| |
Nepal's right royal political
muddle
By Dhruba Adhikary
KATHMANDU - Nepal's democratic constitution,
drawn up in 1990,  has been in a state of
suspended animation since October 4 last year - the day
that King Gyanendra sacked the country's elected prime
minister.
Parliament had ceased to exist five
months earlier - the monarch himself approved the
dissolution of the 205-member House of Representatives
in May even though it had completed only three years of
its five-year term. The Supreme Court subsequently
endorsed the dissolution, assuming that fresh elections
would be conducted within six months, as required by the
constitution.
Despite assurances, credible
measures to revive the democratic process remained
elusive even as King Gyanendra, 56, prepared to complete
his two years of reign - and rule - on June 4. He
ascended the throne in the aftermath of the June 1
palace shootout that claimed the lives of his elder
brother, King Birendra, and his son and successor, Crown
Prince Dipendra.
Initially, the new king's
efforts were directed to assure the people that he would
not take measures that would weaken Nepal's nascent
democracy. His maiden address to the nation contained a
clear-cut commitment to multiparty democracy and
constitutional monarchy, which, incidentally, is based
on the British model (with one striking difference:
Nepal has a written constitution). He even deviated from
tradition by deciding not to name his son, Paras, his
heir-apparent on the day that he became king. The palace
probably realized that there was a widespread public
resentment against Prince Paras because he had earlier
been involved in a drunk-driving case involving the
death of a popular Nepali singer. Hence, people took the
royal gesture as an indicator of positive measures in
future.
But the blissful moments disappeared within
months. The announcement declaring Paras crown prince
was made in haste - long before the year-long public
mourning period for the assassinated king was over. And
it was done during the Dashain festival when schools,
government offices and private businesses are closed for
two weeks. Another unusual trend that had surfaced came
in the form of press interviews in which the king
expressed his keen interest to be an aggressively
assertive head of state. Which begs the question, should
a constitutional head of the state give interviews
commenting on state affairs?
Clearly, the king
decided to cash in on the deep sense of public
frustration against the governing parties and with
inefficiency and corrupt practices. The inability of the
government to take firm measures aimed at containing, if
not resolving, Maoist insurgency, gave some room for the
king to take independent initiatives. Together with
these, the king was encouraged by suggestions that as
the guardian of the constitution (article 127) he could
take certain measures that would not run counter to the
provisions of the constitution. Accordingly, application
of article 127 was made on October 4, with the king
dismissing the elected prime minister and assuming
executive powers.
"Article 127 had a small hole
from which only a mouse could pass, but the king allowed
a big elephant to sneak through it," said Laxman Prasad
Aryal, who was a member of the constitution draft panel
in 1990. In his view, sycophants surrounding the king
must have prodded the constitutional monarch into taking
the steps that he did.
From public forums, King
Gyanendra continues to renew his pledge for multiparty
democracy. But his style of governance, through decrees
and peremptory command, has yet to conform to his
commitments to the democratic process. No date or
timetable has yet been fixed for parliamentary
elections, or returning executive powers to the elected
government.
"The royal proclamation of October 4
can be called anything but constitutional," said former
chief justice Bishwanath Upadhyay, who headed the panel
that wrote the 1990 constitution. The statute does not
have any provision, he clarified, for the king to assume
executive powers. Article 127 is there for removing
difficulties in the implementation of the constitution,
not for reducing it to a lifeless object. In Upadhyay's
opinion, the constitution has fallen into disuse.
But lawyers that the king presumably consulting
do not appear to share Upadhyay's view, as is
exemplified by palace notifications regarding various
appointments. "His Majesty the King has, in accordance
with the constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal - 1990,
appointed Prabal Shumsher Jungbahadur Rana the Royal
Nepali ambassador to the United Kingdom," said a notice
issued on May 28 by the palace press secretariat.
This notice also serves as an instance of the
king's preference of his own relatives and members of
the Shah-Rana clan when it comes to appointments to key
positions maintained by taxpayers' money. Most of his
close advisors are Ranas, descendants of autocratic
rulers who were ousted during the pro-democracy movement
of 1950-51. Sharad Chandra Shaha, one of the new
advisors, has been at the center of controversy since
1990 for his anti-democratic stance. "The sooner the
king weeds out these flatterers the better for the
long-term interest of the institution of monarchy," said
a retired royal appointee, on condition of anonymity.
King Gyanendra's first Rana nominee to a
diplomatic post was sent as Nepal's ambassador to the
United States. Analysts studying diplomacy consider
these appointments disappointing because a tendency to
overlook competence and qualifications negatively affect
Nepal's ability to conduct a successful foreign policy.
Nepal's geopolitical situation, they contend, demands
diplomats with sharp perceptions and proven dexterity.
