A king obviously thinks he can do no wrong. So, Nepal’s King Gyanendra, who is now supposed to be pretty powerless, saw nothing wrong in addressing the Himalayan nation on Democracy Day. Even more ironically, he sought to defend his coup of February, 2005, which had triggered a violent pro-democracy movement in the country. It is, therefore, not difficult to see why Nepal’s Maoists and democratic parties alike are outraged by the monarch’s speech. It would be a historic event if “action” is taken against the king, as the deputy prime minister, Mr Amik Serchan, has threatened. But the episode points to a danger that does not seem to be adequately understood by Nepal’s politicians. Given the kings’ record of undemocratic ways, the coexistence of monarchy and democracy is a sure recipe for trouble in Nepal. The recent violence in the Terai region is a case in point. The king’s men may not have conspired to incite ethnic passions, but they did their best to exploit the violence in order to promote divisive politics. King Gyanendra’s decision to deliver the Democracy Day speech is an affront to the people’s democratic aspirations. It is possible that he had been emboldened to take the bizarre step because he still enjoys the covert support of a section of the political class. Rulers everywhere like to divide the people — and the politicians — in order to rule.

The worst danger, of course, is that the king’s games could spoil the understanding between the Maoists and the democratic parties. The agreement between them not only ended the decade-old Maoist rebellion that had cost nearly 13,000 lives, but also paved the way for a truly democratic political order. Although the Maoists have joined the interim government, leaving their arms behind at camps monitored by United Nations representatives, peace and stability in Nepal are still on trial. The first major hurdle will be crossed if the country can peacefully vote in June to elect a constituent assembly. Even after that, contentious issues such as the drafting of a new constitution and the decision on the fate of the monarchy will test the politicians’ skills. These are times of a major transition in Nepal. But, as the democracy movement of 1990 showed, faltering politicians could again help the palace sabotage democracy.