Kathmandu: Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa’s seven-man cabinet is clearly designed to provoke participation from agitating parties. At risk of antagonizing the broader RPP, the selection of his clique within the party gives him the leverage of clear monopoly in pursuing his priorities, which at the moment has repeatedly been insisted upon as wooing the agitators and talking to the Maoists.

The dangers lie here. Both the Maoists and the agitators have publicly revoked Thapa’s gestures. The Maoists take to the streets this week in Kathmandu. The agitators are on the verge of announcing their fifth phase of their agitation.

Yet another source of danger of perhaps crucial significance to the course of constitutionalism in Nepal rises from Thapa’s insistence that his is the more constitutionally correct appointment. Thapa claims that the clear mention of the shift of the executive powers to him under article 35 has taken the wind out of the agitators’ demand that the constitution envisages a Prime Minister with executive powers. That this is hardly the issue in the agitation is very much reflected in the continuing agitation.

Indeed, in making such a claim Premier Thapa appears to have forgotten HM King Gyanendra’s insistence before the Nepali media that his assumption of executive powers remained only during the period between the sacking of P.M.Deuba and the appointment of Prime Minister L.B.Chand. By making this public disclosure the King was stressing the Prime Minister under the present constitution could no way be bereft of executive powers as under article 35.

While it may suit Thapa to use the mention of article 35 for his appointment as making him distinct from Chand, it is nevertheless as indication of Thapa politics that he should insist upon this distinction regardless of its consequences on the constitutional action of the monarchy.

This raises valid reservations on Thapa’s coming actions and priorities. Perhaps the most forthcoming such example would be on his call for dialogue on matters regarding the reinstatement of the dissolved parliament.

It is significant that noneless than the UML’s Bharat Mohan Adhikary has stated publicly this week the Palace had been willing to consider the appointment of Madhav Kumar Nepal as Prime Minister under article 127 but this was rejected up[on insistence by the agitators that the appointment be undertaken only under article 128 and be linked to the restoration if the dissolved house.

This public admissal, that, too before UML cadre, makes sure that the issue of article 35 is redundant in the continuing malaise. What is certain is that the agitators want the activation of article 128, which automatically become redundant upon implementation of the constitution 14 years ago. Moreover, the reinstitution of the dissolved house is a demand already quashed by the judiciary.

Clearly then what is being said is that the demands of the agitating parties be met regardless of t6is consequences on a constitutional monarchy on the strength of agitation. In this lime of thinking both the Maoists and the agitators have cast constitutionalism to the wind. Its reflection on the government’s public standpoints will thus have to be more carefully watched in any analysis of coming events.