Royal wealth, including inheritance from the
late king , is another issue that has attracted public
attention. The demand is for transparency. And it is
natural, especially in a country listed in United
Nations documents as one of the world's 10 poorest
nations. Suggestions that properties of the slain king
be put in a trust and be utilized for welfare
activities, such as running schools and hospitals for
deprived and down-trodden communities, have yet to be
adopted, although the king himself had agreed to such an
idea. The king's positive response to this proposition
was recorded in the Nepal Samacharpatra newspaper by
editor Pushkar Lal Shrestha after his first audience
with the monarch.
Questions on funds routinely
allocated to the palace from the national exchequer have
also been raised in recent years. Speakers at a public
meeting held in Kathmandu questioned why was the money
for the palace increased by more than three times, when
the number of members of the royal family has actually
been reduced since the palace carnage of 2001.
"King Gyanendra, one the country's richest
businessmen ..." was how a Western reporter identified
the Nepali monarch in Hong Kong's South China Morning
Post of April 21. This description is ostensibly based
on the background that he was a successful businessman
before becoming king. Luxury hotels in Kathmandu, a
sprawling tea garden in eastern Nepal and gainful
partnership with a cigarette factory in the
south-central region were some of his businesses
mentioned.
Since matters relating to the status
of ownership and tax returns of these and other
businesses have not been made public, King Gyanendra
runs the risk of being misunderstood by his own
subjects. "In fact, His Majesty could set an example of
a benevolent 21st century king by making investment in
factories which could offer jobs to tens of thousands of
Nepalis who now are compelled to wander in the Gulf
countries to work as menial laborers," said U N Pathak,
a medical doctor who is also a teacher at the Nepal
Medical College.
How is the king handling the
latest political situation in Nepal? "King Gyanendra is
now most vulnerable to be misunderstood, politically,"
said a commentator in The Kathmandu Post newspaper on
May 28. Alluding to a dilating crisis of confidence
between the king and major parliamentary parties, the
commentator, Madhab Prasad Khanal, concluded that
reconciliation would not be possible "until one of them
forsakes its obduracy". Then there is speculation about
how the ongoing peace talks will end the Maoist
insurgency that began in 1996. The king did earn some
popular praise for luring the rebels to a ceasefire in
January, but it is unlikely to endure unless he achieves
a breakthrough in the form of a peace dividend of a
permanent nature.
Sloganeering against the king,
something uncommon in the past, has become a regular
feature in street politics in Nepal. "We don't want an
absolute monarch," was one of the mildest slogans
chanted at a protest rally in Kathmandu on May 4.
While analysts like Khanal choose to see only
two political forces at loggerheads, there are others
who are surprised why members of Nepal's civil society
fail to mention a third force. "Actually, it is the
third force which is the most decisive factor, and it
has been playing the most destructive role," said
analyst Ganesh Raj Sharma to a Radio Sagarmatha
interviewer on Sunday.
When this writer
subsequently contacted him for clarification about the
"invisible" force he referred to in the radio interview,
Sharma did not mince his words: The government of India,
with its intelligence apparatuses. "It is New Delhi
which is instigating the king against the parties and
parties against the king," Sharma said. This is how,
said Sharma, New Delhi thinks it can retain its
interventionist role and also expand its sphere of
influence. The latest case indicating possible Indian
interference in Nepal's internal affairs was earlier
apparent Indian maneuvers were behind Surya Bahadur
Thapa being appointed to the post of prime minister, as
reported by several Nepali newspapers and private radio
and television channels. Surya Bahadur Thapa, 75, has
been premier four times since 1966 and is considered a
royalist.
In Sharma's opinion, these incidents
are prelude to a process which can be dubbed as
Sikkimization - when Sikkim, a small Himalayan kingdom
across Nepal's eastern borders, was annexed by India in
1975.
Sharma, who also wears the hat of an
eminent constitutional lawyer, thinks that it is time
for the king to take the initiative. And first among
such moves should be issuance of a decree restoring the
parliament that was prematurely dissolved on May 22 of
last year. Once the House is restored, the
constitutional process will revive, thereby freeing the
king from all ensuing political controversies. Political
forces, both in ruling and opposition camps, must remain
vigilant at all times to ward off possible external
intervention.
Some pro-democracy activists of
yesteryear are of the view that King Gyanendra could
learn one or two lessons from what the late King
Birendra did during agitation in 1990. He found it wise,
for instance, to positively respond to his own subjects'
demand for a democratic order, rather than agree to a
draft treaty that New Delhi had pushed through when
Nepal was in the midst of its turmoil. That draft, apart
from affirming an unequal treaty of 1950, contained "a
defense arrangement of a binding nature and sought to
obtain for India monopoly control on Nepal's natural
resources, thus closing all options for Nepal once and
for all". A detailed reference of this bid by New Delhi
was given in the 1994 book compiled and introduced by an
Indian author, Avtar Singh Bhasin.
(Copyright
2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
