Cover Story (Spotlight Weekly)

POLITICAL CRISIS
Calamitous Quest ForConfrontation

Recent political trends suggest that political forces have defiantly opted for a confrontational course with the monarchy. Experience, however, has shown that democratic forces need the support of the monarchy to establish the modern institutions needed to sustain multiparty democracy. Nepalese history has proven that the institution of monarchy, in any form, can survive without democracy. But can democracy survive without the monarchy? By undermining the historical role and legitimacy of the crown, democratic leaders are threatening the country's strongest thread of unity. Democracy can thrive only when it moves side by side with the centuries-old traditional and established legitimacy embodied in the monarchy

By KESHAB POUDEL

"Monarchy cannot survive without democracy and only democracy can assure the future of the crown. It is in the interest of the King to go along with the democratic system," thundered Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala, addressing a talk program organized in the capital by the youth wing of his party. "If democracy is uprooted, the monarchy will be forced to face an uncertain future," the former prime minister added.

Deuba (right) with Khadka : In the side lines

CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal and other political leaders from the radical left have been harping similar views. Even leaders of newly formed Nepali Congress (Democratic) have issued threatening statements. Despite their representation in the government, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) and the Nepal Sadbhavana Party (NSP) have not been too far behind in admonishing the monarchy.

Ever since King Gyanendra dismissed Sher Bahadur Deuba as prime minister and appointed Lokendra Bahadur Chand in his place on October 4, the major political parties have been playing a destabilizing game by adopting a confrontational attitude towards the monarchy. Be they Koirala, radical communist or rightist leaders, politicians seem to be motivated by a desire to irritate the King.

Nepali Congress leaders Narahari Acharya, Chakra Prasad Bastola, Mahesh Acharya and Ram Chandra Poudel have gone to the extent of demanding a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution that would strip the monarch of his remaining powers. By demanding the abrogation of the existing constitution, they are pushing the country deeper into political instability.

PM Chand : Uphill task ahead

With the breakdown of the constitutional process following the dismissal of the elected government and indefinite postponement of the general elections, a more chaotic situation was perhaps inevitable. That the same sounds of hostility are emanating from across the political spectrum does not bode well for Nepal. A country already suffering from the escalating Maoist violence simply cannot afford new political turmoil. "The constitution dropped dead following the palace's exercise of additional executive power," said Acharya. "This is the right time to go for a constituent assembly to settle the problems."

Whether under a fully democratic system or guided democracy, political instability and violent rebellion have remained a major phenomenon of Nepal's internal condition. "Democratic system is a by-product of the industrial revolution. In western European countries, the industrial revolution preceded the emergence of political democracy. But in a country like Nepal, where widespread illiteracy and ignorance of the masses prevail amid a subsistence-based society along with hostile neighbors, establishing a functioning democracy is very difficult task," says a political analyst.

Chronic political instability and chaos could invite greater involvement of external force. Surrounded on three sides by India, which is the sole passage to the sea, Nepal's internal conflict has many dimensions. Whenever the tensions between two neighbors India and China grow, Nepal's internal tranquility has been disturbed.

Six-Party Alliance

Following the dismissal of the Deuba government by the King, the six major parties formed an alliance demanding their role in formation of the future government. Although King Gyanendra appointed RPP leader Chand as prime minister and Nepal Sadbhavana Party leader Badri Prasad Mandal as deputy premier, the six parties are still sticking to their demand that a new government be constituted under Article 128 of the constitution, which is a transitional provision.

The six-party alliance comprises the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, RPP, NSP, United People's Front (UPF) and Nepal Workers and Peasants Party (NWPP). Because of the opposition of the Nepali Congress, Deuba's Nepali Congress (Democratic) has been kept out of the alliance. This shows the clear divisions that exist among the leading political players. Moreover, the alliance is contradictory, since radical communist outfits UPF and NWPP and the liberal communist UML are together with the democratic centrist Nepali Congress and the rightist RPP and NSP.

Despite their common confrontational approach, the six parties have not been able to agree on a common program to go against the Chand government. "We do not want to see the break-up of our party in supporting or opposing the government, since the new government has been constituted under our leader," said former finance minister Rabindra Nath Sharma, a senior member the RPP.

Following the dispute over a common program against the government, major political parties have charted their own course of action. The Nepali Congress has issued a notice to its entire sister organizations to stage campaigns against the royal move. The UML and the ultra leftist UPF and NWPP have taken a similar stand.

Alliance of Destabilization Interestingly, the only area where the views of the major political parties converge is on the destabilization of the political process in the name of democracy. There is a tendency among these parties to unite whenever they need to disturb the political process and weaken the national resolve. Following the restoration of democracy, there have been many strange combinations of alliances of the left, center and right. Within parties, too, this process of division and unity has been pronounced. The RPP, which was born divided, united and split before it re-united.

