5 Questions:

Considering the gravity of the Public Security Regulations enacted by the Koirala regime, we decided this week also to talk to some noted Nepali intellectuals. To recall, last week we presented the views of noted media men regarding the new regulations.

Understandably, the scholars belonging to various disciplines opined that the new regulations ran contra to the established norms and the values of the democratic system now in force in the country.

Without consuming much of your valuable time, we invite our valued readers to listen to various views expressed by our friends from the academic sector-Chief editor.

Security regulations could be beginning of tyrannical system!

Yub Raj Koirala, Political analyst

TGQ 1: How you Mr. Koirala, view the June 4 enactment of the public security regulations by the Koirala regime? Is it compatible with the norms and values of democratic system? Your comment please.

Mr. Koirala: Given the anarchy that prevailed in the aftermath of the Royal palace massacre, I think it was necessary that government took some extra initiatives measures in order to restore the country to normalcy. There is nothing wrong with the Koirala government enacting these sorts of regulation when the situation is so grave that it could contravene national unity and threaten its sovereignty and undermine national integrity as well. And there are provisions in our constitution to restrict these sets of fundamental rights to that effect. Though fundamental in nature, they are not absolute rights. They can be limited or suspended for the time being. Even in the most democratic country such as the UK and US there are constitutional provisions whereby the governments keeps a tight rein on such activities and does not just act like a by- watcher. The highest goal of any given state would be naturally to safeguard its unity, defend its sovereignty, and ensure its integrity and to this end it could deny its citizens all those rights, which they would have enjoyed otherwise in a normal situation. However, what is baffling here to the ordinary man, is not the validity of the above regulation as such but the way events were unfolding and against its backdrop regulations were being formulated. The timing of the enactment of the June 4th regulation coincided with the crowning of the present king followed by Dr. Babu Ram Bhattarai’s controversial article and the subsequent arrest of the editor and publisher of that publication. The latter being the "number one enemy" of the Prim e Minister. Many people including the leader of the main opposition party thought that prime minister Koirala seized the opportunity to revenge the enemy by putting the gun in new king’s shoulder and triggering it from there to his enemies. It is not yet clear though, whether PM Koirala consulted the King and had his consent on the promulgation of the June 4th regulation.

Whatever the motives may have been behind the enactment of the June 4th regulation, now, since the country has already returned to normalcy, there is no need for the government to try to adhere to it. It will not only be incompatible with the norms and values of democratic system people will also consider it being the beginning of the tyrannical system or Nepal’s first step towards "limited" or semi democracy?" as you quite rightly said in your previous editorial. These are hard earned rights and a few over smart self proclaimed democrats in the home ministry and the cabinet cannot just sit together and decide to take them away from us. The Supreme Court, which is the only constitutional organ to define, interpret and uphold the spirit of the constitution of the kingdom, will no doubt declare it void when it meets next for the hearing.

New regulations would badly impede democratic transition of the polity

Dr. Gopal Pokhrel, Political Science, Patan Campus

TGQ2: Critics say the new public security regulations enacted by Koirala regime are highly undemocratic one. How you Dr. Pokhrel take the critic's views: you subscribe to it or reject outright?

Dr. Pokhrel: In the annals of constitutional development, the constitution 1990 is indeed a historic one. But paradoxically the incumbent Nepalese government under Koirala is evidently bereft of an ideology and pursuing a policy of brinkmanship. Transparency, accountability, rule of law, the process of socialization and communication, constitutionalization, institutionalization, democratization, rationalization (of authority) and inter alia of humanization, universally accepted as core components of democratic society are gradually being set aside during Koirala's tenure in office. In a decade of parliamentary exercise it is amply clear that Koirala is solely responsible for the worsening of country's credibility in all the fronts. It is basically his obstinate, intransigent and stubborn temperament and behavior that has marred the smooth democratic transition and as such besmirched the reputation of NC as a democratic force. Mr. Koirala and his government though apparently projected as democratic, but in essence are proved to be a hypocritic one by its anti-people policies and deeds. At this juncture, his government's policies and endeavors are adventurous cum dangerous placing Nepal hopelessly at the crossroads. His sole priorities and efforts have been to cling to power even by resorting to unscrupulous means. He seldom cares to see whether his initiatives and actions are at variance with the constitutional provisions of the land. A simple burning testimony is that he doesn't hesitate to patronize the persons who are convicted by Court. Over the years, he has developed a strong tendency of talking fast and loose, which has further exacerbated country's situation. He pretends to stand against corruption but ironically, leaves no stone unturned to weaken and destroy institutions created for combating corruption. His notion of democracy and social justice has been reflected while his government awards bullets to innocent people in the streets including the minors without any justifiable cause. Once NC government assumes power the just and the genuine demands of the people, including the rights of press and publications, the right to peaceful protests guaranteed by the constitution are considered as crimes and become subject of repression and oppression. NC government under Koirala has taken the people as saleable cheap commodity, which could be treated in any manner depending upon the whims and fancy of the rulers. The common man in the street feels impoverished and further stifled as Mr. Koirala's government stays in power. Therefore the question of subscribing or supporting to the recently enacted uncoordinated, haphazard and anti-people new security act does not arise, as this step would badly impede democratic transition of the polity. Under such a situation, the sooner the Koirala government quits the better.

