King as an Emergency Light in Nepal
Nishchal N Pandey
Deputy Executive Director, Institute of Foreign Affairs, Kathmandu
The leaders of the political parties may have been shocked at the events of 4 October 2002; but, the international community and the Nepalese people were expecting it for long. His Majesty King Gyanendra in an address to the people said, “a situation has arisen wherein, by virtue of the State Authority as exercised by us and in the spirit of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal-1990, as well as, taking into consideration of Article 27 (3) of the Constitution, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba should be relieved of his office, owing to his incompetence to conduct the general elections on the stipulated date in accordance with the Constitution, and the Council of Ministers dissolved.” The address was followed by jubilation on the streets of Kathmandu. International donor agencies and Nepal’s friends were not too enthusiastic to censure the move by a constitutional head of the state to sack the country’s Prime Minister.
Why is there such misgiving and distrust over elected representatives and the system of governance? Firstly, in the last twelve years of multi-party democracy, it is a regrettable fact that political leaders were preoccupied with their petty personal interests and not concerned about those who voted them to power. Crores were siphoned off to personal accounts and those living in rental rooms twelve years ago not only turned wealthy but started behaving even worse than autocratic dictators – all in the name of democracy. Three powerful ministers of the “democratic era” are currently under custody for alleged corrupt practices. The judicial committee, scrutinizing the properties of top office holders, is due to submit its report in a few months. Frustrated by this visible free-loot and worsening economic and security situation, the people were desperately hoping for a shock therapy for their errant political masters.
Secondly, the Constitution was interpreted to suit individual leaders and their parties. Manipulated by ten Prime Ministers, coalitions and a multiple array of factions and mauled by the Maoists, only the King, who is the guardian and custodian of the Constitution, could rescue what was left of it to restore it. Article 27, which the king invoked, was in fact recommended by the Prime Minister with full backing of major parties in the Parliament. In his address, King Gyanendra said, “We had, at the recommendation of the Prime Minister, dissolved the House of Representatives on May 22 and set November 13 as the date for elections to the House of Representatives. The Prime Minister, who was entrusted with the task of conducting the general elections, had made a submission to us for the removal of difficulties under Article 127 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, citing the current adverse situation prevailing in the country as the reason for not being able to hold the general elections on the stipulated date in accordance with Article 53 (4) of the Constitution. This led to a constitutional difficulty and void, creating a complicated situation in the country.”
Thirdly, with elections not held within the stipulated time frame (the Constitution of Nepal makes it mandatory for the general elections to be held within 6 months of dissolving the House) and the government of the day only desiring to postpone the date so as to remain in power forever, the only option before the King was to take the risk of not only restoring the constitutional process but also ensure good governance, peace and stability in the meantime. The King, after all, is not only the head of state but also enjoys people’s faith and is obliged to them being bound by culture and religion.
Notwithstanding this harsh reality, there is no dearth of protesters proclaiming that democracy is in danger and the King’s decision was unconstitutional; and, political parties must not be kept away but rather taken into confidence to fight real enemies like poverty, unemployment, corruption and, of course, the Maoist insurgency. Some political parties have even threatened to challenge the King’s decision on the streets.
It needs to be emphasized that Monarchy is merely playing its historic role as an emergency light; once the regular flow of electricity comes in, the emergency light will go off. The monarchs have, time and again, expressed their commitment to democracy and communicated no intention to grab power; there is no cause for anxiety that there might be an unwise move to search for an alternate to multi-party democracy.
The politicians who have received a big blow due to this landmark decision must rectify their past mistakes and take steps to restore their lost image and people’s faith in them. They must cooperate with the present Chand government’s endeavor to bring peace and order in the kingdom, reach a peaceful solution to the Maoist imbroglio, and hold general elections at the earliest.
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
Facebook