The UML has a similar history. It merged with CPN-Marxist but split before the 1999 elections and united earlier this year. The Nepali Congress has a long history of internal divisions among factions led by top leaders. Even after the formal split into the Koirala and Deuba camps, both parties are further divided into several factions. Radical communist parties like UPF and NWPP, too, have similar story.

One of the common characters of these parties is that they will unite against any political power that intends to provide political stability. The parties have history of alliance against the person in power. All parties have played a hostile part against each other in the political process. When Koirala was prime minister, all left parties joined a faction of the Nepali Congress led by then supreme leader Ganesh Man Singh and party president Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and stood against the government. When Man Mohan Adhikary was in power, other communist parties, the united Congress and the united RPP stood against it. When Chand was prime minister in 1997, his RPP rival Surya Bahadur Thapa, Nepali Congress and other parties stood against his government. Similar things were repeated when Thapa succeeded Chand as prime minister.

All the parties joined hands with the Deuba-led Congress faction in an agitation to overthrow Koirala as premier last year. Once out of power, Koirala joined hands with other forces to overthrow Deuba. Political forces have a history of forging unpredictable and unusual alliances to rock the political process.

"Nepalese have a culture of going against established authority. The parties' leaders borrowed it. Nobody is bothered about ideas and ideals when it comes to weakening the authority," says Dr. Suhil Raj Pandey, a professor at Tribhuvan University Central Campus.

To Efficient Government

Following the dismissal of Deuba-led government by King Gyanendra, Nepal's practice of constitutional self-government entered another phase of effective government. Self-government may be inefficient and ineffective government, but it is a democratically elected representative government. On the other hand, an effective and clean government might not be a democratic government. In democracy, the government may not be efficient but they are representative government.

The Chand government has been given the mandate to improve efficiency. The previous self-governments, though accused as inefficient and corrupt, were accountable to the people through the parliament. The constitution envisages self-government constituted through periodic elections.

As the political parties are in no mood to force the government to hold the elections, the country has to pass through the other form of government. Had the political parties pressed the new government to announce the election date, the country could have set a timetable toward getting the new elected self-government.

In South Asia, including India, all self-government has been facing similar charges of corruption and inefficiency. Except in India and Sri Lanka, other countries in the region have tasted both types of government in similar constitution. Nepal has re-entered the quest for efficient government from self-government though a constitution that is based on elected representative government.

Since political parties are yet to accept the challenge of facing the people, despite the call of Prime Minister Chand to hold the election in early as possible, the country seems set to wait for an elected government. Until the election of the new House of Representatives, which has to elect the prime minister, the country has been left with a nominated head of government.

Political Confrontation

Although India is the immediate neighbor of Nepal and would directly face the impact of any uncontrolled political instability and chaos, influential Indian scholars close to policymaking circles do not seem to mind encouraging hostile forces in Nepal. S.D.Muni, Nepal expert at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University, too, seems to be interested in destabilizing Nepal.

"Political parties must ask for a referendum on monarchy or republic," Professor Muni told a reporter of Rajdhani daily who was on a goodwill visit to India. Many intellectuals who sympathize with the Nepali Congress were one-time students of Muni. Over the last couple of weeks, some Congress sympathizers have been speaking the language of Muni.

Over the last five decades of democratization in Nepal, political leaders have been, knowingly and unknowingly, trying to inject a sense of suspicion on the institution of monarchy. Although democratic forces and the king played equally prominent roles in the revolution of 1950-51, the misunderstanding and mistrust developed between them are yet to die.

Despite the negative consequences in the evolution of political process, the leaders prefer to play a game that will push them into conflict, resulting in political instability and chaos. Whenever Nepal is in a vulnerable situation, there is always a chaotic political course. UML leaders, including late general secretary Madan Bhandary, challenged the King to compete in politics following the restoration of democracy in 1990.

Many Congress leaders have always viewed the palace as an anti-democratic force. Former deputy prime minister Ram Chandra Poudel, Narahari Acharya and many other Congress leaders hold views similar to those of radical republican communist leaders. A year ago, when the institution of monarchy was in trouble following the Narayanhity tragedy, Acharya demanded authority for parliament to choose the King.

Be they Congress, liberal communists, radical communists or so-called pro-palace panchas, no leader has spared the institution of monarchy and its authority, claiming themselves as popular leaders. Experience has shown that democracy will survive in Nepal amid harmony with the monarchy.

Monarchy As A Stabilizing Force

Monarchy remains a major political force to stabilize the country as the institution has been deeply rooted in the Nepalese masses for centuries and is a balancing factor in the context of Nepal's geo-strategic vulnerability.