The PSR runs contra to democratic norms and the values

Mr. Prem Sharma, CEDA, Kirtipur

TGQ3: In what taste you Mr. Sharma have taken the new public security regulations brought by the government? Your comments please!

Sharma: The new security regulations are anti-democratic which runs contra to the democratic norms and the values. This has particularly sabotaged the fundamental rights of the people as well as has overlooked the jurisdiction of the judiciary of a democratic system.

I think this is an outcome of a lunatic brain of a failed-statesman. So it would not be materialized or executed. Most democratic political parties will avoid and breach it for the sake of safeguarding multi-party democracy and maintenance of human rights. All the responsible quarters in the country hopefully will protest and try to nullify its effect.

Government pushed the regulations through the back door

Mr. Hari Gautam, Political activist, NC

TGQ4: As a political activist, how you Mr. Gautam have seen the enactment of the new public security regulations? Your remarks please!

Gautam: Guaranteeing of freedom is basic condition for a democratic system and this system must take care of all the private freedom of an individual. And that one's basic freedom is guaranteed by the State must be clearly felt by all the citizens of the State. The severe criticisms that are already afoot amidst the crowd of the Nepali intellectuals regarding the enactment of the new regulations who conclude that the new measures would curtail the basic rights of the citizens guaranteed by the 1990 constitution.

While conducting the affairs of the State, it is incumbent upon the establishment to enact laws and regulations, that might not be in good taste even, aimed at the preservation of national sovereignty, citizen's rights, preservation of peace and security, only after doing ample home work. And this should follow debates among the political parties, members of the civil society and the likes prior to the enactment of such measures which in this case, for example, is of such grave nature that affects people's lives.

However, the government pushed the regulations through the back door and legalized it through the print in RAJ PATRA. This procedure can in no way be justified. The government is thus advised to put the new regulation for a national debate. If there is a national consensus on the enactment of the same only then the regulations are brought into effect effecting some suitable changes that do not infringe upon the people's basic rights.

It has infringed upon the jurisdiction of the courts

Dr. Surendra K.C. TU

TGQ5: How you Dr. K.C interpret the new public security regulations! Your opinions please.

Dr. K.C: It is really unfortunate that the regulations which the now discredited Prime Minister Marich Man Singh had brought into effect during his time aimed at taming the then so called anti-national elements were now seated in his chair. There is a saying that if State instruments become ineffective and undemocratic then there is a chance for military revolt. Similarly, if the ruling leadership becomes ineffective, corrupt and discredited it breeds to the probability for a revolution. Ironically, it is in this state the nation stands today.

Generally speaking, the regulations were apparently aimed at taming the threats of the Maoists. However, it does not befit to a democratic nation to enact such measures as to hurt the guaranteed rights of the citizens. While the regulation offers, on the one hand unlimited powers to the district officer, on the other it closes the door to go to the courts for the redress of one's grievances to those affected by the new regulations. In essence it has infringed upon the jurisdiction of the courts. As if it were not enough, the government imposes restrictions through the use of the regulations on writing, making speeches and the likes. In fact, the regulations were enacted during the days of Panchayat. Now things have abruptly changed. At a time when the country should have been more liberalized, the government instead has brought such stringent measures that are sure to curtail the basic rights of the people as guaranteed by 1990 constitution.

If the government wishes to crush the legitimate rights of the people through the use of Panchayat days rules and regulations then it is sure to boomerang much the same way it had in those bygone days.

Be it known to those who appear to be toeing the lines of the Marich Mans that the same fate will follow them as had been the case with former Prime Minister during the last days of the erstwhile regime.

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past