 |
|
| Kathmandu, Friday June 06, 2003 Jestha 23, 2060. |
|
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".
Other Stories
|
