Culminating Events

Many events have culminated into a political deadlock

By KESHAB POUDEL

Everybody in the street and every one in group discussions anywhere have a consensus opinion that the present political deadlock of forces abiding the Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal 1990 is the first and foremost problem of the country.

With a few anti-monarchist persons – who are influential – and a small pro-monarchist but anti-democratic group at the helm of decisive positions, it seems to be very difficult, not impossible, to reach compromise between the two forces – the monarchy and the organized political parties – which are compatible with each other.

“Monarchy will not compromise with leaders of political parties who shake hands with terrorists,” said former chief of the army staff and a member of Rajsabha Standing Committee Satchit Sumsher J.B. Rana. “There is no question of surrendering in front of an alliance of few anti-nationals,” said Rana, whose nephew, a journalist, Shrish Sumsher Rana, was appointed as a minister of state for Information and Communication in recent cabinet reshuffle.

Political leaders, too, are equally responsible for widening the gap with the King and the Palace. “If the King does not accept the constitutional role, monarchy will be wiped out,” said octogenarian Congress leader Girija Prasad Koirala, who held prime minister’s portfolio several times in the last 15 years. Although Koirala’s harsh statements against the monarchy are not at par with his political status, he is still one of the few living politicians who is a patriotic and a monarchist deep down in his inner heart.

There are genuine grievances against the King and the Palace establishment as the sources of problems - which led to this political deadlock. And there is equally logical allegation against deeds and misdeeds of the prominent political parties and their leaders.

Examining apprehension of both the sides, it is difficult to take any partisan outlook. Had not the King and the palace coteries harassed Nepali Congress workers and Nepali Congress leader Girija Prasad Koirala, who was fed up with the communists for their un-parliamentary activities in the past, NC would not have joined an alliance with the communists. Had the democratic political leaders maintained certain decorum and respect to the institution of monarchy, the coteries in the palace would not have found opportunity to instigate the monarch against the political parties.

When some diehard monarchists hatched conspiracy to terminate political careers of Koirala and his family members and discredit country’s oldest organized party, Koirala had no option other than to broaden the alliance with communists.

Thanks to actions initiated by the Commission of Investigation of Abuse of Authority, High-level Property Probe Commission led by justice Bhairab Prasad Lamsal and lately the all powerful Royal Commission for Corruption Control, Koirala was forced to adopt anti-monarchy stand. The combined effect of these events alienated the constitutionalists form the Constitution and monarchist democrats from constitutional monarchy. All these institutions have played no positive role in the country except terrorizing political leaders and bureaucracy.

“One has to see problems in a broader perspective without preconception against any of these political forces. A lengthy and complicated analysis of the situation could be left to the responsibilities of academics and historians,” said a political analyst.

Collapse of Parliament

From a layman’s outlook, the crisis took serious turn when, in 2002, then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba was compelled to declare early elections for his own political survival and the Supreme Court hearing concluded with a decision endorsing the prime minister’s authority to hold it and that was what the constitution meant. What happened after that was the incompetence of the government as well as a group of major political parties to reach into a conclusion that the date of election needed to be postponed. That was the beginning of the subverting of the constitutional process -which prominent political leaders accepted ignoring the public who opposed the postponement of elections.

Since then a series of events took place - which went against the spirit of the constitution and retarded the political process. Astonishingly, the postponement of the elections as well as disgraceful removal of then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba was appreciated by top leaders of major political parties except Deuba’s own splinter group.

Monarchy in Command 

Much unexpectedly, King Gyanendra took a drastic turn in the constitutional process as the parliament was not there and as there was a combined executive power between the King and the council of ministers. In the absence of the parliament as well as in the absence of the government provided by the parliament, the King might have perceived himself as the sole repository of the executive power.

“Since then King Gyanendra has been prescribing solutions to the present problems of the country believing that the king is the only constitutional power to do it. As there is no parliament and no government accountable to the parliament, there is no accountability to the people. Unfortunately, the monarch has put into himself the task of the constitutional accountability. Thus, most difficult and dangerous role of the monarchy, which was wisely inscribed in the constitution, has unwillingly come into the operation. On the popular democratic norms, this is hard to be accepted but at the critical juncture that inherits instincts of act of necessities, any authority, whether it is monarchical or republican, would have to stand for the survival first. One may have any opinion about King Gyanendra as a person but history will definitely give him the credit of withstanding any kind of hazards at the moment of survival as the independent nation,” said a political analyst.

