Anatomy of Royal Proclamation (Special to Nepalnews) The king made a strategic blunder by not directly addressing the ongoing movement By Anga R. Timilsina Although incomplete and ambiguous, the Friday’s royal proclamation clearly shows that King Gynendra, known by many as embattled yet uncompromising, finally bowed under the pressure of Nepal’s popular uprising and proclaimed that the executive power of the kingdom of Nepal, which he said was in his “safekeeping”, returned to the people. What is interesting is that the beleaguered monarch was visibly uncomfortable, nervous and tense while he was staring to the camera and reading his speech from a teleprompter on Friday. The king’s body language clearly indicated that he was yielding to those parties whom he had regarded as his political rivals since he seized power last year. The royal proclamation is certainly a victory for the seven parties alliance (SPA) and hundreds of thousands of demonstrators because of two things. First, the king clearly mentioned that sovereignty rests with the people of Nepal. Second, he said that he returned the executive power to the people. Third, by asking the SPA to recommend a name for the post of prime minister, the king indirectly recognized that the SPA represents the majority of Nepalese people. However, as one protestor reacted, “We have won the battle, but we still must win the war,” the Friday’s royal proclamation is not likely to calm the ongoing protests that have lost at least 14 lives and witnessed bullet injuries in thousands. Analysts argue that the king made a strategic blunder by not admitting his mistake and not directly addressing the ongoing movement. Instead of admitting that he made mistake when he assumed direct power by sacking the political parties’ government on February 1, 2005, the king in his Friday’s proclamation defended his take over of power as a necessary step to set in motion a meaningful exercise in multiparty democracy by activating all elected bodies, ensuring peace and security and a corruption-free good governance. From the perspective of seven agitating parties, the proclamation doesn’t go far enough in terms of addressing the SPA’s demand. Observers argue that the king failed to take into account the aspirations of thousands of demonstrators, whom the restoration of status quo or the return to pre-February 1-like situation is going to be completely unacceptable. The majority of the demonstrators want a constituent assembly to decide on the fate of the monarchy. There are little signs that King Gyanendra's promises could mollify the political opposition. Narayan Man Bijukchhe, the chairman of Nepal Workers and Peasants' Party and one of the leaders of the SPA, said, “We did not conduct this movement [just] to recommend the name of the prime minister to the king.” The Seven Party Alliance \ should welcome the king’s proclamation of handing over power to the people but at the same time, the SPA also have to clearly put forward its demands and ask the king that the agitating parties are ready to talk to the king if the king is ready to have a forward-looking discussion on the seven parties' roadmap. In coming days, the international community is likely to put more pressure on the SPA to form a government in response to King Gyanendra’s vow to restore political power to the people. Although the initial response of the king’s proclamation on the home front is negative, the international community, including the United States and India, has welcomed the king’s move as a positive step. Although it urged to the king that he would live up to his word, the United States was pleased by Nepal king’s message that cleared that sovereignty resides with the people. The US has also urged all sides to refrain from violence to allow the restoration of democracy to take place swiftly and peacefully. Likewise, India's Special Envoy Dr. Karan Singh has welcomed the king's offer to the SPA as a bold step. He further said, “Now the political parties have to shoulder the responsibility and take the process forward. The sooner that can happen the better it will be.” It is believed that the Indian proposal which Dr. Singh delivered to the King on Thursday, (April 20) had three main components: an interim government with sufficient executive powers to hold instant elections, a constituent assembly to craft a new constitution, and King Gyanendra to be a ceremonial head. That said, the Indian prescription had both short-term and medium-term solutions. In the short-term, Indians wanted the king to hand over power to the main political parties to allow the parties to form an interim government and hold early elections to a new parliament. The Indian recommendation might include Former Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala to head the interim government. In the medium-term, India wanted the Maoists to be included in the solution but with a pre-condition that the king’s position should be preserved as a ceremonial head. The interim government and the elected government formed after the instant elections would talk to the Maoists and conduct the elections for a constituent assembly. Special envoy Dr. Singh’s magic, although partially, seems to have worked. In coming days, the international community is likely to put more pressure on the SPA to form a government in response to King Gyanendra’s vow to restore political power to the people. The United States and India, two major players that can heavily influence Nepal’s political game, seem to be stuck on to their old mantra: “the reconciliation between Nepal’s monarch and the SPA as a remedy of the ongoing crisis.” Now the question is: what is next? The good news is that the king seems to be finally cornered but the bad news is that returning to the “status quo” (a pre-February 1-like situation) doesn’t solve Nepal’s ongoing crisis. It is very clear that any political framework that falls short of addressing the Maoist insurgency may not produce a durable solution. Nevertheless, the king kicked the ball back to the SPA’s court. On the one hand, the SPA has an upper hand because the agitating political parties are enjoying a popular support of tens of thousands of demonstrators and the defeated mentality of the king. On the other hand, the king seems to be all set for a final confrontation in case the SPA pushes him to the “dead-end” of constitutional monarchy. It means that Nepal may have to bear a lot of human and economic cost if the agitating parties stick on the “fight-to-finish Nepal’s Monarchy.” To conclude, time is clearly on the SPA’s side but they also need to shoulder the burden of giving a safe path to the ongoing movement so that the unintended sacrifices could be minimized. In order to do so, the agitating parties have to carefully design their strategy. The SPA should welcome the king’s proclamation of handing over power to the people but at the same time, the SPA also have to clearly put forward its demands and ask the king that the agitating parties are ready to talk to the king if the king is ready to have a forward-looking discussion on the seven parties' roadmap that consists of the restoration of dissolved parliament as an entry point and the elections of constituent assembly as an exit point. (The author is associated with a think tank based in California