King can do no wrong ?

By DR KHAGENDRA N SHARMA 

In the British parliamentary democracy headed by a constitutional monarchy it is believed that "the king can do no wrong". This belief has some basic conceptual connotations. In the first place, monarchy is non-political while the parliament has political components or party constituents. In the second place, all executive action of the king is actually planned and executed by the cabinet which remains accountable to the parliament. In the third place, all legislative actions fall within the scope of the parliament and the monarch cannot override the ultimate version of the law presented to him/her. Finally, the kingship is based on the loyalty of the entire nation and involvement in factional politics or activities results in the loss of loyalty from those opposed to such faction. Thus the monarch cannot do any wrong action for which the cabinet cannot remain accountable.

The Constitution of Nepal, 1990 had adopted the Westminster style of parliamentary democracy with constitutional monarchy. During the first twelve years of its enforcement, the monarch remained within the boundary prescribed by the constitution. King Birendra had at times posed some questions to the cabinet in the context of some issues of national interest. But he did not go beyond questioning. Royalty normally assented to the legislative and executive proposals with the sole exception of the citizenship amendment which remains uncleared until now. It appeared that the 1990 constitution was naturally suited to the changed Nepali cultural ethos. Unlike his father, King Birendra was well-disposed towards plurality or a multi-party polity.

However, King Gyanendra has injected quite a different political fluid in the Nepali political scene. For one year and a quarter, he acquiesced to what was presented to him by the cabinet, including the dissolution of the Lower House of parliament and the dissolution of all the local bodies. Although the local bodies had completed their tenure, these terms could have been extended by one year. But on 18 Ashwin, 2059 (4 October, 2002) he not only turned down the proposal to postpone the elections by over a year, but also dismissed the cabinet headed by Deuba, calling it ‘incapable’ and he declared that he had taken over the executive power. He later formed a caretaker government under the prime ministership of RPP leader Lokendra Bahadur Chand and included professional experts as ministers. This cabinet was given limited power with four major responsibilities of maintaining law and order, settling the Maoist problem, controlling corruption and conducting the over due elections.

The Oct 4 step of King Gyanendra has invited a lot of controversy and opposition. To understand the Oct 4 step of the king, it is necessary to critically examine the antecedents, which are summarised here. The political scene was out of control because of the Maoist movement, which had turned bloody. That was the reason why the government of the day had not dared to conduct local as well as national elections. Thus there was institutional vacuum both at the local and national levels. In the economic front there was rampant corruption at all levels and almost all development activities were virtually suspended because of the Maoist threat.

That situation had also adversely affected the production process even of the private sector. The leaders handling government could not control corruption. In fact most of such leaders themselves became involved in corrupt scandals. The so-called leaders gradually migrated from the rural to the urban centres, mostly into the capital city and this vacuum was filled by the Maoists. Deuba’s attempt at negotiation with the Maoists having failed, the Maoists had started hitting at government’s local headquarters including army barracks and the army had been deployed nationwide declaring a state of emergency throughout the country. While the Maoist insurgency was being responded militarily, the possibility of holding elections were remote and the main political parties also conceded that election should be postponed until a more peaceful atmosphere is created. At this juncture Deuba recommended the postponement of elections by over a year and the king took the unexpected step of dismissing the Deuba-led cabinet and "taking over the executive power" unto himself.

The controversy following this step has engulfed all the political parties, specially the major ones that are represented in the parliament during the last election. But the major target of this controversy is the king himself. The main contention in either case is whether, under the present constitution the king can dismiss an elected government at his arbitrary will and take over the executive power. As explained in the first section of this article, the Westminster model democracy restricts the king to act only on the advice of the cabinet. So, the discretionary use of power can be called ultra-virus of the constitution. When the Lower House of the parliament was dissolved on the advice of the PM, he was still the leader of the majority party in parliament. But when Deuba recommended the postponement of the election, he was heading only one faction of the Nepali Congress, which had earlier split into two factions, thus losing the majority support.

