Kathmandu: The logic provided by the five agitating parties for the reinstatement of the Parliament is in itself illogical.

The logic is if the King reinstates the parliament under the Article 127, which is what the agitating parties prefer, will be deemed constitutional. If he doesn’t do so would mean an act whole sole unconstitutional.

Its corollary would be that if the King goes their way even if it were an unconstitutional move, the agitating five would consider the King’s act as constitutional which would further mean that the King by acceding to their demands will have corrected his past “unconstitutional” blunders. This is their logic, which is full of illogical thoughts and could be considered to be an outright misinterpretation of the constitution.

By the same token, the government formed by the King under Article 127 is simply a unconstitutional one and hence the agitating five must treat the government formed so as untouchable. But then yet if one member of the agitating five is allowed the post of the country’s chief of the executive under the same provision would be deemed constitutional. It would be deemed constitutional because the article has been used to elevate one of the members of the agitating five. This is again illogical and a sheer misinterpretation of the constitution.

The fact is that if any act commissioned under article 127 becomes unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional even if the five parties demand. There could be no two separate interpretations of the same Article.

However, the big-5 debunks other interpretations other than what they have unanimously interpreted.

The fact is also that the agitating parties who clamor that they represent the constitution and were synonymous to the democratic system forget that the hardest hit by the use of the Article 127 is none less than the duly elected Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba who was dismissed in a very unceremonious manner by the constitutional monarch.

Logic would demand that the agitating five should press the King for the reinstatement of the government of Sher Bahadur Deuba instead of demanding the revival of a parliament that has been approved by the nation’s apex court. The fact is also that the King will perhaps never prefer to challenge the court’s verdict. Nevertheless, he can reinstate a government that he himself dissolved using the article 127. He can do so easily for the court has nothing to do with the dismissal of the Deuba’’ government.

If it is so then why the political parties now engaged in a jocular sort of “people’s movement” do not push this agenda which reinstates the Deuba government and restores normalcy in the country, politically speaking. If the big-5 assume that the King can reinstate the dissolved parliament then why don’t they think that the King can also reinstate the Deuba government? By the way, the restoration of the parliament or for that matter the restoration of the Deuba’s establishment will have to be materialized through the use of the same magic article 127. Both way it is the article 127 that will unknot the constitutional tangle plaguing the nation.

However, the big-5 will not push this agenda simply because it would be Deuba and not them who would benefit politically from this logical scheme.

The hidden fact is that it is these agitating parties who rejoiced when an elected government was dismissed but fell flat when the King denied them what they longed for—the post of the prime minister. The tussle is not for the preservation of the system and for the proper functioning of the constitution but for the post and nothing more than that.

If the King can reinstate the parliament why he can’t give a new lease of life to the dismissed Deuba government?

The charge to Deuba while being dismissed had been that he failed in conducting the elections on a time allowed to him constitutionally. The fact is also that the King himself, as Deuba bluntly puts it, through his two governments since October last has remained unable to even declare the dates for the elections. The King in all his honesty had instructed the governments he installed as per article 127 to prepare conducive atmosphere for the elections. But so far nothing in that regard has been accomplished albeit the German government has only recently aided the Election Commission some materials that could be used at time of the elections. This apparently means that the western democracies would wish Nepal going to the polls and bringing back the derailed system and the constitution to its original track.

Wisdom would be to reinstate Deuba’s establishment using article 127 but should be clearly instructed to hold the elections on time by not repeating the same blunder.

It would be better for the King to favor Deuba instead of obliging Koirala and Madhav Nepal. If it were so then the international community would greet the decision for so many “democratic and parliamentary” reasons. It is now up to the King to decide: whether to favor Deuba or heed to the demands of Koirala and Madhav Nepal under coercion.