King Gyanendra’s decision to dismiss caretaker Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and assume full executive powers has formally set in motion the process of constitutional breakdown that started seven years ago in the form of Maoist insurgency, which has already claimed nearly 5,000 lives. As the country heads toward a precarious and unpredictable situation, the future of constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy hangs in the balance. Only a reconciliatory approach would save the country and system from a free fall

By BHAGIRATH YOGI

When Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba signed the joint statement on behalf of the seven political parties last Sunday (September 29) saying that elections could not be held as scheduled on November 13, he could hardly have predicted that it could boomerang upon himself. After a full four days, Deuba recommended King Gyanendra to postpone the mid-term polls by over one year.

After two days of intensive discussions, King Gyanendra summoned Deuba on Friday (October 4) and reportedly sought his to resignation “for failing to fulfill his commitment of holding elections in time”. Deuba refused to oblige and returned to Baluwatar. Within a few hours, His Majesty addressed the nation late in the evening announcing that he had sacked the “incompetent” prime minister, took executive powers upon himself and sought recommendation within five days from the political parties regarding the names of people with a “clean image” who would not contest the elections for appointment to the new government.

King Gyanendra’s decision to dismiss a popularly elected prime minister was bound to invite reactions, both positive and negative. From little known, non-descript organizations and political personalities who were in oblivion for the last 12 years to businessmen and professional organizations, all came out to welcome to royal move as if it was a repeat of the coup d’etat conducted by late King Mahendra in December 1960. Slowly, but gradually voices of protests also started to be heard in the streets of capital as well as in other parts of the country.

The royal proclamation (See box) not only baffled the constitutional experts, it also raised questions about the very foundation on which the 1990 Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal was erected. The constitution, formed in the aftermath of the people’s movement the same year, had limited the monarch’s role to that of a figurehead and declared the sovereign people as the source of state power.

While the political parties were restrained in their immediate reactions, after a series of consultations half a dozen political parties represented in the dissolved parliament urged His Majesty to rectify what they called “errors” in the royal declaration. The Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), Nepal Sadbhavana Party, Nepal Workers and Peasants’ Party and People’s Front Nepal, held the King’s assumption of executive powers as “unconstitutional” and urged the monarch to rectify it.

The parties also insisted that the executive powers should be transferred back to the people as per the letter and spirit of the constitution. They demanded that the new prime minister should be appointed as per Article 128 of the constitution and that he should be given a free hand in choosing cabinet members. The parties said the constitutional monarchy should express its commitment to multiparty democracy and political parties should always remain committed to the constitutional monarchy in a continuous way.

Though the royal response to the political parties’ request was not clear till the writing of this story on Wednesday morning, the mainstream parties’ decision to work in tandem with the monarchy was no less an achievement of the 12 year long democratic exercise. At a time when the underground Maoist party has launched a violent insurgency with the declared objective of making Nepal a “people’s republic”, the political parties – ranging from “ultra-left” Jana Morcha Nepal to “rightist” Rastriya Prajatantra Party – have stood together to protect the country’s constitution.

“As constitutional complexities have emerged in the present situation, the country must find a political way out through dialogue and consultations,” said Narahari Acharya, a Nepali Congress leader. “No solution can be worked out by undermining the people’s achievements and heading toward regression.”

Crisis of confidence between the political parties and the King would only further destabilize the country at a time when no institution, on its own, is strong enough to face impending crisis, warn critics. It is most likely that a fresh conflict between the monarchy and democratic forces could be hijacked into a “republican agenda” by the Maoists.

The indications of which are already more than obvious. A day after King Gyanendra sacked Deuba and put on hold the mid-term polls, top Maoist leader Comrade Prachanda issued a statement saying that the King’s latest decision was the final blow to the achievements of the people’s movement of 1990. “It also marks the start of open feudal regression,” Prachanda said. He also noted that the royal proclamation did not mention any thing about what he said major issue of “civil war” within the country and appealed to ignore “the carrot dangled by feudal elements”.

The Maoists had declared, in the aftermath of June 1 tragic incident at the Narayanhity royal palace, that a “republic” state had dawned in Nepal and that there was a need to institutionalize it. Though the Nepalese people managed to overcome the crisis in a remarkable way and continued their faith in the institution, it would be better for the Nepalese monarchy to avoid any adventurous step that would disrupt its popular support base, say experts.

“King Gyanendra stands today between the republicans of the far left who want to do away with the monarchy altogether, and the fawning of the so-called royalists, seeking lost privilege and short-cuts to power. In between lies the larger polity, represented by the mainstream political parties, which desired a kingship without wanting the incumbent to be too adventuresome,” wrote Kanak Mani Dixit, editor of Himal South Asian magazine, in the recently published book “State of Nepal”.† “The three decades of authoritarian monarchy was a failed experiment and as a modern king of a poor country in the midst of chaos, King Gyanendra can do little else but support the Parliament and politicians in making this democracy function and deliver.”

