Cover Story (Spotlight Weekly)

Crisis Of Political Nature

The onging political stalement is the crisis of political nature nad has its origin in politics rather than the constitution. Of course, it also involves certain constitutional matters but the root fo the crisis does not lie at nay constituional brakdonw or deadlock. Following the recommendation fr the postponement of gerneral elections at the last minute bye then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, King Gyanendra dismissed his government and appointed another one. Since then, the country has already spent 19 precious months debating over the constitutional and political aspecst of that matter. Past experiences show tat the crisis of this nature needs political determination and decision.Technical gargons and onstitutional rhetoric will further complicate the problems. Provided the political determinationa and sincere willingsness, the political forces can find a way out of the quagmire.

By Keshab Poudel

Leaders at the agitation : Restraint Needed

The country remains without full-fledged government for about three weeks even as King Gyanendra’s consultations with various sections of population to appoint new prime minister is yet to produce result.

The King - who gave audiences to more than 350 people of different professions including lawyers, journalists, businessmen, actors and others at Gokarna Palace, 5 miles east of Kathmandu - finally met with the leaders of five agitating parties collectively last week. Interestingly, the King is yet to announce any solution even after 18 days of vacuum at the center.

Former prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala and CPN-UML general secretary Madhv Kumar Nepal met with King, but political solutions seem to be far away. Nobody knows what is in the mind of the King.

“Don’t force me to go outside the constitution to find solution of present crisis,” is what King Gyanendra reportedly said to the leaders of five agitating parties while meeting them at the Nagarjuna Summer Palace, 4 miles north of Kathmandu.

“King Gyanendra wants to settle the political crisis within the constitution of Kingdom of Nepal,” said Narayan Man Bijukchhe, president of Nepal Workers and Peasant Party (NWPP).

Like King Gyanendra, the leaders of five agitating political parties are also pressing for the activation of the constitution. “This is not a question of who is going to be prime minister. We only want to see the activation of the constitution,” said supreme leader of five agitating party Girija Prasad Koirala. ”As long as King does not agree to activate the constitution and hand over sovereignty to the people, there is no sense in proposing name for the new prime minister.”

Following their meeting with the monarch, the leaders of five agitating parties met on Monday (May 24) at CPN-UML headquarters in Balkhu and discussed about their strategy for future. “We agree on one point agenda - that is to activate the constitution,” said Koirala.

The statement given by the King and the political parties do not differ much as far as the question of activation of the constitution is concerned. Like the political parties, King Gyanendra has also repeatedly expressed his commitment to follow the letter and spirit of the constitution. This means King also accepts that the sovereignty lies on the people.

Had it just been a constitutional crisis, it would have been settled a long time back. Although there are many commonalities among them on the question of activation of the constitution, they differ over the political matters.

Origin of Crisis

Agitation in the street : Not let up

Although the crisis seems to be of constitutional kind at the first look, it is nothing but a political problem - which originated after the political deadlock in October 2002 when then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba requested for the postponement of the already-scheduled elections by a year just one day before the process of filing of nomination for the polls was to begin.

Had the King accepted the recommendation of Deuba and acted in accordance with his advice, the situation would have headed to unpredictable course. If the King had not preempted the move by dismissing prime minister Deuba’s government, others would have superseded him. The step taken by the King was appropriate for that time. But now he needs to take another appropriate decision.

The constitution cannot permit the King to dismiss the elected prime minister under Article 127 and appoint another one but it seemed to be politically appropriate at that particular period of time when all the leaders of major political parties were opposed to the continuation of Deuba government. The King’s political decision then had pacified the situation.

The Article 127 gives power to remove constitutional difficulties. According to the Article, if any difficulty arises in connection with the implementation of this Constitution, His Majesty may issue necessary orders to remove such difficulty and such orders shall be laid before parliament.

“Present political crisis among constitutional forces is created by political decision and has originated from politics,” said a political analyst.

Whatever arguments are forwarded, the ground reality is that the present problems can find solution only thorough another appropriate political decision. “As in the past, King Gyanendra can take another appropriate political step to bring the constitutional process right in the track. Since the King has already taken one political decision overriding the constitution, he will have to take another one to correct the course,” said the analyst. “If another wrong step can correct a previous one, it can be justified as a new convention.”

As the King has already expressed his commitment to follow the letter and the spirit of the constitution, it can be clearly inferred that he accepts all the articles of the constitution including Article 3, which talks about the sovereignty. The article states that the sovereignty of Nepal is vested in the Nepalese people and shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this constitution.

Graceful Words Not Humiliation

When political forces are talking about the need to activate the constitution, they must control their tongue, language and slogans. Instead of chanting irritating and humiliating statements against monarch, the leaders of agitating parties must prevent their workers from becoming wild and anarchist. No negotiation can bear any fruit if the course of humiliation and confrontation is pursued without providing a graceful exit. If political forces are eager to find solution, they must stop hate campaigns against each other. They must not allow the elements who want to fish in troubled water.

Since the institution of monarchy has centuries old history with its own tradition and system, it needs to maintain certain restraints. Lose talks with media or any individual is not going to boost the image of the monarch. There is no question of personal likes or dislikes. What is at stake here is the need for realization who can defend the institution at the time of crisis.

The institution of monarchy does not have to prove its popularity through periodical elections like other political institutions.

At a time when all are busy in finding a political solution, intellectuals - who could have played an important role at the time of crisis - need to maintain restraints themselves. Instead of expressing irritating political remarks, Nepal’s senior most well-read former judges like Bishwonath Upadhyaya and Laxman Aryal - both of whom have played important role in drafting the present constitution - would do good by providing their goodwill at the time of negotiations.

