National 3 (Spotlight Weekly)

Institution Of Faith

The institution of monarchy guarantees peace and stability in a traditional society by protecting national identity

By KESHAB POUDEL

When some Nepalese intellectuals and politicians are discussing whether the monarchy here, which has the history of more than 300 years, remains as a unifying factor for diverse ethnic groups in Nepal, the Cambodian government led by former communist leader Hun Sen has declined to endorse King Norodom Simhanouk’s proposal to abdicate the throne.

“Our constitution does not have any provisions to abdicate the monarchy,” said Cambodian premier Hun Sen, who has already ruled Cambodia for more than two decades as a prime minister. “We need monarchy for national unity and integrity of Cambodia.”

Having faced four years of tyrannical rule, civil war and anarchy after the abdication of monarchy in the past, Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen understands the importance of the institution of monarchy as the unifying force that gives a sense of stability amid different ethnic groups.

Unfortunately, in Nepal, some intellectuals affiliated to so-called communist and democratic parties as well as some self-acclaimed royalists, knowingly or unknowingly, are pushing the monarchy into controversy.

“The role of monarchy can be discussed if necessary,” the Minister for Information and Communication Dr. Mohamad Mohsin – who is ‘reportedly’ a royal nominee in the present cabinet – was quoted as saying in daily newspapers recently.

“There is no harm in discussing the role of monarchy in case of constituent assembly,” said Madhav Kumar Nepal, general secretary of the Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) said. “King must clear his mind.”

Cambodia – which has passed through various phases of revolution including republic and brutal regime under Pol Pot when more than a million people were killed – seems to be aware about the future fate of the country without the stable institution of monarchy. From abdication of monarchy to restoration of it, Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen was witness to various ups and downs.

Interestingly, Nepalese intellectuals are criticizing monarchy even as they enjoy the safety guaranteed by this traditional institution - which has always stood against the emergence of fascism in the country.

Despite the terrible violence, Nepalese are able to walk freely along the streets and go about their businesses thanks to the presence of the monarchy – which gives much needed leadership to army, policy and civil servants when the country does not have a stable government.

“We can travel from one end to other only under the protection of the institution of monarchy. If the institution of monarchy is abolished, then so called intellectuals will have to bear the horrible situation like the one faced by Cambodia,” said an analyst. “The very fact that the monarchy is there has given psychological strength to the people that they will be protected from any kind of tyranny.”

Cambodia’s prime minister Hun Sen is not alone in defending the role of monarchy and preventing any efforts of abdication by monarchy. Afghanistan –which has experienced three decade long civil war following the abdication of monarchy – shows how influential the monarchy is in that country.

By inviting former King Zahir Shah to promulgate the republican constitution, Afghani leadership has shown that they understand the deep rooted feeling of respect for monarchy in the minds of people. Interestingly, the republican constitution of Afghanistan has accepted Zahir Shah as the father of the nation.

Popularity and legitimacy of the institution of monarchy is deeply rooted in society. In a country like Nepal where the modern institutions are yet to establish their legitimacy, the monarchy is an institution that guarantees the peace and stability preventing the rise of any tyranny.

“The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has or can have the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions. A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t, apparently, get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that is better that they should tie their leader-worship onto some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person. In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in street breastplates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power. On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the royal family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions,” writes famous British writer George Orwell in his article written in 1944. (London Letter, 15 January 1944).

Although Orwell wrote the article about six decades ago, Cambodia’s recent incident shows that the monarch and the monarchy have unusual roles to play in the future to retain independence and stability in the country by preventing the rise of tyranny.