By Ram Chandra Poudel
When I was Speaker of the House, one day, the late King Birendra asked me, ?How does one understand constitutional monarchy in the context of a country like Nepal?? I felt that this question carried some deeper meaning and replied in the form of a counter-question, ?Your Majesty, in the 21st Century, whether it is a country like Nepal or Great Britain or Japan, should not the definition and function of democracy be the same everywhere?? For some reason, the king did not take the discussion further. In general, kings merely like to give indications of what they think rather than talk at length.
On another day, there was an event at the palace. In the western chamber of the Kaski Baithak, a meeting of high-level personages of the royal palace including the current monarch was happening. I was the only person from the outside. For some reason, the king and then prime minister were elsewhere. A no-confidence motion had just been introduced against the coalition government of the time, and some six ministers lacking in confidence had traveled themselves, or had been transported, to Bangkok in order to be absent during the vote. At the palace gathering, there was extreme criticism of this development. People were saying, ?So, now we see what multi-party is all about. This is what it is, right, your democracy?? And so on.
I was in a difficult position, for extreme words were being used against parliamentary democracy. I had to speak up for the system. I said: ?Your Highness, I too am extremely unhappy with this situation. This is something that should not have happened. But you must understand, our experience with democracy has been very short. England and other large and small nations of Europe only arrived at their present maturity after many unhappy chapters like the one we are experiencing. One more point is worth considering: how is it that not a single member of the UML or Congress, who fought for democracy and together make up three-fourths of the Parliament, has gone or been sent to Bangkok? How is it that those very persons who were groomed in the Panchayat system were the ones who have made it to Bangkok? This, too, must be analysed.?
There was no response to my challenge. But I did get a sense that the fury against the multiparty system had not abated in that chamber. An entire system of government was being tarred with the misdeeds of a handful. The only conclusion one could reach from the two incidents was that the royal palace had not been able to reconcile with the meaning of constitutional monarchy, and the palace people had not been able to shake off their prejudice against the multiparty system. The actions of October 4, 2002 and February 1, 2005 are based on this mindset. Since the hectic period when the Constitution of 1990 was being drafted till today, the royal palace has been constantly at odds with one all-important subject?sovereignty. Should sovereignty rest with the people or with the king? The royalists are determined that the powers of state should never get into the hands of the people and that the people should never be masters of their own sovereignty. This is the reason why games have been played since way back in 1950, to make popular politics unstable and to sabotage the democratic process. This is why the palace has given birth to so many villains over the years. This is also the cause for the break-up of political parties, the dissolution of governments and the games being played with the future of the people.
I do not say that there cannot be weaknesses in democracy, or that there will not be distortions in the operation of a democratic state. In fact, democracy is a system of government that learns from its mistakes and from criticism, an experiment that proceeds with constant practice. And that is how we were in fact progressing. We made a law against party-hopping, and applied that law. We strengthened the legislation against corruption. We gave teeth to the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority. We made the laws that would serve as watchdogs on us, we had our own kind punished. We excused others who had done wrong in the past, in the spirit of forgive and forget. In politics, all had equal opportunity. Our democracy was correcting itself as it went along, with the goals of equity in development. We were all focused on finding solutions to the problems facing the nation through the Parliament. The committees in Parliament were active. They were intently examining the workings of the government at all levels, seeking out weaknesses. The courts were free. There was no pressure whatsoever put on constitutional bodies. The government itself was willing to be tied to discipline. Laws were being drafted to provide local autonomy in the spirit of decentralization, to take care of inadequate power delegation. But today all of these successes are being turned on their head.
Nothing made by humans can be without fault, and by the same token there can and will be faults in democracy as well. But among the systems of government the world has seen, democracy has the least faults. The weaknesses that crop up in the process of democratic governance tend to get addressed by the democratic process itself. This is what is so beautiful about democracy. And it was under the umbrella of democracy that we were moving on the road of tackling the challenges before society, on the road of creating a society marked by justice, freedom and equity. In terms of social security, we had established projects, corporations, foundations and development agencies working earnestly for the uplift of women, the dalit, the indigenous ethnic groups, the Madhesi communities, people in depressed regions, displaced persons, bonded labourers and other exploited categories. Consider the opportunities received by the languages of the tarai, midhill and himal regions to develop their own genius. Who can claim that the same opportunities were available during the earlier era, when the slogan was, ?Eutai bhasha, eutai bhesh? (one language, one dress)?
In fact, a great transformation is happening in society. Whatever some may claim, when there was a people?s government there was a constant attempt to make ?democracy? even more ?democratic.? The country was taking sure strides forward. Village after village was getting lit up. Roads, electricity, water, schools, hospitals, telephone, were reaching the rural areas. People were experiencing some relief, and the living standard was going up. Statistics prove the point that poverty was on the decline. The GDP was up by five percent. The hillsides that had been denuded during the Panchayat era were once again becoming lush and green. There was a veritable revolution in the field of media. Notwithstanding the disruptions brought about by the Maoists, Nepali society was experiencing a full-scale transformation because of economic reforms, activism of civil society and the sense of empowerment amongst the population. The people from depressed regions and classes were feeling empowered, and the campaign was on to reach services to the most marginalized sections of the society. Amidst all this, at a time when we were gaining experience and correcting ourselves, why was our road blocked?