At this juncture, two plausible implications could have been considered. First, the purported justification of the dissolution of parliament was the general election which the cabinet failed to conduct and thus lost the moral support. Hence, restoration of the dissolved parliament was the logical option. Second, the majority party having split, the restored lower house could have been given a chance of forming a minority or coalition government. The king took the surprise step of dismissing the ‘inefficient’ cabinet. The constitutionality of such an act cannot be raised in a court of law because the royalty in Nepal is exempt from any legal proceeding. This raises the fundamental political question: Is the king accountable? If he is not accountable, how does it meet the test of democracy with unlimited responsibility to the people or their elected representative? If these questions are not resolved, the present constitution cannot protect the sovereign right of the people.

After the dismissal of the Deuba cabinet, the king had taken several strategies to run the administration of the country. First, a cabinet was formed with an assortment of representatives of minority parties, professionals and para professionals. This was given limited mandate. Secondly, party leaders, specially ministers have been entangled in legal or investigative process involving possession of wealth through illegal means. Third, major political parties have been isolated in the political process of consultation. In turn, these political parties have collectively started to agitate against the king’s step.

However, one good political outcome of this period has been the suspension of armed attacks by the Maoists and resumption of dialogue between them and the government. This has given the people the breathing space and some peace after seven years of intermittent and absolute chaos. This interlude has been viewed by critics as the sign of positive gain in favour of the royal action. However, the isolated parties have taken a U-turn and united in one goal of reverting the royal step and this movement is gaining momentum in the various service through which it is launched. But the resignation of the Chand government has again left the political process at the cross roads.

One lesson from the Oct 4 royal step to the political parties has been that if they only engage in the quarrel for the seat of power, they cannot protect the democratic polity. They should not only be watchful but strive and struggle to safeguard it. This is the positive outcome of the royal step. Secondly the king should also review the process from a broad and long term vision and assess the possible damage such an act can cause to the health of the crown itself. A divided nation does not reflect a healthy royalty. In the third place, applying the above logic a little further, a responsive government under a constitutional monarchy will ensure longevity to both the institutions.

Finally, a statesman uses his power not arbitrarily but through consensus livening efforts: Listening to both his friends and foes. King Gyanendra can demonstrate statesmanship by restoring faith in the royal institution among all sections of the people by correcting the damages the Oct 4 action has done towards variously affected institutions, e.g. the constitution, the royal institution, the multiparty system and the people as sovereign power.

Some possible steps could be: Restoration of the dissolved lower house in the light of the failure of the purpose of its dissolution and formation of a cabinet through consensus or formation of government with representation from all parties represented in the last parliament. And full restoration of the executive power to such a government with the provision that law and order should be maintained for the election to be held in a fixed time table.

The Oct 4 royal step may be condoned in the political history as necessary action to halt the political faults of the ruling parties. But the restoration of executive power to the cabinet will as well restore the faith of the people in the necessity of the royal institution. At the present state of political development in Nepal, the nation needs the royal institution for integration and the royal institution needs a unified nation for its continuity. Isolating the parties may create chasms in the unified nation and this may put the royal institution into jeopardy. Conversely, restoration of faith among the political parties will foster national unity, thus contributing to the continued respect and loyalty to the royal institution.

Thus, if the present crisis is solved as a statesman, the Nepali politics will take to heart the Westminster dictum "The king can do no wrong".

The other view !

By VINOD ADHIKARY

Ring, ring! The telephone rang. "Hi Subash, it’s Jean-Marie"

"Hey Marie. How are you?"

"Fine. Just wanted to tell you what happened to me in the streets today if you are interested."

"Sure", answered Subash. "I was reading under the sun at Ratna Park. I wasn’t the only one there and that wasn’t the only bench around, but one after another these chanaa-badaam sellers came to me asking if I would like to have a maanaa."

"Alright, go on"

" I was pretty much into the paper and was feeling that I am getting a good picture of the Nepali political situation. I was pretty close to having a clear understanding when the umpteenth badaam offer came to me."

