King Gyanendra, We Gave You Fair Warning

How do heads of state get things so wrong? No, I'm not talking about President Bush, or even Italy's departing Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. But if they want to feel a little better, they need only look to the east and consider the situation of Nepal's King Gyanendra.

He should have known better than to think he could take the steps he did and not end up with riots in the streets. After all, we all told him this was going to happen.

His intentions were good: bring security and prosperity back to the country. The tactics missed the mark a bit: He dismissed his government and took complete power. In large part, his people supported him, tired of the corruption, abuses and extortion they received from the Maoists (and at times from the politicians and military).

With surprising foresight not typically used with our own problems, the U.S. government and the international community urged and pressured the king to work with the political parties. By imposing authoritarian rule, he would both become directly accountable for any failures and would push the people into the arms of the Maoists. Human rights organizations and governments alike warned the king that to bring democracy and legitimacy back to the country and a voice back to the people, taking control was not the answer.

Warnings went unheeded. Now, after two weeks of major demonstrations, the king finally gets it— or at least he says he does. Unfortunately, his actions lag far behind.

At this point, he has backed himself into a corner and has only three options:

First, he could increase the pressure, and what have up until now been relatively non-violent demonstrations (more than a dozen killed, hundreds injured and arrested by the security forces), would mutate into a real crackdown on the demonstrators. Sure, the king would retain control but at incredible cost to the country.

The second scenario, and the one the king appears to be pursuing, is that by opening dialogue with the parties, he tries to delay being overthrown. Predictably the parties are not falling for this, and neither they nor the public are allowing the king to wiggle out. Even if they do, we'll eventually be back with options one or three.

The third possibility is that the king actually does back down. If this happens, the parliament is reinstated, the Maoists join the political dialogue, and the king likely becomes a figurehead at best. And the people, having said their piece, go back to work.

This last choice is certainly the best of the three, but it comes with a couple of obstacles. First, the king dismissed the government for a good reason: The parties are corrupt and ineffective. When in power, they spend more of their time bickering with one another and rewarding their supporters than running the country.

And second, while the seven major political parties and the Maoists reached a 12-point agreement last November, without the king as the common enemy, this is likely to break down, returning the country to its 10-year civil war.

So what's a king to do? Make the right decision: Save yourself. The Nepalese monarchy has for decades oscillated between being a power in the country and merely a titular but spiritual head; maybe it is time again for the latter.

The next step is for the international community, particularly the Indians, to bring pressure to bear on all parties— including the Maoists— to fulfill their obligations. Unsuccessful as we know road maps to be, one will be needed here. And, finally, the parties will need democracy training, the people will need humanitarian assistance and the military could do with some human rights education.

But, while some work is needed from the international community, we should not forget that Nepal has incredible resources. The Himalayas long have made it a tourist destination, and the people are resourceful and entrepreneurial. And, located between the two growing economies of India and China, if order is returned and the people go back to work, the economic potential is there.

Nepal needs to fix itself, and it will, but on this one, they're going to need a little pressure from the rest of the world ... not just an "I told you so."

Xenia Dormandy is executive director for research at the BelferCenterat Harvard's John F.Kennedy School of Government. She is the former director for South Asia on the National Security Council