The talk about the dialogue between the “constitutional forces” has no practical sense without first returning to the constitution itself.
By Nilamber Acharya
Nilamber Acharya (File Photo)
Nilamber Acharya (File Photo)
We all are worried about the health of the country and well being of the people which have been deteriorating since the collapse of its two pillars, peace and democracy, one after another. When the pillar of democracy was still standing we had had hope of finding a political solution to the Maoist insurgency and restoring democratic, just and sustainable peace. But with the royal takeover of October 4, 2002 and, especially, with the bringing back of the pattern, people, and persecutions of the era of absolute monarchy since February 1, 2005 that hope too has been dashed. A new confrontation has been added to the already existing one by knocking the constitution out of the track and denying political parties their legitimate role and normal activities.
We cannot wait and watch till the history takes its own course. That would be very painful and lengthy process fraught with disasters. For, whenever and wherever traditional forces succeeded in blocking the emergence of democracy even when its time had come or putting hurdles in the development and consolidation of nascent democracy, extremist forces of this or that ideological or religious hue grew and occupied the centre stage. Russia of Stalin, post-Shah Iran, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Taliban’s Afghanistan come to the mind. Growth of Maoist extremism in Nepal as well confirms this trend. One cannot make a society modern by allowing traditional forces to lead it at the cost of emerging modern ones. One cannot fight extremism or terrorism by relying on traditional autocracy, responsible for the socio-economic backwardness of the society and political retardation.
Deserted Look: The House of Representatives within Singha Durbar complex. (File Photo)
Deserted Look: The House of Representatives within Singha Durbar complex. (File Photo)
So, Nepal’s modern social and political forces have to act without vacillation and loss of time and to assert their leading position. They, the major political parties, lawyers, journalists, university teachers, students, trade unions and other modern sections of society are coming out and raising their voices for restoration of democratic process and for finding political solution to the Maoist problem.
Seven political parties have proposed a road-map to democracy and peace on May 8, 2005. It is a non-confrontationist, conciliatory and reformist proposal, a minimum for restarting the process of democracy and an attempt to stop rapidly growing antagonism between the aspirations of democracy and institution of monarchy from reaching the irreversible point. It is a minimum basis for finding ways to peace process as well and ending Maoist insurgency.
No proposal can be more modest than the one put forward by the seven political parties for bringing back the derailed constitution to the track by reviving the House of Representatives. Its implementation will clear the way for talks among constitutional forces and institutions and for building political capabilities to deal with the Maoist violence. The talk about the dialogue between the “constitutional forces” has no practical sense without first returning to the constitution itself.
No proposal can be more modest than the one put forward by the seven political parties for bringing back the derailed constitution to the track by reviving the House of Representatives.
Three years have elapsed since the premature dissolution of the House of Representatives. The specious talk about elections has been used for the royal takeover of October 4, 2002 and again for the direct arbitrary rule of February 1, 2005. Three more years for February regime without elections and without democratic control are apparently needed to erect absolutist structures in place of the democratic ones. Obviously, this is not the return way to constitutional democracy but the return way to royal autocracy of bygone days. To insist on this would mean to insist on confrontation to which democratic and modern forces of the country would have no option but to reciprocate it by abandoning conciliatory and reformist approach. For, while one side is enough to make a war, two sides are needed to make a peace.
The talk of elections by the February regime has no meaning for democracy. For, unacceptable government cannot produce acceptable elections.
I am not going to repeat here the arguments in favour of revival of the House and reactivation of the constitution which I have done many times, including in my book “Transition to Democracy”. However, I would like to recall the joint statement issued on July 30, 2003 by former chief justice Biswanath Upadhya and six other persons including myself involved in the making of the present constitution. With the revival of the House, the constitution immediately becomes fully operative and all the hurdles in its implementation instantly vanish. Nothing would be more constitutional than to make the constitution operational and to put an end to unconstitutional, arbitrary rule. It would be myopic for the palace to obstruct it and run after the chimera of re-imposing absolute monarchy on the people who have the history of seven-decade-long democratic struggle. Moreover, it would be cruel to prolong the suffering of the people by resorting to talk about unavailability of explicit and well-formulated wordings in the constitution for reinstatement of dissolved House.. In order to bring back a fallen bus and its suffering passenger to the road we have to reach them, to hinder or abandon the rescue operation by the empty talk about the unavailability of a highway leading to them would be a glaring wrong, if not a criminal offence.
Let’s recall the last ten days of October 1990 when the Palace produced a parallel draft of the constitution that was not acceptable to the political parties. The situation was tense and fraught with new confrontation. However, soon the palace draft was withdrawn. Subsequently, after the intense discussion, late King Birendra accepted the people’s supremacy and the right of political parties to represent the people. Thereafter, the present constitution enshrining the sovereignty of the people was promulgated on November 9, 1990, “on the recommendation and advice, and with the consent of the Council of Ministers.” The monarchy accepted the supremacy of the people and that they have the right to be governed by the political parties of their own choice. We, on behalf of the people, accepted the monarch as the constitutional head.