Power to the People

Daily disruptions of life in the streets of the capital have continued for the last 58 days. The five days of general strikes last week have already rocked the country paralyzing the life of common people. From education to economic sectors, all have been passing through a very critical phases but the agitating parties, though they are unpopular, are championing the popular cause of bringing power back to the people.

Although one cannot justify the way in which political parties are launching their agitation, they are talking about the need to return power to the people - a cause that cannot be discounted by anyone.

“Our struggle is not just for the sake of prime minister. We want to see the sovereignty returned to the people,” said Congress leader and former prime minister Koirala.

Debate Over the Process

Following the meeting between King Gyanendra and the political parties, the debate continues on how to activate the constitution. Agitating political parties are demanding the restoration of the dissolved House of Representatives whereas lawyers close to Royal Palace outright reject it saying that reviving the House of Representatives is like giving life to dead body.

“If the political parties can demand the revival of the dissolved House of Representatives, what is wrong in demanding the revival of dissolved Panchayat system ?” asked advocate Bal Krishna Neupane, whose voice is said to be close to palace. “We can not breath life on dead.”

Agitating political parties see the revival of the dissolved House of Representatives as the only option to bring the constitution to the right track. “Choosing and picking prime minister under article 127 is unconstitutional, the right to choose the prime minister must be given to the elected representatives. Till the elections cannot held, the members of the dissolved House of Representatives reserve the legitimate right to choose their leaders,” said Amik Sherchan, convener of the People’s Front.

At a time when there are disputes between two sides regarding the constitution of the House of Representatives, one can find other alternatives. In between two extreme arguments, why cannot the middle ground be explored - for instance the House could be revived as ad hoc body giving it certain roles like the nomination of prime minister and holding the elections within a year. The King shall issue an ordinance fixing the tenure of this ad-hoc body of the dissolved parliament and define its role. The precedents have already been set on this issue where dissolved local bodies, under an ordinance, were revived by appointing members of the dissolved bodies.

Strong or Weak

Political parties are blaming that monarchy is trying to strengthen his position by encroaching the constitutional power but his actions indicate otherwise. Despite his negative comments being widely reported in the daily newspapers, King Gyanendra invited leaders of the five agitating parties for royal audience the following day last week.

The King’s action shows that he is not an authoritarian like the one the political parties blame. However, some of his actions do indicate that he has problems with adjustment as a constitutional monarch. This is the reason why political parties are suspicious over his actions despite his repeated commitments.

Sooner the constitution is brought back to the track, better for the future of the country. Once the constitutional process activates, the constitution will automatically take care of the political disputes.

Constitutional Provisions

Even though King Gyanendra has asked the parties not to drag him to violate the constitution, he needs to take decision as he did twice in the past. Since there is no presence of any constitutional organ to nominate the prime minister, the new nomination will have to be made through a similar process or under the article 127. What the King can do now is to stop repetition of violating the constitution by taking a political decision.

As the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990 clearly spells out criteria and system to appoint and elect the prime minister, there is virtually no possibility in overlapping and controversy regarding such appointment. Under the Articles 36.1, 42.1 and 42.2, the King is provided certain criteria to appoint the prime minister.

According to 36.1, His Majesty shall appoint the leader of the party, which commands a majority in the House of Representatives as the prime minister. The article 42.1 says if no one party has a clear majority in the House of Representatives, His Majesty shall appoint as a prime minister who is able to command a majority with the support of two or more parties represented in the House. The article 42.2 says if no member is able to command a majority in the House of Representatives even pursuant to clause (1), His Majesty shall appoint as prime minister the leader of the parliamentary party that holds the largest number of seats in the House of Representatives.

“Till the constitution of the House of Representatives, all the appointment of prime minister will be unconstitutional,” said RPP leader and former minister Rabindra Nath Sharma. “The article 127 is not for making and breaking the government. As long as prime ministers were appointed under the constitutional criteria, the institution of monarchy was above controversy.”

No one had raised the question when King Gyanendra appointed Sher Bahadur Deuba as a prime minister following the resignation of Girija Prasad Koirala in July 2001.

With the dismissal of elected government led by Sher Bahadur Deuba in October 2002 and activation of article 127 to appoint the prime minister, the controversies began. The two prime ministers Lokendra Bahadur Chand and Surya Bahadur Thapa were compelled to resign following the pressure of street protest.

During the appointment of two prime ministers, King Gyanendra had consulted people from various walks of life including agitating party leaders but the controversy emerged after these appointments. It shows that legitimate and popular criteria are required to recommend the prime minister.

Monarchy requires strong political backing to defend his actions. If he appoints a person without popular support, the King will have to defend himself as well as justify his actions.

During the Panchayat days, the King had political instruments from grass root level to the center to back his actions and defend him. Following the referendum in 1979, the King received a strong legitimate power.

At present, the King does not have such instruments to defend his actions. Only the prime minister appointed through the elected House of Representatives can defend the King’s actions.

Safe Course

As long as the House of Representatives is non-functional, there is no safe course for the appointment of prime minister except than taking certain political decision.

“We want to see the government constituted under the recommendation of political parties represented in the dissolved parliament,” said CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal. “As long as the King does not agree to hand over power to the people, one cannot see any political solution.”

When King Gyanendra has already announced his commitments to hold the general elections for the House of Representatives by April 2005, what is required now is to appoint a government through a process acceptable to the King as well as the agitating political parties. At a time when there are clashes between two ideas for and against the revival of dissolved House, transforming the dissolved House in an ad hoc basis through an ordinance with fixed tenure and duties might provide an acceptable alternative to both the feuding forces.

Whatever the arguments and counter arguments given by the political forces, the need of the hour is not to debate endlessly on legality, rhetoric and constitutional jargon but to see political determination to overcome the crisis. The problems of political nature require political remedies.