Independence is not merely an emotional wish. It is the hard reality of being subjugated or pressing one’s own independence. Whatever jargon the King and his persons in power use to justify, only that instinct of independence could be sensed in the expressions, actions and attitudes of King Gyanendra.

One has to always bear in mind that the monarchy is a reserve force which plays the constitutional and political role at the time of political vacuum or serious national crisis.

If monarchy has any relevance in the modern constitutional set up, that is mainly at the time of political vacuum or the collapse of the system. To provide legitimacy to state actions, it has with it the traditional as well as the constitutional sanctions to fulfill its obligations.

But the politics of country has other stakeholders also like organized political parties. Nepal had passed through an experiment of party-less democracy. However, there is no indication even from the King and hardliners, too that the political process will revert back.

The King or other influential coteries, ministers or decision makers may have likes or dislikes about particular political parties. However, what the majority of the common people of Nepal prefer is the real political force like established political parties.

However resentful or defying attitudes and utterances they might show but the real decisiveness could be established only through the elections. “Our political parties and their dedicated leaders and workers are more committed to the cause than most of the stereotypes of stable democracy,” said the analyst. “Unfortunately, they are carried away by widely anarchic populist politics instigated and inspired by seen and unseen forces. Political leaders seem to have deviated from their political issues thanks to the instigation of populist media.”

Election As An Opportunity

With the announcement of the elections under a government led by King, there is a political opportunity to the parties to end the deadlock and bring back the constitutional process to the right track. Since certain elements in both the sides are polluting the environment by creating distrust and mistrust, it is virtually impossible to push political parties – who have been organizing nation-wide rallies - to contest the elections.

Elections provide opportunities to venture far and wide into the country and project their unhindered political views. Conscientious people are there to judge whether the elections were fair or foul. Even if the party loses the elections, it has been seen to sometimes heighten their stature. However restricted the election is, since it is going to be held in municipal areas, political parties have opportunities to test the fairness of royal regime and its commitment.

Had political parties done it, a rapport and dialogue for further events of popular decision-making could have been expected. Unfortunately, that seems to have been missed for right now and political process continues to head towards division.

The Conflict Behind the Conflict

Nepal’s present political conflict is not an overnight development as it has passed various stages to reach into the present form. A political analyst has drawn five stages of present political deadlock - which needs adequate explanations.

• Westernization of Royal Nepalese Army

Westernization of Nepalese Army causes the collapse of Sher Bahadur Deuba’s government as well as demise of parliament. Former prime minister Deuba is first elected prime minister to talk one-on-one with US president George Bush in Oval office in Washington and British prime minister Tony Blair in 10 Downing Street London. His visit was successful as both the leaders agreed to support the modernization of Royal Nepalese Army – which was fighting with the Maoists. Upon arrival from Washington and London, Deuba, who was actually in no mood to extend state of emergency, extended it reportedly at the advice from Ram Chandra Poudel and speaker of House of Representatives Taranath Ranabhat. Following this, Congress president Koirala issued 24 hours ultimatum to revoke the state of emergency. Finally, Deuba, who is now in prison on charges of corruption on Melamchi without any reason, dissolved the House of Representatives.

• The Monarchy in Command

As all political parties pressured former prime minister Deuba to postpone the date for elections by one year, Deuba submitted to the King the all party consensus to postpone the elections on October 4, 2002. The collapse of the parliament forces the monarchy into the command as a reserve force, traditionally as well as constitutionally as October 4 was a deadline after which the authority of parliament ceased to function. In absence of parliament and its authority, King stepped into the power dismissing Deuba and taking over executive power. After February 1, 2005 action of the King, western support to Royal Nepalese Army has been completely stalled as British and American suspended their military aid indefinitely.

• The Conflict at present

The Conflict has transformed between the forces, which want to see the King, Royal Nepalese Army and political parties combined together, and the forces, which want to see political parties including the Maoists confronting the King and the Army.

• Another force appears in the picture with a purpose to meddle into the present affairs to penetrate its own interest.

• 5. The recent events prove that the center of the conflict is not inside but it is somewhere else in the region.