Democracy is not a gift to the people but is their inherent right. No one, who is not authorized by the people and does not face periodic verdict of the electorate, has a right to legislate, to impose taxes, to run the administration. It is the area of political parties, which are raised to the ruling position by the electorate and can be pulled down by them alone.
Multiparty democracy can exist without monarchy, but constitutional monarchy cannot survive without multiparty democracy.
All the criticisms and mistakes notwithstanding, the Nepali Congress and the CPN(UML) were able to win the trust of the electorate consecutively in all the three elections. It is they who have the first right to speak on behalf of the people. Instead of persecuting them, their voice should be respected. On their turn, the political parties should listen to people, should earnestly rectify their mistakes, improve their image, be able to instill in the people the confidence that they will not repeat the wrongs which weakened them and democratic government, and because of which revenge-seekers felt emboldened enough to derail democracy with impunity.
Have you seen any democratic party in the world, which is free from criticism or blame? Or, do you know any democratic party , which had never been pulled down from power by the electorate? Have you heard that any democratic political party has ever escaped attack from media, civil society, or rival political party? All this contributes to strengthen democracy, to analyze mistakes and wrongs by the concerned political party itself and to rectify them, to renovate and rebuild the party, and to oil self-correcting mechanism of democracy. But in Nepal, it has been exploited to scuttle multiparty democracy itself and to impose on the people the outdated monarchical autocracy. What would happen if the developed democracy were to take their cue from us?
It should be emphatically noted that a “government” which is not supported by major political party or parties of Nepal cannot be acknowledged as government, neither in democratic nor in constitutional sense.
Nepalis had made their democratic choice in 1951. They reconfirmed it in 1959. They could not condone the royal coup of 1960 and waged struggle against it. They reestablished democracy in 1990 as the culmination of popular democratic movement. This choice of the people must be respected and defended. However, royal proclamations of October 4, 2002 and of February 1, 2005 have violated not only the choice of the people but also the solemn contract with the people, which the monarchy made in 1990.
In this backdrop, we appreciate the respect shown by friendly democratic countries and international public opinion toward the choice of Nepalese people and their support to the cause of restoration of democratic process in Nepal. We view their opposition to the royal takeover and solidarity with democratic forces as an expression of friendship with Nepal and as a manifestation of friendly duty to support and defend existing democracy.
The two pillar theory should be reviewed in the context of February takeover. Events have shown that when we treat non-equals as equal ones we risk encouraging wrong moves. Multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy are not equal in their strength, in their role, in their durability and in their universality. Multiparty democracy can exist without monarchy, but constitutional monarchy cannot survive without multiparty democracy. It should be made clear that relevance of Nepali monarchy is dependent on its acceptance of multiparty democracy, that is, on its cooperation with political parties trusted by the people and on its readiness to act on their recommendation and advice and with their consent which they render through the government of their choice. To act arbitrarily and to act on the recommendation and advice of leading political parties are basically different things.
His Majesty, since October 4, 2002, has failed to abide by and protect the Constitution and to symbolize the unity of Nepalese people by putting himself above the constitution, by starting confrontation against political parties, by dismantling the basic structures of the constitution.
Rule by proclamations, decrees, ordinances, making arbitrary appointments, creating structures like non-party government headed by the king himself and without prime minister, Royal commission for control of corruption, creating posts like vice-chairmen of the Council of Ministers, zonal and regional administrators, making royal will as the source of authority, obstructing the reactivation of the constitution are the manifestations of absolutist course of monarchy. The constitution is not what the palace feudal complex or the authors of February regime and their serfs say. The constitution is what the constitution says. It is not a secret document, everyone can consult it and make his or her own judgment. Besides, there are universal principles of multiparty democracy, which have been flouted.
The forming of alliance for restoration of democracy and peace by seven parties is a welcome move. They deserve national and international support of broad democratic forces. Autocrats don’t make democracy, democratic forces do. The alliance of political parties must find effective ways to mobilize democratic forces, to augment their strength and capabilities to lead the people, to make the monarchy and Maoists to reckon with them and respect their voice. How are they going to do it? Is not it they, the major political parties, whetted the absolutist appetite of the monarchy by their appeasing behaviour? How unshakable they are at this time? What will they do if the monarchy, contrary to any sane logic, continues to insist on its absolutist course? How long will they confine themselves within their modest programme?
Once again the same political parties which had waged struggle for restoration of democracy in 1990 are called to undergo the historic test. I wish them success.