I’m astonished by the decision by Nepali voters to abolish its monarchy. Spurred by the Maoist victory in recent parliamentary elections, (the election itself a result of the Maoist insurgencies pressure on King Gyanendra) the results are remarkable.

The fact that a democratically elected terrorist group—according to the Pentagon—has managed to bring democracy to a country that suffered under a tyrant is a remarkable irony.

What does this say about our own efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, or our attempts at an Israeli/Palestinian reconciliation? What does it say about our war on terror?

Perhaps that one mans terrorist is another’s liberator or that the idea of diplomacy without preconditions has merit.

To be sure, having led a long and bloody insurgency in the countries rural provinces Nepal’s Maoists are no saints. Yet,
given the chance to participate as a legitimately recognized political party, they put down their weapons and participated (as did the IRA and the ANC in their countries).

The notion that there is something wrong about gaining legitimacy through armed insurgency has to be tempered by the fact that without arms, there may have been no recognition of the Maoists or the problems in Nepal’s countryside—ignored by the Monarchy in favor of Katmandu and the tourists who flock to the country—they sought to address.

At any rate, the Maoists were validated by overwhelming support among Nepali voters in an open election. Nepal’s first (apparently King Gyanendra was a tyrant). Instead of a kingdom, Nepal is now a multi-party Democratic Republic.

The Democracies of the world, especially we in the U.S., should thank the Maoists for that and, perhaps, follow their lead in Iraq and Afghanistan.