 |
Kathmandu Tuesday February 26, 2002 Falgun 14, 2058.
|
Constitutional amendment
By NAGENDRA CHHETRI
Nepal today is staggering back to the situation
which was prevailing before King Prithvi Narayan Shah the Great initiated the campaign of
unification. The evil forces of disintegration seem mushrooming up from east to west and
north to south under the banner of many pretexts. In circumstances like this a nation
needs and looks for a strong leadership that can act as a cohesive force to keep united,
consolidated and further strengthen the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious and
parliamentary characteristics of this country. A nation needs something solid to fall back
on as a last resort when normal and regular machinery do not/cannot function. For crisis
can engulf every nation in history but the greatest assets to manage the crisis are always
the people/citizens of that country. But what really matters is the all encompassing
leadership which can impress, influence, motivate, discipline, manage and lead these
people during crisis and get them out of trouble. Nepal right now needs a leadership that
can visualize, choose colleagues and place the right man in the right place at the right
time, punish, reward and take the risk of bold decisions in the larger and longer interest
of the country. A leader who is versed in statecraft is a gambler in this sense.
There is loud talk today inside and outside
parliament on amending the 1990 constitution with a glimpse of different aims and
objectives. One is to form an all-party government during election and the other is to
form a government during election but from non-political and neutral individuals. Both
schools of thought have their own agendas to put forward and factors that can impact on
the election results. They may have their own merits and demerits. But what is strongly
felt in this country over the last one decade is that the basic law of the land is neither
well balanced nor implemented according to the spirit and letter of the document.
Basically, it does not matter much what is written in the basic law, what really matters
is how it is implemented. It is often heard that this is the best constitution in South
Asia and one of the finest in the world. If this is what it is, why does it need to be
amended?
Well! If the whole exercise is directed towards
forming an all-party government during elections i.e sharing power to win elections, the
democratic institutions could become weaker rather than stronger and political rivalry
could be much more intense than it is today, negating the very fabric of the democratic
set-up. If the aim is to form a neutral government to conduct fair and clean elections
through non-partisan individuals, yes constitutional amendment may be welcome. If the aim
is to remove the major flaw from the existing constitution by amending it in order to
create a happy and practical balance, then the exact role of the head of state and chief
executive must be clearly identified and defined. What is really important to understand
here is that the environment in this country and in fact, in all third world democracies
does not allow people to vote with their conscience. There are influencing and forceful
factors like hunger, disease, illiteracy and age-old social taboos that compel voters to
cast their ballot against their will. It is not their conscience that decides. In such a
situation voters are unduly influenced and coerced through unhealthy practice taking undue
advantage of their innocence and poverty. To strike a proper balance and maintain a happy
medium the monarchy must be empowered with some constitutional and residual authority to
pull the string when the nation is in major national crisis.
Now it must not at all be understood that this
scribe intends to make the monarchy a dictatorial institution. Instead, monarchy being the
symbol of Nepalese nationality and the unity of the Nepalese people and the existing
constitution being the end result of the widest possible consultation amongst the people
as well as the result and by-product of the tri-partite agreement amongst democrats,
leftists and monarchists, the monarchy is very much an important actor in the
constitution. Monarchy is the only institution that can act as a balancing force in Nepal
for the foreseeable future. Also when the governing principle of king in parliament is
accepted it is logical, legitimate and natural that he be consulted if and when the
constitution is amended. The national interest and the interest of the monarchy become
synonymous here. The perpetual interest of the monarchy is to make sure that an
independent sovereign, indivisible country, Nepal exists through ages to come and its
national integrity is maintained, consolidated and further strengthened. In this sense,
the monarchy must be empowered to exercise some ultimate constitutional powers whenever
the captain on duty in the ship of state dithers. Monarchy, therefore is a bed-rock on
which the nation can fall back whenever it needs to come out of a major crisis.
The experiences of the past 12 years proves that
there has been extreme politicisation in areas/sectors where not even a shred of it should
appear. Everybody including the political leadership accepts that from security agencies
to bureaucracy, from educational institutions to corporations there has been
politicisation and many infrastructures like the Trolley Bus, Janakpur Cigarette Factory,
Bhrikuti Paper Factory, Sajha Yatayat and Leather & Shoes Factory have collapsed
because of unhealthy political pressure and influences. Extreme political instability,
economic mismanagement, social and communal cracks have further eroded the cohesive nature
of Nepalese national integrity. Therefore, in a country like Nepal which has awkward
geographical compulsions and geo-political constraints and with meagre resources, a
permanently institutionalised watchdog body, or referee to oversee the national scheme of
things is a simple must. For example, the security agencies have been forced to compromise
their efficiency, effectiveness and professionalism due to undesirable interference in
their legitimate and regular systems. Consequently, the nation is paying and suffering and
the democratic institutions are losing public trust. Instead, all security agencies can be
put under unified command during operations coordinated by the National Security Council.
All security chiefs could be appointed by the king on the recommendation of the National
Security Council so that undue political interference could be avoided. This can make the
security forces totally loyal to the institution. If not, Parliamentary democracy in the
prevailing situation cannot establish a foothold in order to further consolidate and
strengthen democratic norms and values. Therefore, serious thought must be given if and
when the constitution is amended. Say, for example, all security agency’s operational
roles could be co-ordinated by the National Security Council of which the elected Prime
Minister is the chairperson. This will allow security agencies to function without
political interference.
Finally, what must be clear is that the existing
constitution is the sum total of the widest possible public consultations and opinions; it
is the result and product of the tripartite agreement between leftists, democrats and
monarchists; people in a country like Nepal are compelled to cast their ballot against
their conscience and will; the governing principle of king in parliament means monarchy is
equally responsible and accountable to the nation as the executive, legislative and
judicial bodies are. Therefore, monarchy has equal role to play in consolidating and
strengthening democratic institutions in this country. If this is what it is the king has
a right to be consulted whenever the constitution is amended because he has a role to play
in it as he is the indispensable and unquestionable leader who has to take on the
constitutional burden of national leadership.
Other Stories
|
