By Kiran Chalise

Some people see things as they are and ask why,
Others dream things that never were and ask why not.

– GB Shaw

Things are going downhill in the Himalayan State of Nepal. The political arena has transformed itself into a ‘crowded chicken farm without any eggs’ – too much politicking, too little substance. After unwarranted loss of about 12,000 innocent lives in Maoist insurgency, after a tragic death of about a dozen key royal family members and after delivering some of the most corrupted governments in history, it is ‘business as usual’ for Nepalese political entities. Questions need to be asked – at what cost? On whose expense?

Political equation has resulted in a triangle – an accidental King, the Maoists rebels and a group of failed parties. Each blaming the other for everything that has gone (and going) wrong. A rattan basket criticises a palm leaf basket, a palm leaf basket criticises a bamboo basket and a bamboo basket criticises a rattan basket. Still, all baskets are full of holes. The same applies with the Nepalese political scene.

In absence of leaders with vision and politics of substance, the responsibility has now fallen on the hands of ordinary Nepalese and the world community to ask difficult questions and make harsh comments.

Here is the rub. What seems to be the real issues in Nepalese politics today? I believe these are:

Firstly, the issue of monarchy vs republic: whether it is necessary and relevant to keep the monarchy or should Nepal become a republic and
Secondly, what system of governance is appropriate in Nepal today: for example active monarchy (similar to Panchayat System, pre 1990s), passive/constitutional monarchy (similar to multi-party democracy, post 1990s) and no monarchy (Republican Systems without the involvement of monarchy).
However, the three dissenting parties are not discussing the real issues but dealing with the side-shows such as constitutional amendments, holding elections etc.

So, what could be the way forward? One cannot be doing what one has always been doing and expect a different result. It is time for some fresh, alternative and strategic thinking.

Perhaps, keeping with the ideals of a democratic tradition, Nepalese people should be given the opportunity to decide on such crucial issues through referendum. Given the complexity and nature of the problem, a two-staged referendum (monitored/observed by an international delegation) should be conducted asking people to answer simple but important questions. For example,

Stage 1, Referendum
Question: “Should we keep the monarchy or become a republic?”
Possible outcomes of Stage 1 Referendum are either keeping the monarchy or becoming a republic. Depending upon the outcome of Stage 1, a little more detailed question should be asked at Stage 2.

Stage 2, Referendum
Question: “Which political system should we choose?”
If the result of Stage 1 referendum is to keep the monarchy, then the choices for Stage 2 will be political systems involving monarchy (such as active monarchy, constitutional monarchy etc).

If the result of Stage 1 referendum is to become a republic, then the choices for Stage 2 will be republican systems without the monarchy (such as democratic republic, communist republic etc).

Stage 3, Implementation
Adopt the chosen political system by amending the constitution, holding elections, forming the government and taking other necessary actions.

Is there any precedence of people deciding on a political system involving the monarchy? In November 1999, Australians went to the polls to decide whether to keep Queen Elizabeth II of England as their Head of State or become a Republic. The Republicans lost by a margin of 45 percent to 55 percent. Australia is still a Constitutional Monarchy. It is a nation in its own right with the Queen as Head of State.

Although there is no comparison between socio-political context between Nepal and Australia, the idea of using the referendum as a tool for a breakthrough in the present and ongoing stalemate is not impossible. Although a referendum will not solve all the problems people have, it will provide some identifiable benefits and a direction. It will strengthen democracy by allowing the people to have a say (responsibly and with care). It will test whether the monarchy still exists in the heart and minds of ordinary Nepalese. It will determine whether the people are happy with the way things are and would like to maintain the status quo. And above all, it will prove whether people are really ready to tango with the Maoists as they claim.

What are the risks with this approach? What if the chosen system does not deliver? What if something goes wrong later on? Well, nothing can go wrong because nothing is going right.

(An architect and town planner, Chalise is currently based in Sydney. He describes himself as a politically neutral professional who cares about welfare of Nepal and the Nepalis and wrote this article a while back Please send your comments to [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] and your comments/suggestions to [email protected])