Human Rights (Spotlight Weekly)

A Policy of Absolutism only Foments Bitter Hostility

By Bipin Adhikari

When the seventy-six-year-old King Louis XIV lay on his deathbed suffering from constipation and gangrene in 1715, he must have felt depressed by the unraveling of his accomplishments. Not only had his plans for territorial expansion been thwarted, but his incessant wars had exhausted the treasury, despite new taxes, and the French had to lose several major battles and had to accept disadvantageous peace terms.

Depressed and disappointed, on his death bed, Louis XIV gave his blessing to his five-year-old great grandson and successor, Louis XV (1715-1774): "My child, you are about to become a great king. Do not imitate my love of building, nor my liking for war." A policy of absolutism only foments bitter hostility. The history of political science has changed so much after King Louis XIV. But the age of revolutions is not over.

The world still continues to build on what the American Declaration of Independence stated: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [protecting unalienable rights], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

These pious words of democratic faith are being challenged in Nepal once again. The ambition of the King of Nepal since 4 October 2002 has left the Constitution of the Kingdom far behind. The rules of the game have been betrayed by him again and again to give vent to his personal feeling about what is good (or bad) to the people of this country. It has again disturbed many Nepalese people about the utility of a monarchy, which has repeatedly come on the way of people and power, and has given a fatal impression that constitutional monarchy is always a threat to democratic institutions. Nobody is running away from elections, and even the Maoists are said to be prepared for it. But what is the issue at this stage is handing over the executive branch of government to the major political parties, who alone can give expression to the sovereignty of Nepalese people, and negotiate with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in the context of its forward looking agenda. Although all players were responsible for the ongoing political disenchantment, the King is more responsible for the degeneration of the prime-ministerial system that started with 1998 and current immobility in the political process.

The delay in revitalizing politics that we have been noting since a few months means holdup in planning the transitional process, which may not wait for anybody if the atrophy in the mind of key players is intact. Maoists need to be tackled with sincere steps, which also mean offering them a strategic opportunity to settle with other contenders of power. Planned transition involves an attempt by players to manage change in a way beneficial to their cause. Both change and reform alter the playing field, affect the nature of the players, define accepted strategies, and determine the ultimate winners and losers. Therefore, the process ahead must naturally be based on correction of what is termed as constitutional 'regression', and substantial reforms in the basic rules about government decision making. The problem is apparent when existing players seek to protect status quo because they fear that their political position and power may be weakened as the result of rule change. The most important of all is the suspicion of political analysts that it will be difficult to implement the 18-point agenda of the political parties that limits the king's role to be a figurehead at a time when King Gyanendra is keen on having an active role in national politics. Even when most players agree that the current rules are improper or insufficient to achieve their purpose, attaining consensus on the nature of rule modifications is often difficult.

The democratic aspiration of the people of Nepal has been further strengthened after one and a half year of royal absolutism. The political parties, which are protesting against the King, have already said the appointment of a prime minister was not as major an issue as the restoration of democracy. They are truly suspicious about the motives of the king, and therefore want a collective audience with him, to settle the differences. The King, instead of inviting the five parties for talks, said in its notice: "The king has started consultations for the appointment as prime minister of an individual with a clean image who can constitute a council of ministers bringing together all sides so as to maintain law and order and initiate the election to the House of Representatives by mid-April 2005, in line with the aspirations of the people."

While this maneuvering is not going to help the constitutional system which is already under threat of the Maoists, it may also give logic to those who are pressuring on the five political parties to go in for a republican set-up instead of reconciliation with the King.

[Adhikari is a lawyer. He may be accessed at human_rights_nepal@yahoo.co.uk]