Thy Kingdom Come

-Ranjit Rauniyar, Currently in USA

Lyndon Johnson in the times following the Kennedy assassination had said in a State of the Union address: "I believe, with abiding conviction, that this people -- nurtured by their deep faith, tutored by their hard lessons, moved by their high aspirations -- have the will to meet the trials that these times impose." Today as a nation, we’ve been thrust into unprecedented times, tumultuous times – where our sense of nation is tenuously held only by the thought that perhaps this cursed spell will also somehow come to pass. As the situation spirals into descent and our resolve as a people to "have the will to meet the trials that these times impose" is seriously tested, what we must demand of ourselves is good judgment and restraint and most of all, the sense that we all have equal stakes in the future of our country. And foremost to this future is a bold and candid debate on the future role of King Gyanendra and of the institute of monarchy in our country. Like William Bagehot did in his book "The English Constitution," in the mid 19th. Century, I would also ask us to imagine a Nepal without a monarch – an inquiry that would be the underlying basis for this debate.

Our late King Birendra yielded his absolute powers and disseminated in 1990 (and in the ensuing years supported) a new form of parliamentary democracy that reduced him to a symbolic role of a "constitutional monarch." Monarchs have traditionally served as guarantors for its people, against subjugation and coercion by the aristocracy. In history, the monarchy has been the single most prevalent form of governance. In fact in even as late as the First World War, Europe had only four non-monarchical governments (France, Portugal, San Marino and Switzerland). Today most monarchical roles are symbolic.

The future role of the King must be put in the context of our emerging socio-political-economic circumstances. While Nepal’s experiments with its nascent democratic framework has and continues to be beset with series of challenges, some would argue that the democracy also means allowing people to make mistakes, the possibly destructive consequences that come along with it notwithstanding.

But there seems to be a serious lack of initiative on the part of our political leadership to define what in my mind is the most necessary question we as a young democracy face: "Who we are as a nation and what we want to become going forward." Our political system is not only beleaguered with sluggishness and inertia but also with deliberate "mistakes" that is taking the country to a dangerous precipice. Therefore while lapses and sincere experiments with unintended damaging consequences are reasonable within the scope of a democracy, any lack of foresight and discipline is an avoidable affliction on the process.

Democracy on the face of it always seems like an obvious choice because of what it conjures in our mind – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But therein lies the danger of it falling into the cracks of false piety so that the "people" which it tries to represent merely become the "tool" not for its progress but for its repository of platitudes and the self fulfilling ideologues and biases of our political leadership – leading to an erosion in the way we perceive our system of government.

Similarly the institute of monarchy is not without its detractors. The American writer Austin O’Malley writing about monarchy likens it to "a vermiform appendix: useless when quiet; when obtrusive, in danger of removal." Many point out that monarchy with its hereditary system of succession is anachronistic to our modern times that must put meritocracy above social hierarchy or privileged birth, change above status quo, independence above deference. "Newsworthy" or rather "tabloid-worthy" events that seem to come out of royalties all across the world and those that capture our mind share dwell on the skirmishes and untamed escapades of the members of this royal class. For much of our modern history we have lived with no direct political representation and have been historically subjected to the "divide and rule" policies of both the Rana and Shah dynasties. And it is not too long ago, for those who care to remember, that we lost more than 500 of our countrymen during the pro-democracy movement some ten years ago. However, the bottom line is that the institute of monarchy is deeply embedded in our national consciousness and inspires both love and awe for our Kings and Queens. The sentimental value we attach toward our monarchs is among our most powerful expressions and this common sentimentality itself is a binding national energy. Even as we sought freedom from the power and patronage of the monarchy in 1990, there was really not much to say directly against our late King Birendra. In fact, even Mr. Ganesh Man Singh, the then leader of the NC maintained that he did want to "abolish the monarchy." The contribution of the monarchy to this nation and to its political, economics and social fabric is too extensive to begin to try and quantify. Even abroad, the role of the monarchy has been all too important. Napoleon regretted not supporting a constitutional monarchy form of governance the presence of which he only later felt would perhaps have unified the numerous factions in France keeping the nation together. The Romanovs, the last Tsars, who themselves were assassinated in 1918 under brutal circumstances during the Russian Revolution were nearly resurrected again by Boris Yeltsin to serve as national symbols. In transitions and in times of turbulence, the monarchy can be a balancing, cohesive force.

In her article The King is dead, long live the King Sophie Masson writes: "The legal and constitutional issues may preoccupy politicians and the commentators, but they matter not a jot to the public. The monarchy, which embodies both the aristocratic principle and the popular will, standing both at the top of the aristocracy and for the people against the rapacity of the aristocracy, is a repository for our symbolic hunger – our imaginative appetite for living embodiments of metaphysical concepts – an appetite which has both angelic and diabolic aspects."

Any commentary on the future role of monarchy in our country must now rise to and reflect on the new realities and challenges of the dreadful events of the last few weeks. Monarchy is a hugely popular institute in this nation and as we must moving along forward, we must understand the way the monarchy can fit within the framework of democracy - and both draw from and contribute to it.

Most primarily, the King fills a symbolic role. As lightheaded as this role sounds, it might be among the most important role the monarch plays. The monarch stands as a unifying force and provides the perspective and forward momentum to propel our nation towards peace and progress. Unencumbered by the different dimensions of political necessities, the King can help us put things in perspective and give a sense and urgency to what needs to be broadly addressed as a nation versus the factionalist urges of political parties to cater only to their narrow constituencies and to their exclusive ideologies. The checks and balances of the monarchy against the possible excesses of the political process is another extremely important role that the monarch is expected to fulfill.

As this debate is in progress we must also consider the way and means by which we can further underpin our trust in the monarchy. As the monarchy comes under closer scrutiny, the methods and procedures for succession assume a very important role. There is at present, as far as I understand, no parliamentary measure to dethrone an undesirable monarch. As bold as it sounds we might want to consider the lead of King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan who unilaterally gave the legislature the right to remove him with a no-confidence vote. However it is best to consider such a debate only after our political system has reached stability and maturity.

Another aspect that more properly would reflect the changing nature of our societal landscape and primacy is to review the succession law on the monarch that is currently limited to male members. Female members of the royal family should be included in the hierarchy of ascension.

Our King and queen are our national treasure because nothing is more precious than what can unite us, bulwark us against the excesses of our times and uphold our hopes amidst despair and uncertainty. Personally, I cannot imagine a Nepal without a monarch. Jermey Myer and Lee Sigelman asks: Cynics dismiss it [monarchy] as silly nostalgic romanticism, but could it instead be an altogether rational manifestation of the universal desire to live well and be governed well?"

In a nation distraught with civil strife, ethnic persuasions, poverty and disillusionment, the right to be "governed well" is our most basic and also our most important right. Our right to be governed well has often been sidelined to the accretive tendencies of the political leadership. Current realities demand some things from each one of us. Of the monarch is demanded proactiveness with non-interference, enthusiasm for the political process with restraint, firmness with flexibility, vision with inclusiveness, privilege with accountability, and most of all a sense of history but with a profounder appreciation of "who we are as a nation and what we want to become going forward."

And in this spirit of reciprocity, what is demanded of us in this very difficult and important time is to express solidarity with and rally behind our new King and Queen. We want to understand that King Gyanendra has inherited an unprecedented time, a tumultuous time in the life of our nation. As we look up to our King and Queen, shall we also respect and be sympathetic to the fact that he has lost 10 members of his family under the saddest of circumstances? Shall we give him and his family some space and comfort because in any final analysis, we are all only humans?

(Received through electronic mail-editor).

Headline | 5 Question  | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past