Kathmandu: Sher Bahadur Deuba, the sacked prime minister, is the one who has been the victim of his own suggestions made to the King. A rare political event indeed.
Deuba presumably had not even imagined that the King would use the same article to sack him which he himself pushed to the King’s perusal to un-knot the tangle that had engulfed the constitution.
The fact was that the controversial article 127 which he hoped would save him from the already obtained constitutional crisis, did away with his post with a tag attached of being an “incompetent” prime minister which, say experts, he was not.
Deuba’s logic that if the King were to correct his past political blunders, he could do so by beginning from the point from where it did originate.
In Deuba’s opinion, the King can correct his past mistakes by reinstating his sacked government. If he does so, things will automatically fall in places.
Intriguing as it may appear, but the fact is that the five parties against regression do agree that the day Deuba was sacked amounted to regression. However, what they don’t agree is that Deuba’s reinstatement could be a means to correct regression and in the process do not even recognise Deuba and his party as a fully “democratic party”.
For Koirala, Deuba’s archrival and president of Cong-G, Deuba’s political conglomerate was not even a political entity but simply a breakaway splinter of the party what he leads at the moment.
All said and done. Political analysts maintain that if Deuba’s logic prevailed in the Palace, how the King could oblige Deuba?
Would it be a “new appointment” of Deuba or the “reinstatement” of Deuba, the sacked prime minister?
If it is a new appointment, then it would fall in the lines of Lokendra and Surya Bahadur which apparently even Deuba would not prefer. If it is the other way then, could the use of the same controversial article 127 “reinstate” Deuba’s government and bring the derailed constitution to its original place?
New appointment or for that matter the reinstatement of Deuba’s government, analysts opine that the King will use or will have to use the same article 127 in the absence of the parliament. Does this mean that both ways, the King’s action would amount to a continuation of regression in the words of the agitating political parties?
However, Deuba’s own contention has been that if his government is reinstated, things will fall in places. Others disagree to Deuba’s explanations. Constitutional experts maintain that any government formed in the country will attain full legitimacy only after parliamentary elections are held and a new government comes to office.
In their opinion, new appointment or even the reinstatement of the sacked government will not correct regression, if it were that.
The other question: if every thing went smoothly in between the King and the agitating parties, which way could be best in correcting the acts of regression?
Is it that if Madhav or Koirala were made prime minister they would not mind being elevated to the ranks even if the same article were used? If so then, should this mean that the use of 127 amounted to an act of regression for Chand and Thapa only and not for others if those being elevated belonged to the agitating parties?
Whether to oblige Deuba or even Madhav or Koirala, the King will use 127 in any case. How that will be interpreted will have to be carefully watched.
Deuba’s judgment sounds logical that if the King wishes to correct his mistakes he could do so by honouring him again as Prime minister.
What Deuba prefers: a newly appointed prime minister or a reinstated prime minister? The million-dollar question is: Will he be allowed to become the prime minister by his declared detractors?