The Pro-Monarchy Movement In Nepal

 

A movement to restore the monarchy in Nepal has grown. The movement has a coalition of Hindu nationalist, pro-royalist, and anti-federalist factions. The monarchy was abolished in 2008. The circumstances for the removal retales to the civil war peace settlement. The pro-monarchy movement does have the support of a political party. The Rastriya Prajatantra  Party has organized demonstrations. Law enforcement has responded with violence. Some speculate that the reason the RPP is supportive of the pro-monarchy movement relates to election performance. The RPP does not have enough votes to have a majority in parliament. The pro-republicans see the movement as undermining progress of Nepal. The former king, Gyanendra Shah as shown interest in a return to government. When King Gyanedra dismissed the government in 2005, this resulted in the loss of the monarchy's credibility. The shift to a republican parliamentary system did not produce the results the public wanted. Economic challenges, constantly rotating governments, and ineffective political parties left the Nepalese frustrated. Unaddressed dissatisfaction caused the pro-monarchy movement to develop. The Shah dynasty had been in power for 240 years. The 2008 experiment with being a federal parliamentary republic is not doing as well as expected. If democratic political system cannot provide for citizens, then they will turn to other alternatives. The restoration of the monarchy is a shift to a Nepalese conservatism. The aftermath of the Nepalese Civil War and ineffective prime ministers created the pro-monarchy movement. 

President James Carter Praises Shah Mohammad Pahlavi (1978)

 

President James Carter wanted to make human rights a priority in his administration. This was more of a sentiment, rather than actual policy. The US supported Shah Mohammad Pahlavi. Iran was engaging in oppression of its own citizens. The CIA helped train Savak. This was a secret police force that was designed to crush dissent and gather intelligence. President Carter during his administration praised the Shah as being a stabilizing force. There was a growing political opposition to the monarchy in Iran. The Iranian Revolution would occur in 1979 and the Iranian hostage crisis became a major concern. US support for Iran was part of a Cold War strategy directed at the Soviet Union. Russia having access to Iranian oil was not acceptable to Washington. President Carter stated that Iran was " an island  of stability in one of the more  troubled areas of the world." Protests were beginning in 1978. The difference was that the US did not expect the Shah to be deposed. He was placed back in power in 1953 by both the UK and the US. The Carter administration could not resolve the hostage crisis and the take over of the US embassy. The hostages did get their freedom, but the poor management of the crisis cost President Carter the presidency. 

Queen Elizabeth And The Imperial Legacy

 

Queen Elizabeth has passed away. She had been a fixture of the United Kingdom for half a century. While the press in both the US and UK praise the longtime Queen, they  ignore the sordid imperial legacy during the last years of the British Empire. Although a constitutional monarchy, it virtually ruled over Hong Kong, Jamaica, and India. The British Empire was not willing to grant independence to the African and Asian colonies after World War II. Wars had to be fought for the cause of national liberation. Queen Elizabeth put a more tolerable image of empire, when it was not longer acceptable as a political entity. Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, and Yemen people took up arms to fight the British. The Anglo-Jewish War brought an end to the British mandate in Palestine. White settlers refused to acknowledge that times had changed. The exact amount of causalities from the anti-colonial wars may never be known. While there is no evidence that the Queen was directly involved in abuses, she was complicit in them. The stance against South Africa was only taken by Queen Elizabeth when more African states gained independence in the 1960s. Rhodesia was an issue even before the Universal Declaration of Independence. She headed the Commonwealth which was designed to maintain British influence in the former colonies. It was and continues to be more paternalistic and condescending rather than a partnership of equals. Over the past five decades a  public relations campaign was designed  to make he seem like a humanitarian figure. The attempts to sanitize the history of violence by the British Empire has come under new scrutiny. It was reported 10 years ago thousands of documents related to abuses in the colonies were destroyed. Those documents related to colonial abuses remain in the Foreign Office archive. Queen Elizabeth was more so a symbol for those who believed in the myth of benevolent empire. The history exposes how nostalgia distorts  the public's understanding of events. The British Empire has a different meaning to African and Asian peoples. The negative effects are still resonating in global affairs.