THE ROYAL REGRESSION AND THE QUESTION OF DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC Baburam Bhattarai CPN(Maoist) In his famous work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Karl Marx had said: "Hegel observes somewhere that all great incidents and individuals of world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." It was while drawing a parallel between the coup of 1851 by Napoleon's nephew Louis Bonaparte, who had then crowned himself as Napoleon III, and the original Napoleonic coup of 1799. Of course, this was in a satirical sense. Similar law of Hegelian dialectics seems to be in operation in the history of Nepal, too. While the father, King Mahendra, had staged a military coup on December 16, 1960 against the first parliamentary democracy established after 1950 to centralise all power in himself, now the son, King Gyanendra, has staged another military coup on February 1, 2005 against the second parliamentary democracy restored after 1990 and centralised all state power in himself. However, for the politically enlightened ones, it is not difficult to see beneath the surface that this episode of February 1 is merely a continuation or culmination of the episode of June 1, 2001, when the relatively more weak or liberal King Birendra, along with his entire family, was butchered and a new dynasty ushered in by Gyanendra. This way, the "First February" of the Nepalese history seems to be a carbon copy of the "Eighteenth Brumaire" of the French history; but it is yet to be seen whether it will be more 'tragic' or more 'farcical'. The Essence of the Royal Regression In his every public utterances after the coup, including the 'royal proclamation' of February 1, Gyanendra has laboured hard to sell the theory that his present move is designed to restore 'peace' and consolidate 'multi-party democracy' by exorcising the ghost of 'terrorism' [i.e. the ongoing revolutionary People's War led by the CPN(Maoist), and this is meant only for a definite time-frame of coming three years. While talking to a group of selected media persons on February 24, he has particularly taken pains to project himself as the real Messiah of 'democracy' and the exorcist of 'terrorism' and has demanded of the parliamentary political parties and the entire members of the international community to cooperate with him in this grand venture against 'terrorism'. Thus, he has sought to project himself as the true follower of the US President George W. Bush in the international crusade against 'terrorism' and begged everybody to grant legitimacy to his autocratic military regime at least on that count. Of course, he seems to have learnt a few lessons from General Musarraf of Pakistan. However, Gyanendra's such political gimmicks are not cutting much ice among the masses, as he has a tainted image as the hardliner autocrat even within the palace since his father's and bother's days and is particularly hated among the public as the real fratricidal and regicidal culprit in the palace massacre of June 1, 2001. Particularly after his induction of the old palace stooges of known anti-democratic persuasions like Tulsi Giri and Kirti Nidhi Bista as his principal political associates and his abduction of all fundamental and democratic rights of the people with the contrywide declaration of emergency, the essential nature of his despotic military rule has been thoroughly unmasked. Despite his incessant parroting about his commitments towards 'multi-party democracy' and 'constitutional monarchy' , all his real practices so far including the crackdown on political parties and their leaders, free media and human rights activists and blatant trampling upon the limited democratic provisions of the old constitution, leave one in no doubt that the supine parliamentary democratic system has been snuffed out and the autocratic monarchy restored in the country. Hence the questions arise: How could the limited bourgeois democratic system established after 1990 be abolished and the autocratic monarchy restored so smoothly? Should not the wheel of history move forward rather than backward? For the correct answers to these questions, one has to grasp the laws of social development in a scientific and objective manner and to correctly evaluate the weaknesses and limitations of the chronically infirm parliamentary system after 1990. Firstly, it should be acknowledged that struggle between social classes provides the basic motive forces of societal development. The present Nepalese society in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial stage is a multi-class society, and the principal struggle there is among the feudal, the bourgeois and the proletarian classes. All the three principle contending classes have their allies, too. The traditionally dominant feudal class has the comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie with it; the small and weak bourgeois class has a section of the rural and urban petty-bourgeois class with it; and the proletariat has the vast number of poor peasants and semi-proletariat with it. This basically triangular class contention is increasingly turning into a bi-polar contention after the initiation and development of revolutionary People's War under the leadership of the proletariat since 1996. In other words, according to the law of class struggle and social development , the parasitic reactionary classes are polarised on one side under the leadership of the most capable and strong class among themselves, and on the other side are rallied the working and the progressive classes under the leadership of the most advanced class, the proletariat. As the monarchy representing the feudal and comprador and bureaucratic bourgeois classes is historically the strongest representative of the reactionary classes in Nepal, the parasitic classes most adversely affected by the revolutionary People's War have been increasingly rallying under the leadership of the monarchy. This is the rationale and essence of the current royal regression or the restoration of autocratic monarchy in the social class terms. The regressive march of the reactionary classes in opposition to the progressive march of the working classes is perfectly in keeping with the dialectical law of social development. Secondly, viewing from a further political angle, it should be acknowledged that the inherent defects and weaknesses of the bourgeois parliamentary democracy established after 1990 and the general infirmity and incapacity of the middle strata and forces also provided an objective basis for the ultimate feudal autocratic regression. Historically, the major parliamentary political forces, viz. the Nepali Congress and later the revisionist UML, enjoy no independent class base of their own, and tend to represent a hodge-podge of class forces ranging from the feudals and comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie to the petty-bourgeoisie and constantly take vacillating and conciliatory political positions. Contrary to this, the monarchy traditionally draws its strength from the prevailing feudal property and cultural relations, and principally, from its monopoly hold over the Royal Nepal Army (RNA). To be more specific, the political change and the Constitution of 1990 did not properly settle the question of 'state sovereignty' traditionally claimed by the monarchy and left the final 'state authority' and strategic control over the RNA in the hands of the monarchy. This 'historical blunder' (to paraphrase Jyoti Basu from India!) paved the way for the monarchy to gradually gobble up the parliament and the Constitution and consummate the current royal regression. Moreover, the parliamentary forces during their twelve years long rule in between 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. In the later period, particularly along with the rapid development of the revolutionary People's War, their class and political base got further eroded. As a result, the upper strata of the society which had backed the parliamentary forces after the political change of 1990 gradually returned back to the fold of the monarchy and the lower and a section of the middle strata naturally got polarized around the revolutionary People's War. This dilemma of the reformist parliamentary forces has been summed up in Chairman Com. Prachanda's recent People's War Anniversary statement thus: "Ultimately, the so-called royal proclamation of February 1 has not only exposed the irrelevance of reformism in the Nepalese politics, but also shattered the collective lethargy of the parliamentary political forces." Thirdly, from a military point of view, this action of total centralization of the old state authority in the absolute monarchy can been as an attempt of the moribund reactionary classes to wage a final battle with the revolutionary forces in the ever mounting class war in the country. In view of the recent declaration of the CPN (Maoist) to lead the nine-year old revolutionary People's War into the final and decisive stage of strategic offensive, it is not unnatural, though foolish, for the frightened reactionary classes to attempt to wage a final battle of life and death under the direct leadership of the monarchy, which has assumed supreme commandership of the RNA since its inception. In the recent past the pathetic showing of the RNA in almost every real battle with the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been blamed by certain quarters on the contradictions of de jure political leadership of the parliamentary forces and de facto leadership of the monarchy over the RNA, Also, it is not hard to understand the super military ambitions of Gyanendra, who has grabbed the throne by butchering the entire family of his brother, Birendra, to project himself as the great savior of his tottering feudal and comprador-bureaucratic bourgeois class. Nevertheless, as any common student of military science would know, the victory or defeat of a particular army ultimately depends more on its social class base and the political goal rather than on the leadership prowess of its commander, and in that sense the ultimate defeat of the reactionary RNA should be a foregone conclusion and Gyanendra's dream would be mere chimera.