A nationwide election that could not be held in half the number of districts in the country; which all major political parties boycotted; for which candidates could be found only for a third of the available posts; and which attracted just 21 per cent of voters on election day — this farce is what King Gyanendra would have the world believe heralds the return of democracy in Nepal. The results are no surprise. Most contestants were either pro-royal independents or belonged to the royalist Rashtriya Prajatantra Party; so the municipalities where the elections were held are now in the hands of the King’s men and women. The royal camp blames the Maoist threat of violence for the low participation. That is to ignore the undemocratic building blocks to this electoral exercise, including restrictions on the media, the arrest of political leaders, and the ban on legitimate political activities. Judging by the immediate reaction, the world has not been taken in. New Delhi has correctly said the elections lacked credibility and would not help restore democracy in Nepal. The United States condemned the entire exercise as a “hollow attempt” by the King to legitimise the power he grabbed unconstitutionally in February 2005. Britain and Japan have also come out against the King. Elections are a part of a process, all the elements of which have to be democratic. Plainly, an election imposed by an autocratic regime with patently undemocratic rules cannot pass for democracy.

The cynicism with which King Gyanendra is trying to window-dress his unconstitutional rule is bound to strengthen the republican sentiment in Nepal. Until recently, it was only the Maoists who wanted to abolish the monarchy. The people were apprehensive that the armed Maoists would rush into the vacuum left by the monarchy and establish their own dictatorship. In this respect, the unequivocal declaration by the Maoist leader, Prachanda, in an interview to The Hindu, that the party had embraced the idea of a multi-party democracy (and his appeal to similar parties in India to do the same) is encouraging. It was on this understanding that the Maoists and an alliance of seven political parties decided to join hands last September in the struggle for democracy. Although these parties are still not fully convinced about doing away with Nepal’s monarchy, they are not closed to the idea as much as they were even a year ago. India, whose initial hopes that the monarch would act honourably have been dashed, may also need to rethink its support for retaining the “two pillar” formula of a constitutional monarchy in a multiparty democracy, as Prachanda has demanded. But the Maoists must realise that they can never hope to be completely trusted by democratic forces so long as they are committed to achieving their political goals through violence. Were they to give up the armed struggle, they would also deny the King the fig leaf of a reason for his continued authoritarian rule and delaying the return to democracy.