The monarchy has traditional powers inherited from the people. As it has influence up to the grass roots, its orders receive legitimacy from all state institutions. It is not possible for political parties to maintain the same kind of legitimacy.

With the decision of political parties to go on a confrontational course with monarchy, political leaders are pushing the country into new political turmoil. When the country needs greater harmony in relations between the monarchy and political parties to strengthen the democratic process, major leaders are trying to isolate the palace.

"Though non-elective, the institution of monarchy has always commanded respect and obedience of the common people for various reason not only through force or coercion. The belief in common people that the King is reincarnation of lord has provided unchallengeable and emotional base for the institution of monarchy whose roots go deep in the political tradition of Nepal. Unlike political parties which are still struggling to establish their legitimacy, the legitimacy of institution of monarchy is established by the recognition of its historical role," says a political analyst.

The institution of monarchy is a stabilizing force in Nepal and it maintains continuity of power and authority of state. Whether constitutional or extra-constitutional, common Nepalese obediently follow the orders of the crown.

"In the formative stage of democratic institution and the nation as well, the monarch has a progressive role to play as a democrat as well as a conservative one as a nationalist. Maintaining a balance between these two is a skill which a monarch in a country like Nepal requires most," says the analyst.

Regional Rivalry

Regional power rivalry often disturbs Nepal's democratic polity and the tranquility. Sandwiched between two big powers of Asia India in the south and China in north, any kind of visible or invisible competition between the two has direct and indirect impacts on Nepal's democratic polity.

The international situation needs to be conducive to the emerging democracies. "The neighboring superpowers, despite their declaration of Panchseel, democracy or socialism, are more concerned with their national interest and security interest vis-a-vis Nepal than sympathizing the growth of nascent democracy," writes senior advocate Kusum Shrestha in his article in Metamorphosis of the Constitution, published in 1994. (Essays on Constitutional Law volume 18, 1994 by Nepal Law Society). "The good relations between the King and mainstream political parties are pre-requisite in the process of nation building. Instead, there were examples of irresponsible attacks and pinpricks against the King and crown."

Whether democratic forces or the monarchy rule the country, the political situation has been very much unpredictable. The only predictable thing is chaos and instability. When the country's major political players are disorganized and divided, it will be natural for an external power to emerge as an effective manipulator. It is established fact that the political instability and chaotic situation created through the conflicts between the King and the democrats and among democrats will create further instability.

Constituent Assembly

At a time when the country is passing through a deep political crisis, a strong lobby in the Nepali Congress along with radical communist leaders is demanding elections for a constituent assembly to frame another constitution. The demand of the communist parties for the constituent assembly is understandable as they see their future in the course of political instability. But it is mysterious to see the demand coming from Nepali Congress. Interestingly, those who portray to be close to Congress president Koirala are more vocal in this regard.

Although several Nepali Congress leaders are openly expressing their desire for a constituent assembly, nobody has clarified what the modality and modus operandi would be. After all, there are different models. Members of the Indian constituent assembly were elected by indirect elections by the members of the provincial legislature. The provincial legislature was elected under the government of India Act 1935. The United States, Canada and Australia have their own modus operandi.

"I don't understand why the some Congress members who do no have any background the constitution are raising the voices for the constitutional assembly without pushing the modus operandi and agenda for it. If they want to constitute the assembly to frame the constitution on the present mandate, the existing constitution is sufficient," says senior advocate Mukunda Regmi, who was a member of the panel that drafted the current constitution.

As political forces have their own demands, it would be very difficult to achieve consensus. The question is, who will constitute the assembly. If we accept the King, there is no need to replace the present constitution. "[A] constitution is only a means to an end. When by working together as a team the various parties realize that the ends are common, there will be little difficulty in agreeing upon the means," said eminent Indian constitutionalist," B.N.Rau.

Nepal has already abolished four constitutions in the effort to make a better one. Instead, the country has plunged into deeper crisis. The basic flaw lies in our approach. No constitution is perfect. The strength and stability of a constitution depends largely on its ability to sustain a healthy and peaceful social system and when occasion demands, facilitate the peaceful transformation of its economic and social order.

"However good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those are called to work it happen to be a bad lot. However, bad a constitution may be, it may turn to be good if those who are called to work it happen to be a good lot. The working of a constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the constitution. The constitution can provide only the organs of the state depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and policies," observed Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, eminent constitutionalist and framer of Indian constitution.

Said M.V. Pylee, in Constitutional Government in India: "A constitution when written does not breathe. It comes to life and begins to grow only when human elements gather together and work it." Whatever the experience of eminent constitutionalists, so-called intellectuals and some politicians are in a race to destabilize the country.

The political process will return to normalcy only when the country's political parties develop harmony and a sense of purpose with the national interest uppermost in mind. As long as the key political players are bent on playing mindless games of confrontation, Nepal's democratic process will continue to falter.