National 10 (Spotlight Weekly)

Democracy, Royalocracy and Military - Crash-(y)

By Kuber Sharma, Chairman, Green Nepal Party

Must we smash the present constitution made by popular forces of Peoples Movement of 1990 just because constitution is opposed by hardliners like Panchas (supporters of authoritarian partyless Panchayat system), Royalists, Federalists and Communists? Even the Maoists are demanding the constitution to be framed again by an elected constituent assembly. People having close links with palace have been telling that the present constitution does not given any power to the king to play a constructive role in strengthening democracy. He cannot take steps to control corruption and improve Governance. Green Nepal Party has been telling that the constitution provides enough powers to the king under the following clauses.

1. His Majesty is to preserve and protect this constitution by keeping in view the best interests and welfare of the people of Nepal (27.3)

2. The executive power of the Kingdom of Nepal shall, pursuant to this Constitution and other laws, be vested in His Majesty and the Council of Ministers (35.1)

3. His Majesty may make recommendations to, or appreciation of or admonitions to, the Council of Ministers on matters of national importance (43.2)

4. There shall be a Legislature, to be called Parliament, which shall consist of His Majesty and two Houses, namely the House of Representatives and the National Assembly (44)

Besides, the constitution accords highest faith in the institution of Monarchy as a symbol of Nepalese Nationality and the unity of Nepalese people (27). There are provisions which give the king exclusive rights to decide about Rajparishad, palace affairs and administration. Parliament has no power to curtail privileges of Royalties. It can only add to existing perks if it so likes. The present constitution was meticulously scrutinized and discussed by late king Birendra. It was promulgated by him as a compromise document. As claimed by some that the constitution was prepared in the atmosphere of hatred and mistrust is not true. Because of the constitutional Monarchy the king is not drawn into controversy and for that reason the public opinion has swung back in king's favor. King has to seize this opportunity to correct the anomalies in the practice of Democracy. The English people say, "The King can do no wrong". The Nepalese people say "King should act to correct the wrongs". This writer told His Majesty King Gyanendra that statecraft is not a monologue. He should have frank dialogues with Prime Minister and other officials of constitutional wings to ensure good governance. If King and Prime Minister agree, they can do anything they like within this constitution. There is a saying about British Parliament that it can no anything except converting a man into a woman. Similarly I told Viswonath Upadhyaya, former Chief Justice and Chairman of Constitution Drafting Committee that if Clause (35)2 which states, "Except as otherwise expressly provided as to be exercised exclusively by His Majesty or in his discretion or on the recommendation of any institution or official, the powers of His Majesty under this Constitution shall be exercised upon the recommendation and advice, and with the consent of the Council of Ministers. Such recommendation, advice and consent shall be submitted through the Prime Minister" is removed the King becomes all powerful.

Democracy needs no adjective before its name. Any qualification affixed before democracy only limits the scope of full democracy. Now it is for them who want to replace this constitution to suggest alternative models of democracy whether they want more active role for the king with or without political parties. If parties are allowed to function we go back to 1950-1959 era where King was the Kingpin, in the institutionalization of democracy. Political leaders who took part in the revolution of 1950 were competing to form the government with the patronage of the king. The country was governed under "The Interim Government of Nepal Act, 1951." The King could appoint Prime Minister and ministers of his choice with or without consulting any leaders of political parties. All officials of constitutional bodies too were appointed by the King. Government employees had no job guarantee. Though press was not developed like it is today, it still enjoyed extensive freedom. I would like to call such a system "Royalocracy". (Democracy granted by the King). Under Royalocracy King is the supreme authority to monitor the Government. The Cabinet and Parliament acted as people's representative to help the King to rule. The king would have necessary power and authority to govern. The question of responsibility and accountability would be left to good gestures of the king. Maintaining check and balance between various wings of constitution became the job of the King. Normally the constitutional organs would be functioning well except when the king wanted otherwise. The flaw in this system was that if there were no good governance Monarchy became the butt of criticism and consequently lost the revered image.

If the Maoists do not stop their insurgency the military operation will have to be further accelerated. Mobilization of military itself gives the message of unrest in the country. The internal security is disturbed by uprisings and the country cannot be governed with liberal laws. Military operation will mean Government leaders agreeing to authoritarian kind of administration. The civil rights of the citizens will be largely curtailed. The freedom of the press will be drastically affected. The political parties will not be outlawed but their activities will be limited and their role will be reduced. If the crisis deepens the military will have to be expanded and modernized at the cost of development budget. When the situation becomes volatile and cannot be controlled by police and civil administration, the Army will come out with crash programmes of economic and social reforms and that will involve them in civil administration also. Full civil rights will not be restored as long the Army is in command. Even after the Army returns to the barracks their involvement in civil administration will continue. The elections will be held under Army's surveillance. The sanctity of the constitutional organs may be threatened. I will like to call such a system Military-crash(y).

It is for the Nepalese people to examine the pros and cons of the different alternatives discussed above. If the conservatives cannot adjust with present constitution they might opt for Royalocracy. The Maoists and extreme rightists, if they continue with their obstinate line of action they will have to deal with Military-crash(y). Alternative constitution in itself is not the cure of the problems facing the country today. Even the good constitution does not guarantee good governance. The operators of the constitution should be sincere to the cause. The functionaries of the government must place public interest above their self interest. We had change of political systems in the past which brought changes in the political leadership as well. But the problems of discrimination and disparity increased. So is the frustration induced unrest. Therefore, we must have action plan for punishing rogues, corruption eradication, poverty alleviation and social justice to be implemented without fear and favor.

Since the Supreme Court has upheld the decision to dissolve the House of Representatives , the countrymen are looking forward to the general election on Nov 13, 2002. People think that unless the Maoists stop violent activities there cannot be mass voting in a free and fearless atmosphere. Stage managed election will not help to strengthen democracy and therefore cannot meet the challenges posed by the Maoists. Serious efforts should be made to bring them into the mainstream of democratic polity. If they give up their demand for republic their another demand of constitutional assembly can be negotiated. To hold fair elections the Emergency must be lifted. There should be a national Government of neutral persons not contesting the elections. Present constitution does not prevent the formation of a national government to hold elections. Once the house is dissolved the Prime Minister's chair is automatically vacated since he ceases to be a Member of the House of Representatives - Article 36.5 (c) states. Similarly, under clause 35.7 "the outgoing PM will function till another arrangement is made." Green Nepal Party has been advocating that if all political parties agree the King can appoint a new person as Prime Minister for the interim period. In a new democracy like ours the Executive always coerce the constitutional organs. We have seen the party in power misusing government machinery and resources to hold party meetings and conferences. Divided Congress of Prime Minister Deuba is in direct confrontation with Koirala's faction of Nepali Congress party and for that only reason Deuba cannot remain impartial. To win the election politicians break all codes, ethics and even laws. The Election Commission becomes a helpless witness to blatant violations of norms. If elections are not fair and the people revolt in that case we may not be able to uphold our national values. Elections alone do not guarantee stability. We can take lessons from the Philippines, Indonesia and Pakistan where elected leaders were driven out of office recently.