The kind of development we were promoting are not like the inventory of the king?s 100 days, where you find listed: ?So many hens laid so many eggs, so many buffaloes were inseminated, so many vaccines were provided, so many persons were locked up and so many were let go.? What I say is that the king should also take responsibility for all that has happened since October 4, 2002. We, who believe in democracy, will take responsibility for the twelve years after 1990 and the eighteen months between 1959-60. The royalists should take the responsibility for the 220-22 years, the entire period after Prithvi Narayan Shah. Let us compare the two eras, and study the level of progress and regression in each. And in which era there was national betrayal. We will then also understand the sabotage that has brought the country down to its knees, and those responsible for it. The time has come to unflinchingly analyse the relative merits and demerits of democracy and monarchy.
There is talk now of rendering the press irrelevant. The attempts are underway to finish off the trade unions of civil servants and labourers. There are regressive amendments being made in the Press Act and the Civil Service Act. Exercises are underway to overturn the letter and spirit of the Constitution, through the application of ordinances in the absence of Parliament. Constitutional bodies are being rendered helpless. A royal commission on corruption control has been set up, with ill intent, to nullify the authority of the legitimate commission. The games played in filling the positions in the Election Commission and the National Human Rights Commission shed light on the true intention, which is to handicap all democratic institutions. Today, questions are being raised about the independence of the judiciary. Which authority today exercises more control, the military administration or the civilian administration? One must open one?s eyes and try to understand the direction in which this country is being pushed.
The king terms as unconstitutional the demands for the reinstatement of Parliament as the only way to bring back the Constitution derailed on October 4, 2002. Whereas the king himself is engaged in exercising the powers that are just not provided by the Constitution, is riding roughshod over the constitutional rights of the people. A king who is willing to finish off the representational system by putting even the existing Upper House in a coma for three full years likes to refer to the Constitution, even while trampling on all constitutional principles. The rampant application of Article 127, meant only for limited use to remove ?difficulties? in the implementation of the Constitution, is making a mockery of the constitutional process. Where in this Constitution are there provisions for the king to get rid of prime ministers, appoint prime ministers, becoming himself the chairman of a council of ministers or appointing vice-chairmen? Who is engaged in the squashing of the Constitution, trying to convert it into a meaningless piece of paper? Is this how we are to understand the institution of constitutional monarchy?
While the attempt is to neutralize the Parliament as well as all constitutional democratic institutions, the world is being told that all this is being done to tackle Maoist terrorism and protect democracy. While this claim is being made for world consumption, in practice the Maoist issue is being used to strangle democracy. Is this how you confront terrorism, by sidelining democracy, filling the jails with all who plead for democracy, silencing the press, and demoralizing the democratic institutions? If in fact the intention was to protect democracy from terrorism, why was no effort made to have open discussions with democratic leaders, and why were the democratic governments of the past not given due cooperation? Why was there this willingness merely to watch the ramita, as if everything were a carnival?
How do we have this coincidence: on the one hand an attempt to destroy and upturn the democratic process under the pretext of tackling the Maoists, and other the other the insurgent leader Prachanda claiming back in the days of democracy that the Maoists had an ?aghosit karyagat ekata? (undeclared working relationship) with the king. Was there some sense or logic in all of this? What kind of happenstance is this, that it is democracy that is targeted from both sides? If there is no conspiracy and in fact the intention is to save democracy from terrorism, then why were those very democratic minded politicians who were challenging terrorism targeted and herded into jails? Why was it necessary to make regressive amendments to the laws, and why was it necessary to destroy democratic institutions? Why was it necessary to restrict fundamental freedoms and civil rights? It is clear that the king only seeks the excuse to become an autocratic ruler. And it is for this purpose that there are different games being played and anti-people activities being organised.
All over the world, dictators destroy democracy in the name of nationalism and sacrifice the people?s rights in the name of development. But in reality, it is nationalism and national development that end up smashed. That is what has been happening here all along, the sacrifice of national interest for the sake of the regime?s self-interest, including clandestine signatures on dishonourable treaties.
Today, there is a new fashion to speak about terrorism or extremism. From the feudal rulers in the Gulf to Pakistan?s Musharraf, dictators rely on the fight against extremism to slake their own thirst for dictatorship. Today, Nepal is being made to stand in that same line-up. Those who believe in democracy are being jailed or finished off. As if to say, ?The sheep with the sheep, and the goats with the goats?, the Nepali state with its altered character is being made to slide closer to countries with authoritarian systems. Our country is being distanced from the democratic world.
There tends to be an interesting collaboration between two opposing forces, those who seek to keep the people weak by keeping the state unstable, and those who try to keep the nation itself weak by keeping the politics unstable. The Nepali nation, the innocent Nepali people and the country?s democracy constantly get caught in this whirlpool, which is the invention of domestic and foreign conspiracies. This is why we have never been able to hold our head high. After all, what is the undisclosed truth behind the avatars of revolution who rise in the Himalaya with such loud reverberations, only to disappear like the morning?s dew? What, after all, is this Maobaadi ?phenomena?? And what is one to make of the drama of divisions within its leadership even as we speak? What invisible hands are conducting this magic? The public is still kept in the dark regarding these games that are carried played out behind the curtain of Nepali politics. But today, the people want to know.
How long will the nation be waylaid by these games? How long will we allow ourselves to be cheated? Time and again, just when we think maybe progress is at hand, another whirlpool drags us down to the depths. Nepalis must investigate why, again and again, the path is blocked. In order to overturn this accursed history, in order to throw away the scum that has accumulated, Nepal awaits a forceful, bloodless revolution. For this, the political parties who have become agents of transformation themselves need a revolution within, for internal democracy and a change of outlook and image. The self-defeating antagonisms within the parties must also end. The dirt must be swept away.
(Congress leader Ram Chandra Poudel is in jail in Damauli, Tanahun district. This article first appeared in the Kantipur daily, Tuesday, May 31, 2005.)
Translation by Kanak Mani Dixit
