Rule of law must prevail

Clearly there do exist two diametrically opposing political extremes in the country. The first is represented by a set of political scientists who champion the cause of the supremacy of the rule of law under any circumstances if the democratic system were to yield tangible benefits for the people at large and to exhibit the people outside the borders that it were a system which takes its own course of action and that no one would be left spared if found guilty by the competent law authorities. This set also presumes that the champions of democratic order of the third wave must also submit themselves before the prevailing laws of the land and concludes that in the eyes of the laws of the land, all were equal.

The second set of political theorists maintain that those who contributed to the restoration of the democratic order in the early 1990, be it in Nepal or elsewhere, should be allowed to enjoy certain special political benefits simply because they contributed to the advent of a new system by replacing the old order. Not very surprising therefore, a set of "politically affiliated Nepali media" too have come to the support of this set. This is understandable because if one particular media is financed by a particular party or parties, the media in turn must pay the price of the salt which is only but natural. It is perhaps in this manner we the men in the media too have corrupted the system in our own way but yet we claim ourselves as "independent" ones. It has rightly been said that "press and the nation’s democracy rise and fall together". Clearly it is time that we in the media now admit that we have contributed in eroding the beauties of a system that is considered to be one of the best among the worst systems prevailing in this civilized world. We can’t escape now from allegations from our valued readers.

Thus the tussle is in between two set of theorists whose impact is being felt in the country, to put it mildly.

However, there is yet another set of non-theorists and non-partisan sector that is represented here by those who have ever remained marginalised by the men manning the system immediately after the restoration of this present order. This section albeit witnessed several "entertaining political drama" that neither benefited the country nor benefited the strengthening of the system now in force. This sector, however, had to content themselves all along these thirteen democratic years and that too hoping against hope. This was their fate and will perhaps continue to be so for varied understandable reasons. And perhaps it is this over marginalisation of the non-partisan and lay men who prefer to be called as the "silent majority" provided fertile ground for the emergence of the Maoists insurgency. Who knows, if the marginalisation process continues as it is prevailing today, it might prompt others, claiming to have ever remained marginalised by the powers-that-be in Katmandu’s Singh Durbar, to take up the arms against the State and fight tooth and nail to get their political demands met with? This is possible indeed. The nation remains prone to some other forms of insurgency if the State continues to marginalise the lay men or for that matter those who have been in effect left in the cold for centuries and centuries.

In saying so we wish to hint the concerned ones who ruled the nation for the past thirteen years that Nepal’s restored order never assumed the form of a "participatory democracy" but albeit managed to have the political participation of a few political leaders and their relatives and their henchmen falling under the same caste ( mainly the Brahmins) who in the name of steering the system in effect looted the country to the extent that the ever marginalised population wished that these corrupt politicians be penalized by the competent authorities and set a precedence that disqualified the notion that a democracy allows to flourish loot and plunder of the national exchequer by the men manning the system. And that democracy doesn’t allow any one, wherever he might be placed, to go on the rampage and that democracy has certain basic rules that were to be observed by all and sundry. Democracy can’t and shouldn’t be allowed to mean "loot-cracy" by those who are told to run the system. The system must work and the rule of law must prevail at any cost. Any one going against the constitutional provisions must be taken to task. The message should be clear to all.

Having said that, one would wish to ponder over the timing of the sudden spurt of activities seen in the anti-corruption authorities. Indeed the timing the authorities have chosen to interrogate the influential leaders suspected to have engaged themselves in acts of corruption while in power was not opportune given they have announced movement against the King and the Chand government. It does indicate, unfortunately, that the CIAA authorities have done so under some one’s instigation, which might not be a true consideration.

Be that as it may, we wish to conclude: the rule of law must prevail and that no one should be considered to be above the law; the "affiliated ones " in the media must now admit that they were acting as some one’s mouthpiece; the CIAA should now proceed with full force in order to assure the people that it is on the move; the agitators be allowed to ventilate their feelings for it is their democratic rights to stage demonstrations and make lectures in a peaceful manner. Nothing to panic. The system should be allowed to witness and experience all sorts of events.

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