International response to the present political crisis in Nepal also made it clear that Nepal’s friends as well as neighbors want both the constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy to work together. “India has always believed that there are two pillars for stability in Nepal – multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy – and both these pillars should remain strong,” said an official statement issued by the Indian government within 24 hours of the royal proclamation. “The Government of India† expresses hope that the present crisis in Nepal will be resolved soon within the framework of constitutional processes, paving the way for elections at the earliest and installation of a democratically elected government in the interest of peace, stability and development in the Himalayan kingdom.”

While the northern neighbor, China, refused to comment on recent developments in Nepal terming it as “an internal matter”, major western powers including the US and UK could be seen toeing the Indian position broadly. Japan, European Union and other friendly countries have also been emphasizing the institutionalization of democracy and† co-existence of popular forces and monarchy in Nepal.

It is obvious that the Deuba administration’s “extra-constitutional” recommendation to postpone the polls – on the basis of an all-party consensus – has triggered a fresh political crisis in Nepal (See separate story). But those watching political developments within the country and in the region had warned of Nepal’s fast-forward entry into yet another phase of political instability well in advance.

In his article published in Himal khabarpatrika 18 months ago (14-28 April, 2001), eminent constitutional lawyer and political analyst, Ganesh Raj Sharma, had written that democratic system in South Asia was facing serious onslaught amid growing religious fundamentalism and growing militarization in the region. “Nepal has already entered a cold war between its neighbors and strategic interests of its two giant neighbors have always been manifested in Nepal’s every political upheaval since 1950,” said Sharma. “(Unfortunately), Nepalese political forces have turned out into captive of compulsions of unseen forces and have been contributing toward further chaos in the country instead of facing them unitedly.”

As Nepal’s 12-year-long tryst with democracy is on the verge of collapse, the country’s independence and sovereignty also face unprecedented challenges in the entire history. Upon his return to country in 1977, late B. P. Koirala said monarchy and democracy were indispensable for each other’s existence in Nepal. Stepping on his footsteps, former prime minister and Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala has also avoided confrontation with the monarch and has made it possible what he described as “Broad Democratic Alliance” over the last few months. But such positive developments seem to wither away amid the strong winds of political uncertainties and deep-rooted crisis of confidence among political actors within the country.

Is Nepal destined to repeat mistakes committed in the history and face the consequences? Only time will tell.

Royal Address

Beloved Countrymen, The greater good of Nepal and the Nepalese people is our only goal. History is witness to the fact that the Institution of Monarchy in Nepal has always been guided by the wishes and aspirations of the people. We have, time and again, expressed our commitment to democracy and we would like to assure our countrymen that democratic ideals will always continue to guide us.

It is known to all that in keeping with the tradition of the Shah dynasty to remain ever dedicated to the paramount welfare and progress of the Nepalese people, the democratic multiparty polity was reinstated in the Kingdom in 1990 in accordance with the wishes of the Nepalese people. It is also clear that during the 12 years since its reinstatement, a number of political exercises have been adopted for the consolidation of democracy. In this spirit, we had, at the recommendation of the Prime Minister, dissolved the House of Representatives on May 22 and set November 13 as the date for elections to the House of Representatives. The Prime Minister, who was entrusted with the task of conducting the general elections, had made a submission to us for the removal of difficulties under Article 127 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, citing the current adverse situation prevailing in the country as the reason for not being able to hold the general elections on the stipulated date in accordance with Article 53 (4) of the Constitution. This led to a constitutional difficulty and void, creating a complicated situation in the country.

As it is our responsibility to preserve nationalism, national unity and sovereignty, as well as, to maintain peace and order in the country and also to ensure that the state of the nation does not deteriorate for any reason, a situation has arisen wherein, by virtue of the State Authority as exercised by us and in the spirit of the Constitution of the Kingdom of
Nepal-1990, as well as, taking into consideration of Article 27 (3) of the Constitution, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba should be relieved of his office, owing to his incompetence to conduct the general elections on the stipulated date in accordance with the Constitution, and the Council of Ministers dissolved. Similarly, the general elections slated for November 13 also needs to be postponed. We, therefore, issue the following orders in accordance with Article 127 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal-1990.

1. Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba has been relieved of his office as of today, October 4, 2002, for his incompetence in not being able to conduct the general elections on the stipulated date, and the Council of Ministers dissolved.

2. The general elections to the House of Representatives to be held on November 13 this year have been postponed.

As it will take some time to make new arrangements, we will exercise the executive powers of the Kingdom of Nepal until such arrangements are in place and we ourselves undertake the responsibility of governance in the country.

We are confident that the political parties will extend cooperation in constituting a new Council of Ministers by sending recommendations, within the next five days, of persons who have clean images and who will not be participating in the forthcoming general elections.

We will never allow the commitment and allegiance to Constitutional Monarchy and the multiparty democratic polity to be compromised. The government to be constituted will make adequate arrangements for peace and security as soon as possible and conduct the general elections.

There is no need for security personnel, civil servants or the countrymen to deviate from their responsibilities and duties. We are confident that everyone will fulfill their duties from their respective places and that, with the best wishes of the Nepalese people, all will be well.

May Lord Pashupatinath bless us all!
October 4, 2002