Editorial (Spotlight Weekly)

The decision of the Supreme Court not to reinstate the House of Representatives clears all the deck for holding the general elections fixed for 13 November 2002. Even though legally and theoretically there seem to be no obstacles to hold the elections, the misgivings in the minds of overwhelming Nepalese people about the propriety of the situation prevailing in the country and the real intention of Prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, have made it imperative for the people, all the political parties and the king to give serious second thoughts on the issue. Indeed, general elections are one of the pillars of democracy. But, so many other factors inseparable from real democracy cannot be totally ignored. There can be no election when the country is gripped in bloody civil war, all human rights are suspended and a tyrannical emergency is clamped all over the nation. There can be no free and fair elections when the politicians ruling the country are most corrupt, inefficient and immoral. As such, such politicians cannot be entrusted with the noble task of holding general elections. Prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and his jumbo cabinet have become gangrenous political limb of our democracy. And when a limb becomes gangrenous, it has to be cut and separated to save the body. Moreover Sher Bahadur Deuba and his cabinet are not indispensable. There are persons more honest, more patriotic, more dedicated and more efficient than them. And it is for the King to find them. Because of the total failure of democratic leaders, King Gyanendra has not only become the beacon of hopes and aspirations of the Nepalese people but, at the moment, also riding a wave of unusual popularity. Backing of wrong horses is apt to erode this popularity, which must not be permitted. We know King Gyanendra is not only wise and mature but a more concerned person at the situation prevailing in the country. He wants to restore complete peace in the country and bring the derailed train of development back to track. He is well aware that sycophancy always lands one in peril and well meaning criticism should always be welcomed. Consequently, we would like to make our humble suggestion that to usher in a healthy democratic practice in Nepal he must appoint a caretaker government of honest and patriotic people, who will work on restoring peace without undue delay and conducting a free and fair elections as early as possible. The country cannot take any more killings of Nepalese by Nepalese. Article 27 of the constitution empowers him to do that. If necessary, in the greater interest of the country, the constitution must be suspended for a specified period of time, because constitutions are always made for the country and not vice versa.

* * *

Ever since the restoration of democracy twelve years ago all the administrations presided over by the so-called democratic leaders have abused their authority with all the vengeance in their armory of corruption. Most of the time Nepali Congress has been the party which has been at the helm of affairs. And it has missed no opportunity to suck the country dry, to soil its image and humiliate it to the depth no Nepali had ever imagined. Those persons who went in tattered shirts and could not launder them for weeks and often begged of their more affluent friends for a bellyful of food have become multi millionaires after their party Nepali Congress came into power. And their septuagenarian leaders did not do anything either to punish them or dissuade them from their most criminal and anti national acts. They themselves fell into the heinous trap of self-aggrandizement. Peoples of many developing countries would not have tolerated such misbehavior of their leaders lying down. They would have given them a fitting punishment. But Nepalese people are very tolerant and patient. They have an immense reservoir of forbearance. Even the Nepalese King after he became a constitutional monarch, did not think it proper to interfere in the affairs of the government. Since the unscrupulous politicians did not stop their nefarious acts of corruption and loot and the country got embroiled in a civil war as a consequence, not only the poor Nepalese people but even Nepal's friends, donor agencies and all multilateral organizations started criticizing the government in the most stringent terms. Even our new King Gyanendra, who succeeded to the throne in a most unusual and bizarre circumstance, has become a very worried man and is determined to bring the alarming situation to a speedy end. The situation has become so dreadful and distressing that Kathmandu based senior diplomats of Nepal's friendly countries have not minced any word in expressing their disgust at the behavior of the ruling politicians and the government. If the recent interview of a senior western diplomat published in a local vernacular daily has not been distorted and has been reported verbatim, it not only manifests the degree of frustration and annoyance of the donor countries but also demonstrates the depth of disrespect and disregard they harbor for their host government. As a matter of fact, it is beyond our belief that the ambassador of one of the leading donor countries could flout all diplomatic norms and stoop to such a scathing criticism of host country's leaders and bureaucrats. Because as reported he is deemed to have said, "Nepal's donors have themselves to keep track of their donations since they have no faith in local bureaucrats." The daily has further reported the ambassador as saying, "Although Nepal's friends and donors look vocal in their attitude, in their heart they are retracting." Another statement purported to the ambassador reads even more damaging, which says, "When the economy of the country is in such a mess, it is only stubbornness to call for general elections. Simply because one wields power, to make such decisions will not take the country forward towards development but take it backwards towards destruction." Even almost after a week of the publication of the interview neither the concerned mission has issued any refutation nor there has been any official reaction. If the published interview is authentic and verbatim, the government needs to have taken proper action against the diplomat. And if the interview has been distorted, the daily should have been taken to task.