In part 1 of this mini-series posted a few weeks ago, I wrote that the end of monarchy was frequently followed by a breakdown in order, followed by totalitarian evil. To distil the idea into a sentence: once a monarch is gone, a stabilizing force in the political system disappears, and is frequently followed by disorganized and chaotic democracy, followed in turn by an order-restoring but totalitarian force. This pattern has been seen in countries such as 18th century France, 19th century Russia, and 20th century Cambodia, among others.
This post will show how the theory can be put to the test in the 21st century. As early as 2005 I’ve been writing that Nepal is in real trouble, that the Maoists were enslaving the peasants to save them, and followed up with more on this topic in numerous posts. In defense of the monarchy, I wrote about the choice between the dictatorial monarch and the potential totalitarianism of the Maoists as a choice between bad and evil.
I first predicted that the installation of Gyanendra as a dictatorial monarch in the aftermath of the fratricidal slaughter of the royal family was the first step in the establishment of an authoritarian dictatorship, and that the mass murder of the monarchy was the tipping point. I realized, and wrote in later posts, that this analysis was somewhat inaccurate and premature. The ball starts to roll not in 2001, when the Gyanendra became king after the rest of the royal family was assasinated. More accurately, I think the year was 2008, when the monarchy was officially abolished, Gyanendra is forced out, and a multi-party republic was established, with a Maoist as prime minister. With this set of occurrences, I fear that the stage has now been set for a complete breakdown, and that the trigger has been pulled on acts that will mean the end of the monarchy is being followed by chaos, which will in turn result in totalitarianism.
The economy of Nepal is subsistence agriculture, and the only way money enters the country is through tourism. But tourism has plummeted over the past few years, first with the Maoist civil war, and now with the financial crisis hitting the pocketbooks of the wealthy first worlders who toured Nepal. Following on a sudden lack of foreign cash flowing in, Nepal’s society and politics are quickly imploding. Consider this except from an article by a Nepali Journalist posted on the (previously pro-Maoist?) United We Blog! for a Democratic Nepal:
Peace, Rule of law and social harmony amongst diverse societies are fouled by various power centres… The Prime Minister is talking about waging another civil war. Defence Minister and Chief of Army staff announced series of ambiguous statements. A Madheshi leader is talking about end of Nepal. Janajatis are already declaring their own autonomous regions. Indian Ambassador, once close friend to all parties, is holding secret meetings with former Monarch. Various ethnic groups are recruiting armed combatants to wage war against the state. Few religions elements are already plotting bombs across the country.
The article goes on to forsee a failed state in Nepal. I basically agree. But I see worse. As long as the monarchy has been abolished and there is no central umbrella institution to unite society when a real crisis emerges, we are likely to see the chaos followed by a power that seeks to restore order through totalitarian power that results in either gulags or genocide. Those who doubt the accuracy of this political theory and the leasons drawn from history—and judging from the comments on the previous post, there are many—need only wait and watch in Nepal. This theory is about to be put to the test.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
ElamBend
March 11, 2009
5:01 am
Have your read Nial Ferguson's "The War of the World"? Some of it's themes are similar to yours in this series (let's say they rhyme). A portion of his thesis is that great violence occurs when empires weaken and begin to break up. Reading your series reminds me of the book (of which I'm only 1/3 through).
Curzon
March 11, 2009
6:29 am
Just An Australian
March 11, 2009
8:52 am
ElamBend
March 12, 2009
2:06 am
I echo some of your feeling about Ferguson, Curzon, definitely the particular book I'm reading could be about a third shorter. However, having seen him in person and read a lot of his stuff, I think he is getting better; more succinct and less apt to push a particular hobby horse of his.
Curzon
March 12, 2009
2:59 am
But this is also seperate from the topic of the post, which is the role of a monarch, and its importance. A monarchy is just another institution of the state. But it often has a history, traditional and religious, that provides stability and wards off tyrants. I think the history is clear, and I have serious concerns for Nepal.
Ghatozkat
March 19, 2009
1:06 pm
The decision to dethrone the Monarch is still controversial. The elections though said to conducted in a fair manner, the pre-elections phase was not at all fair. Political parties that had constitutional monarchy in their agendas were only limited to Kathmandu, the capital for if they tried to venture out, their leaders would be brutally assaulted by the maoists and even killed.
Once the political parties talked about referendum, but that was put aside because political parties feared that the King could garner a sizable amount of support from his citizens.
Nepal's monarchy was no where close to feudal. While all other monarchies that you talked about in the earlier post might have gone down because they were feudal (or not, I don't know much), Nepal monarchy had to bow down because the political parties feared that they would be eventually wiped out if they let the monarch, who was trying to revive a almost failed state continue.
Nepal has another force which you have not discussed. Other than the King, the political parties and the brutal maoists, we have our Army, now the Nepal Army, then then Royal Nepal Army. We have already seen instances here in Nepal where we have seen that the Army is not going to let go of the nation and watch the nation bear a severe assault by the maoists again. Our Army was never on offensive during the so called People's war, had it been we would still have a Constitutional Monarch and we would have witnessed a SriLanka like assault by the Army on the rebels.
I still believe that Monarchy will be reinstated in Nepal. And voices like mine have been rising recently after people have finally realized that Maoists only tagged the Monarch as a feudal in a quest to establish totalitarianism. Nothing have changed in Nepal as promised earlier by the Maoists to prove that it was the Monarch because of whom Nepal was suffering.
Let me point out that, the days or Maoists are numbered in Nepal and when it finally happens, maoists are going to be wiped out such that Nepal should never again face war in the name of people planned just to take complete authority. All Nepalis have already seen that it was not due to the Monarch that the state failed, it was due to the short sightedness of the ruling parties that our state failed.
It's not justice if you punish the Monarch for the crimes committed by the political leaders.
So, I don't think you would be able to witness the theory you stated above put to test.