National 1 (Spotlight Weekly)

Time Is Running Out

Unless mainstream political forces evolve a common agenda soon, confusion and chaos can only deepen

By KESHAB POUDEL

"In politics there are no perfectly safe courses; prudence consists in choosing the least dangerous ones," said Machiavelli in his famous book "The Prince". As the country has been passing through a very critical course of political chaos and uncertainty, the mainstream political forces must choose the least dangerous option to end the stalemate. And time is running out.

Jubilant Crowd : Fading hope

Prolonging the present uneasiness would pave the way for greater danger ahead. The course chosen by King Gyanendra, after the dismissal of elected prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba on October 4, 2002, was the creation of a new government with a five-point agenda. However, Prime Minister Lokendra Bahadur Chand, too, has failed to inspire hope among beleaguered Nepalese.

Instead of offering a viable way out of the crisis, political forces are adding to the confusion. They are standing at the crossroads, directionless and motionless. Despite their strong public commitment to the constitution, they have been unable to identify the least dangerous course to put it back on the right track.

There are solutions to the crisis, but nobody seems prepared to accept a common agenda. If all political forces could agree to hold fresh elections for the House of Representatives, that would be the best course.

But the four-month-old Chand government has failed to announce dates for elections. On the other hand, the CPN-UML's proposal of setting up an all-party government in accordance with the spirit of Article 128 of the constitution has been described as unconstitutional by many experts. The logical course would be to consider Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala's proposal to reinstate the lower house of parliament.

At a time when King Gyanendra has been expressing his strong faith in the present constitution and mainstream parties are defending constitutional monarchy, a meeting point within the present framework should not have been difficult to find. What prevents them from coming together? Who is preventing them? Everyone seems to be helpless and visionless. Nobody knows where they are headed.

As the monarchy in Nepal remains a factor of continuity and change, it cannot act as a revolutionary force, dumping the constitutional process and forming another regime on the basis of decree. The political parties, too, cannot go against the present constitution. Despite their uneasy relations with the king over his post-October 4 role, political leaders have not given up trust in the monarchy.

Security experts and former generals, too, have conceded that the army needs the backing of popular forces to contain the current violence. If elections could be held, this would be the best way of mobilizing the popular political base.

If they cannot be held, revival of the lower house would seem to be the option least harmful to the constitution. But political forces are advancing their own goals. Nobody seems to know where they intend to lead the country.

In the last 12 years, the political forces were unable to play their proper role. The opposition and ruling parties were always on a collision course. Instead of challenging their rivals in elections, the parties tried to find out the easy way out. Agitation on the streets and disruption of legislative business became a more prominent feature of politics. A country with a long history of political evolution, Britain encountered similar political instability in the 17th century when Charles II and James ruled the country. Parliament was revived and the monarchy was restored, and the constitutional process return to normalcy.

"Political forces must agree on a common option to normalize the political situation least harmful to the present constitutional process. In a situation where the elections cannot be held, Prime Minister Chand can recommend the reinstatement of the house. If the house is revived, it will make and unmake the government and perform its legislative role," said an analyst. "There are many instances of revival of elected institutions in various parts of the world to act as legislature until new elections could be held."

Since King Gyanendra has clearly spelled out his commitment to following the spirit of the present constitution, there is no possibility of abrogating the present constitution, like in 1960, or forming a revolutionary government. There is a long history of monarchy passing through continuity with change. "King Gyanendra has many options to bring the country back from the brink. This is not a time to blame each other for the present political crisis. Rather, it is a time for the King and political parties go hand in hand," said former prime minister Koirala.

The main opposition UML, which has a long record of disturbing the parliamentary process just to replace the prime minister and leaders within the ruling party, still wants an all-party government, hoping that it would stand to gain in the elections. This mentality has undermined the importance of free and fair elections. Be it the ruling party or main opposition, they have never favored elections to settle political disputes. Instead, they have found it better to compromise. The present crisis is a result of a desire to share power without taking the political process back to the people.

Elections would still be the best option, but no political force wants to hold them. Prime Minister Chand wants to hold the elections of more than 60,000 representatives of local bodies but he expresses his inability to hold elections for the 205-member House of Representatives. "If he can hold the elections for the local bodies, why cannot he hold the elections for the 205 seats of the lower house?" asks an analyst.

Even if King Gyanendra were to agree to form an all-party government and vesting it with full executive powers, it would still be handicapped by the lack of a legislative footing, just like the current Chand government.

"Political forces, including the King, must come together urgently to sort out their differences. If they stick to their personal pride, ego and grudges against each other, the country will see more chaos and confrontation," says an analyst. "In that case, everybody would stand to lose."

In public statements, political forces express their full commitment to the constitutional process. In reality, they cannot find common ground. It seems they are acting under certain compulsions. The longer the present climate of confrontation lasts, the greater the chaos and hopelessness the country would have to endure.