepal, it may not be durable, not even for the time that king has stipulated. It is also well known that modern representative democracy operates through political parties. While the democratic forces in Nepal are fragmented and lack of concrete common democratic programme and are victims of their own incompetence, they have the capacity to fight back. History bears testimony to the fact that people have been able to restore democracy through popular movements. Although Maoist insurgency continues to be the major problems facing the country, other political issues including substantial constitutional change, engage all political forces seeking 'forward movement'. This has become necessary not only because of the Maoist insurgency but because the political structure based on the 1990 constitution have been deficient in meeting the rising expectations of various groups and communities. Besides, the takeover of the executive powers by the king, which the main stream political parties termed as 'royal regression' has also compelled them to broaden the areas of the constitutional change.
Nepal continues to be governed under a centralised administration and authority. As a result, demands for restructuring the state as a federal system are popular among various ethnic groups. The unitary structure of Nepali state and representation system and Kathmandu centric political structure can never be democratic and accountable in a true sense and provide space for groups who are at the periphery. As is evident, despite democratic experiments since 1990, the power structure that prevailed for centuries has not been transformed in any real sense.
Federalism and proportional representation must form the core agenda of the present discourse of restructuring the state for better representation of the people as cultural groups as well as efficient and accountable administration of the country. Administration of growing millions of people under a unitary and centralised polity can never be democratic and efficient.
Shah and Rana rulers introduced a simple aristocratic system based on the theme of absolute monarchy, Nepali language, Hindu ethos and centralised politico-administrative structure under the unitary political system. Without changing these basic foundations democratisation of the country or the establishment of a complete democracy is impossible. But the seven political parties alliance seems to be opposed to changes relating to the status of monarchy, army and Hindu kingdom. The common programme adopted by the agitating seven parties alliance against the royal regression includes commitments to such reforms as end of direct Monarchy rule, restoration of the dissolved parliament for the formation of responsible and representative government, affirmative policy actions for women, dalit and other deprived groups, ending discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, language, keeping the army under an elected government and authority, guarantee of free and fair election, restructuring of the Nepali state and governance.
A simple restoration of democracy merely means returning to this constitutionally questionable 'rule by Article 127'. It may reverse the Feb 1, coup, but it will not resolve the problems that proceeded it, or the conditions that facilitated it. The earlier political gridlock between the palace military complex, the democratic political parties and the Maoist insurgents must be cleared about the vital democratic issues, such as election for Constituent Assembly for framing of a new constitution for the country without any pre-conditions, change in electoral system, federalism and proportional representation system in the polity and administration, right to the self-determination, multi-lingual policy, secular identity of the nation state, complete sovereignty of the people, reservation policy, constitutional supremacy and provision of refrendum in major national issues. The major political parties are silent or vague about these democratic issues and avoid any specific commitment, without addressing the essential important issues, it is impossible to establish the complete democratic system in the country, continued support for the principle recognises that Nepal's future lies in a complete multi-party democracy that allows even the Maoist to play a peaceful and meaningful role in main-stream politics. To establish a complete democracy Maoist should end their annihilating programme cracy from itself.
The outspokenly critical respnow, and join with the democratic parties and forces along with civil society, human rights activists, media persons or journalist in their struggle for democracy, the king will have no choice but to negotiate for a ceremonial position, the force of popular will may simply overthrow him otherwise.
If the Maoists join other political parties, the fate of the monarchy would be sealed. If people's war continues, it would be a long war and the country would sink deeper and deeper into chaos and move towards becoming a failed state.
For this, certainly, is the call of the times, the monarchy must retreat to a strictly ceremonial position or go. Weather or not this happens will depend on the democratic political parties' ability to form a mutual understanding with Maoist. The Maoist have now invited the left and democratic alliance to join hands with them in overthrowing their common enemy. They have indicated that they are now willing to form a broad front with other main-stream parties to put up a joint struggle for multi-party republican democracy. The thought that these parties might accept their invitation is giving many jitters. No lasting solution may be possible without bringing the Maoist on board. Their bottom line demand of a Constituent Assembly sounds most reasonable and democratic. If the Maoist are not prepared to join a civil movement, their indirect support to a democratic movement cannot be ruled out. The democratic parties must have to show their reaction very carefully with patience. If they are to negotiate the Maoist into an equal partnership, they must also reform themselves urgently. With self-realization and learning lesson from the history, leaving their age-old willed; the democratic political parties must have to review and reform correctly their agendas, characters, approaches, methods and issues. These parties must have to stand strongly in favour of complete democracy rather than monarchism. The challenge before us is to make sure that the revolution that succeeds is a complete democratic one because democracy is better in all circumstances than any others.
( Mprforum's document)