The Maoists Rise Again in Nepal

By KUNDA DIXIT
When Nepal's Maoist insurgency ended and the militants joined an interim government three years ago, many hoped Nepal could serve as a model of peaceful democratic transformation. Now that the former insurgents are resigning from government, however, the democratic process is in grave jeopardy.
The present political crisis was sparked by Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who resigned last week when President Rambaran Yadav blocked his attempt to sack the army chief. The president worried that Mr. Dahal—known by his nom de guerre, Prachanda—was trying to consolidate his personal power over the military.
For good reason: Domestic Nepali television channels broadcast a video on May 6 of Prachanda boasting to his troops last year that he had hoodwinked the United Nations into thinking the Maoists had three times more guerrillas than they had. He admitted that not all of the Maoists' arms were surrendered to the U.N. And he reassured his troops that the party had no intention of deviating from its goal of total state control.
The government is now in disarray—a situation the country can ill-afford. The elected constituent assembly must write a new federal republican constitution by next April, and it is already behind schedule. The government and the U.N. are also in the middle of demobilizing and rehabilitating nearly 20,000 Maoist guerrillas interred in U.N.-supervised camps. The parties in parliament have been trying for ten days to cobble together a majority coalition without the Maoists, with no success.
The situation may get worse before it gets better. Prachanda is challenging the president's decision in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, his supporters have mobilized militant cadres and sympathetic civil society members for daily street protests in Katmandu against the president. The harshest slogans are directed at India, which pressured Prachanda not to meddle with the army.
These developments may have regional security implications. India has a vital stake in keeping the Nepal Army out of the hands of the Maoists. The Indian army has more than 60,000 Nepali Gurkha soldiers, and the two countries have strong historical ties. India's own Maoist insurgents have recently scaled up attacks on police and government in six eastern states, including one bordering Nepal. India is also concerned about Nepal's ever-closer relationship with China.
The irony here is that the Maoists came to power by the ballot, eliminating the need for bullets. Yet after taking control of government, the Maoists have become even more insecure. They have used thugs from their Young Communist League to threaten, intimidate and attack supporters of rival parties. They have tried to interfere and undermine the institutions they don't yet control: the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the army and the media.
I have personal experience with these tactics. Last December, I was beaten by a group of thugs who vandalized my newspaper's offices. This week, Maoists were again at Image Channel, the television station that first broadcast Prachanda's video, and threatened "physical action" unless the tape of Prachanda was handed over to them. These actions have only confirmed Prachanda's comments about controlling state institutions and made a mockery of his claims to support "civilian supremacy" over the army and "democratic norms."
This is the dilemma for young democracies like Nepal: What can be done when a party that comes to power through elections and is policed by a free, independent media starts attacking those very institutions of democracy after winning office? How does an elected government deal with an elected demagogue? Nepalis have shown that citizens must defy attempts to control the institutions of democracy.
Mr. Dixit is the editor and publisher of the Nepali Times in Katmandu.