"Lucky you. You would have gone out of your mind if you had spent more time trying to figure out the orders in Nepali politics. Its not for Westerners to understand, mind you!", Subash broke in again.

"I knew you’d say that. But that’s not what I wanted to tell you. Hey why do you break my flow with your stupid remarks? "

"Hey come on! not at all."

"As to the previous ones I just said-"No thank you". But then the girl said-"How can you say no without even looking at them or tasting them, sir? That’s not fair!"

"Did she say that in English or did you pay someone to get that translated?" Subash asked.

"She spoke better English than you"

"Alright, what did you do then?"

"Of course I ate them. They were tasty. Then I bought a maanaa from her and she left saying she would come to collect the money in a while. Hey isn’t that unusual?"

"No. Not at all"

"Then when she came back in about half an hour I had eaten up the whole thing. She wanted if I wanted more. I did and took another maanaa and talked with her. "

"Oh Marie, What did you talk with her then?"

" I asked her about her work and life, she asked me where I came from and what I did?"

"Then?"

"It was so nice to see this poor girl, so honest, so humane, and so plain. And she was really beautiful."

"O!" Subash commented.

"It was honesty. Brave and crude honesty mixed with the desire to live. And I could understand her. She told me her stories. They made my eyes tear you know.

She wanted to live good. Had hopes and dreams. And had people to care for. She had no secure job…ah! It was a real sorry tale, you know! And I could feel that she was not lying."

After a sigh, Jean-Marie added, "We talk bad of people who sell sex, and don’t care about the stories behind. Sure its bad and sad but I could see it today why at times it’s the only way further in life."

"But they do get sort of addicted to it too. Its not just compulsion," Subash reasoned.

"Sure, why not? It’s a human pleasure too. And why should they feel bad about it all the time. They are bound to do that for a living, even if they actually never wanted to- they are the tragedies of out modern society. "

"So would you sleep with her and pay her?"

"No, I am thinking of getting to know her more and if we both think it could work, I am thinking how it would be if we married each other."

"What?"

"Yes. I am meeting her at her stay place with her family. I wanted to know what you think to that and also if you would like to join me go to her family. I guess it would be sort of easier for us."

Subash could not really believe his ears. He was more than anxious to see Jean-marie and the girl and talk to them.

Working on politics of correction

By VIJAY KUNWAR 

This time it was not Friday when HM King Gyanendra chose to appoint Surya Bahadur Thapa as yet another interim Prime Minister of the kingdom of Nepal. The King has yielded to the pressure exerted by NC President GP Koirala, albeit in his own way, who said he was scary of the Fridays (referring to the events when most happenings have occurred during the last two years, including the horrific massacre at the Royal Palace).

But politically speaking, Koirala has been mostly referring to the particular Friday when the King appointed Lokendra Bahadur Chand deposing Sher Bahadur Deuba. Koirala was furious against the choice of the King and handpicking of other people as ministers. But he has never denounced the sacking of Deuba charged with incompetence in holding elections as scheduled while dissolving the House of Representatives two years before its natural term.

With the appointment of Thapa, many contenders have been disappointed, the five agitating parties had wished, at least in principle to see their candidate, Madhav Kumar Nepal, the Secretary General of CPN-UML, appointed as the new Prime Minister. They presumed that Chand’s departure was a direct effect of their anti-government movement and other agitational demonstrations carried out under phase-wise schedules since May 4.

There have been various versions of the King’s mistake committed on October 4 when he took executive powers of the nation for himself. The parties in the parliament did not ever ask for Deuba’s revival. Deuba had chosen to take a constitutional way out in confronting with his one time mentor Koirala, who was tooth and nail against Deuba and wanted to dethrone him as he had done in the past, when Deuba was heading a coalition government. Koirala had used the same tactic while ousting KP Bhattarai who was Koirala’s own Prime Ministerial candidate during the third elections after 1990. Deuba dissolved the house, promised elections within five months and formed a new party of his own named as Nepali Congress (Democratic).

