The principle of the thing: Nepal’s king and the rule of law

On 1 February 2005, Nepal's King Gyanendra dismissed the government led by Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba. He justified this decision by invoking Deuba's failure to hold elections and his inability to tackle a Maoist uprising nearing its tenth anniversary. Even as the king's televised announcement came to a close, security forces seized and imprisoned leaders of the Deuba government, key political party figures and human-rights activists. The king subsequently constituted a solidly royalist ten-member Council of Ministers under his own chairmanship and imposed a state of emergency. Sweeping restrictions on the press followed, with army officers appearing in Kathmandu's editorial rooms to vet copy. In addition to the right to free expression and publication, rights to peaceable assembly, information and privacy and the right against arbitrary detention were suspended.

The state of emergency was formally lifted on 29 April. Nevertheless, notable political leaders and human-rights activists remain under arrest, decrees curbing freedom of the press are still in place, and peaceful political protest remains disallowed. Some activists are still in exile, leery of returning to Kathmandu. Most importantly, significant changes have been brought about in the structure of government and there is large-scale use of ordinances to move matters forward in the absence of Parliament and an elected government. The king's 29 April announcement, in short, has had no internal effect, suggesting that it was intended solely for international consumption, as part of an effort to mend the palace's credentials. For all practical purposes, then, Nepal remains in the state of emergency announced on 1 February. Any serious discussion of political possibilities for Nepal's short-term future, therefore, must treat the state of emergency as de facto in force.