KATHMANDU: Nearly a month after the abrupt dismissal of Nepal’s elected government by King Gyanendra, a growing rift between the nation’s political parties and the monarchy has put this small Himalayan Kingdom on tenterhooks.

At issue is the fate of Nepal’s blend of multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy, which it adopted in 1990 after three decades of struggle against an absolute monarchy.

Many analysts now believe that more than the royal massacre of June 2001, the present times are a bigger test for Nepal’s young democracy and constitutional monarchy.

Stunned by the Oct 4 dismissal of the government and the assumption of all executive powers by the king, political parties are forging a united front to pressure the king to undo his “unconstitutional and undemocratic” action.

On that day, King Gyanendra sacked the government of Sher Bahadur Deuba and took over all executive powers. A week later, he appointed a new government headed by old royalist Lokendra Bahadur Chand, but still held onto most of these executive powers.

Ironically, that action is giving a boost to those who want to abrogate the monarchy itself: the rebel Maoists who have, since 1996, called for turning the world’s only Hindu kingdom into a communist republic.

These days, even the mainstream political parties who acted as a bulwark against creeping republicanism are debating whether or not to support the Maoists’ call for a new constitution.

The first indications came early late last week when the Nepali Congress, Nepal’s largest political party which has shunned talk of a new constitution, for the first time officially debated the Maoists’ demand for a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution.

In a meeting of the party’s Central Working Committee, several senior leaders strongly argued for a constituent assembly. The idea was proposed by one of Congress President Girija Prasad Koirala’s staunch aides, Narhari Acharya.

Although the CWC ultimately rejected the proposal, the fact alone that the party has been discussing it sends a clear signal to King Gyanendra.

Analysts here note that it was the rebel Maoists who first raised the issue of a constituent assembly.

The rebels have always slammed the present constitution, drafted in 1990 by a select committee, as a compromise document between the Congress, the communist forces and the monarch.

Thus, they want the people to elect representatives to a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution. Many observers say the Maoists’ ultimate motive is to prescribe republican ideals into a new constitution.

The Congress party, however, may not be ready for such moves, but wants only to use the issue as a tactic to force the king to hand over power to political parties.

Even the Congress’ Acharya, who proposed the idea says, “A constituent assembly can draft a constitution which upholds the constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. It need not be a republican constitution.”

In the debate over the constituent assembly, the key role could belong to the CPN (UML), Nepal’s largest and most organized communist party.

Party leaders have remained tight-lipped about where they stand, but the communists never gave full support to the present constitution in the first place and could well begin supporting a move to a constituent assembly if the conditions are right.—Dawn/The InterPress News Service.