Issue of parliament restoration

Our consideration has been drawn towards the plea of some political parties currently in the confrontation against the regression that the best therapy to the country’s current ailments, albeit constitutional and political as well, would be the restoration of the now dissolved House of the Representatives. The advocators of this theory claim that the minute house is reinstated things will automatically come to order and that the derailed constitution too would come to its original leak from where it had derailed.

However, the proponents of this theory wish to forget deliberate or otherwise that the dissolution of the house took place when the country’s elected prime minister appealed the constitutional king constitutionally that the house be dissolved and the latter did so in complete observance with the provisions of the constitution. Add to this, later the nation’s apex court also provided its seal to the dissolution of the house by an elected prime minister.

Now that the House stands dissolved and now that the house has completed its total five years term, a section of the agitating parties wish to give a new lease of life to the already a dead horse.

Two separate and contradicting theories are now in vogue. The first favors the restoration of the now dissolved parliament for varied political reasons. The other maintains that it would be nice if a new legislative body were in order after the elections. This section believes that holding of the elections in the country would facilitate the formation of a new parliament and that revitalizing the dead horse would do little in the interest of the nation as some put it strongly.

The fact is also that of late the King too has been hinting the political personalities who have met the King at the palace not to push him to the wall and seek from him a job that the latter considers unconstitutional one. The fact is that those who have met the King either jointly or in private too reveal that when asked to go in for the restoration of the parliament the King’s answer to them was uniform: "don’t push me to the wall and don’t force me to exceed the constitutional limits prescribed to me in the constitution".

The fun does not end here.

The funny part in the political leaders’ contention in favor of the restoration of the parliament is that they know that the King can’t restore parliament constitutionally but been telling him to take a "bold political decision" and act politically for the restoration of the parliament. This they say would be in the larger interest of the nation and opine that at times of national crises of this sort, political decisions made by the King as per the suggestions of the major political parties would in no way be considered unconstitutional.

The political parties allege that the King has acted unconstitutionally many a times since October 4, 2002. However, they appeal the King to act unconstitutional for it comes in their favor politically speaking. The King says he would not. The tussle lies here.

Our own contention has been that the King must not be forced to act unconstitutionally. For if he is seduced or forced to act once unconstitutionally what is the guarantee that the King will not use the same residual powers to act in a manner that will suit him politically at a later stage. What is the guarantee that the monarch will not use the same powers to sack the government or for that matter the parliament if he deems it fit?

The fact is that if he acted as per the suggestions of the agitating parties and revived the parliament this time to, it would serve later as a precedence which he could use time and again. A dangerous precedence will have then come into existence. The fact is also that the King can’t do so because if he does so will mean challenging the verdict of the nation’s apex court.

The ball in the King’s court now. The question now is that whether the King goes in favor of the agitating political parties by demeaning the court’s verdict or will prefer to remain in the bounds of the constitution? It is time that the political parties too give second thought to their demand for the restoration of the house for it would involve a factor called the "precedence".

Weeping for a moment is far better than being forced to sob for months and years! The message is loud and clear. Nevertheless, if the court itself revises its own previous decision then that would be an entirely a different matter.

Headline | Opinion | Dateline | National |  5 Question  | Letter | 2nd Impression | Views | International | Past