But mainly due to Maoist unrest and growing insecurity Deuba was forced to meet the King to recommend for the postponement of the elections for yet another full year. Deuba had the support of all of the parties in the parliament for this postponement. But he was not obliged for his intentions of assuming the Premiership for almost one and half year without facing the people. With the moral and political support of the parties, it was Deuba who had pointed towards Clause 127 of the country’s Constitution through which the King could postpone the elections and put the nation under Deuba’s discretion for ever.

The main issues taken up by the agitating parties were (a) relinquishing the country’s executive powers, that were taken by the King himself, (b) formation of the cabinet as per the recommendations of the Prime Minister and (c) appointment of the Prime Minister from within the five agitating parties. They had yet another alternative left for the King; ie, reinstatement of the dissolved House.

The King instead chose his own way. He returned the executive powers to the Prime Minister to be exercised as per Clause 35 of the Constitution, asked the PM designate to recommend names to be appointed as ministers. He even appointed the Member of Parliament in the dissolved House as the new PM, though from outside the five parties.

There have been sharp reactions to the new appointment. All of the agitating parties have been shocked over the person chosen, as the new PM. Thapa is different from Chand in dealing with the issues and running the government. Chand was almost a common candidate of all of the parties when they agreed on his name some eight months ago. Chand was considered a harmless person who would have been won over while working as a team in the cabinet. But there are many people who have a good memory of the way Thapa had run governments in the past. He was the country’s Prime Minister during the country’s historical Referendum of 1980. Many politicians believed/doubted Thapa’s manipulations in favour of the Panchayati side.

Thapa is not given any specific terms of reference as Chand had been. But the country’s priorities remain unchanged since Deuba’s removal; putting the nation on the track of peace and economic development, the foremost being the settlement of the Maoist movement, holding of general as well as local elections, delivery of services and above all ending of uncertainty, chaos and political unrest. It remains to be seen whether or not Thapa is also simply a temporary Chief Executive Officer of a private enterprise just before the liquidation.

Speculations over Thapa’s selection were high from the very day Chand tendered his resignation. There is a section of the Nepali society critical of the presence of some politicians/diplomats of the Southern neighbour who were supposed to be exerting influence on all concerned before zeroing in on Thapa’s name. Indian media did not bother last time to allot space to report Chand’s selection. But this time the Times of India (TOI) has taken up the news coverage well in advance. "Nepal’s King appointed a new Prime Minister, giving a new twist to the on-going political turmoil in the country", reported the TOI. Though it has in the meantime cautioned that, "Thapa’s appointment has not gone down well with five major political parties who are in the midst of an agitation against the King ‘usurping executive authority’".

Many in the meantime have feared of a beginning of helping (foreign) hands in (de) making of political governments in Nepal. The country has taken up similar path an independent nation named Sikkim in our eastern border had been undergoing immediately before its full merger with the bigger neighbour. The then political parties in Sikkim and the monarch were at loggerheads for a long time.

This is Thapa’s second time since he took revenge with Chand who had taken up his seat after Thapa was defeated in the first ever vote of no-confidence exercised in the Panchayati parliament. Thapa had also climbed on the Prime Ministerial chair usurping Chand’s throne during the hung parliament in 1997. This time also, Thapa managed to wriggle his way through other contenders. Not very surprisingly, he redeemed the chair at Singh Durbar from the same gentleman Chand, who vacated the seat in a very gingerly manner.

But what the nation is in need of is not only frequent changes in the governments. The people are in a severe need of peace and stability and smooth functioning of all democratic institutions. The countrymen are fed up with politics of corruption. They rather need a politics of correction. This time the clean should not be like the ex-minister Badri Narayan Basnet, who beat the record of corruption within the very six months of office. His only quality was being a town mate of GP Koirala. There are a few more record holders including Kamal Chaulagain and the high sounding Ramesh Nath Pandey. Nevertheless, one should take precautions before even handpicking somebody. Politics of correction must take a new course.