A timely restoration of the Parliament is in the King’s interest too
By Rajesh B. Shrestha
It is 1685 AD. After a prosperous reign of 25 years, King Charles II of Britain, who recalled the Parliament that had had been dissolved for 7 years, dies. His brother, James II succeeds him and, shortly then after, tries to bring back absolute monarchy and savagely suppresses rebellion. Fed up with the new monarch, the political parties of the time, in 1688, launched what later became known as the Glorious Revolution, forced the King to give up his crown and chose James’s daughter as the new monarch. The Parliament thereby proved itself more powerful than the Crown, and enshrined in a Bill of Rights, ended divine right and absolute monarchy in Britain.
Today, the seven party alliance (SPA) is calling for the restoration of the Parliament as the first step towards return to peace. Monarchists in Nepal cite that the revival of the Parliament which has expired its mandate is unconstitutional. The sequence of events leading from October 2002 when the King dismissed the elected Prime Minister to the royal takeover on February 1, 2005 can hardly be described as constitutional. Even as the King cites the Constitution in his every address, he has routinely acted against the spirit of the Constitution and blatantly abused the Article 127. The ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, in terming the RCCC illegal, has also intimated the unconstitutionality of the King’s takeover.
The King has also publicly stated that he is committed to multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. If that is indeed so, the restoration of the Parliament assures the King the most direct and the country the least anarchic route back to order. Many legal analysts argue that Article 127 of the Constitution was designed for this very purpose. An old Parliament is better than no Parliament. By its very nature of representation, the Parliament is inherently more sensitive and more in touch with people’s realities and aspirations than any king or dictator could ever be.
A timely restoration of the Parliament is in the King’s interest too. Not only would it keep the monarch above the political frays that is inevitable among the political parties and the Maoists in the days ahead, but also contribute to restoring people’s faith in the usefulness of the monarchy. The alternative is a complete shakeup of the political terra-ferma of the country, which will most certainly leave the monarchy in tatters. A delayed action on the King’s part risks missing the parliament-window and the SPA moving ahead to full-fledged republicanism which has already gained considerable favour among young Nepalis.
A delayed action on the King’s part risks missing the parliament-window and the SPA moving ahead to full-fledged republicanism which has already gained considerable favour among young Nepalis.
Of course, restoration of the Parliament alone is not enough. The present Constitution is in need of a serious revision, if not a complete rewrite, through constituent assembly elections. Similar to the British Bill of Rights, legal safeguards need to be put in place establishing the supremacy of the Parliament and sovereignty of the people, to prevent the history of 2017 B.S. or February 1 ever repeating again. Either way, the responsibility of taming the Maoists, forming the government and the modus operandi of the constitutional changes will be left to the Parliament.
Since the Maoists do not have any representation, the restoration of the Parliament offers a litmus test to their claim of political transformation. The Maoists are clearly envious of the recent successes of the SPA’s peaceful movement. In launching civil and economic rather than military attacks against the government, SPA has demonstrated that peaceful economic defiance is more effective and more appropriate in today’s economic world order. Nevertheless, the restoration of the Parliament would oblige the Maoists to tilt more towards the SPA’s peaceful methods and towards their permanent disarmament.
A cursory review of the British history reveals that the Parliament was dissolved a number of times but later re-instated, even after as many as 11 years. The timely restoration of the Parliament would be a meeting point between the three forces in Nepal and a quick way out towards getting the country back on track. History may look back at the beginning of this new year as Nepal’s own “glorious revolution” for long-term peace and prosperity of the country.
(Rajesh B. Shrestha, currently based in the UK is one of the organisers of London Chhalphal (www.london-chhalphal.org). Please send your comments to [email protected] or [email protected])
(Editor’s Note: Nepalis, wherever they live, as well as friends of Nepal around the globe are requested to contribute their views/opinions/recollections etc. on issues concerning present day Nepal to the Guest Column of Nepalnews. Length of the article should not be more than 1,000 words and may be edited for the purpose of clarity and space. Relevant photos as well as photo of the author may also be sent along with the article. Please send your write-ups to [email protected])