Web Only Feature

Royal Tangle

Nepal is once again in the throes of a political turmoil after King Gyanendra declared himself the executive head, dismissing Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and his Cabinet. India Today Associate Editor Farzand Ahmed reports on the constitutional crisis.

When King Gyanendra, the constitutional monarch of the 12-year-old fledgling multi-party democracy, deposed the elected Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, usurped all executive
powers and scrapped elections, the word was there would be only five kings. His Majesty and four others in the pack of cards. They were right. Exactly a week after having staged a sort of coup against the constitution, Gyanendra handpicked a ministry full of "kings" who would not be accountable either to the people or parliament but to the Royal Palace.

Heading the pack was 62-year-old Lokendra Bahadur Chand, a well-known Royalist belonging to the autocratic Partyless Panchayat era that had ended in 1990 after a popular movement. Chand, the last prime minister of the 30-year-old panchayat rule is in fact being seen as a time machine which might take the country back into the past. Except him—he belongs to the RPP—and his Deputy Badri Prasad Mandal of the Nepal Sadbhavana Party, all the ministers including Health Minister and neurologist Upendra Devkota are from various professions and business classes. Dr Devkota had rendered special services to the Royal Palace after the massacre of the royal family last
year: he had quickly testified that all the victims were "brought dead" to the hospital.

The people and politicians had been apprehending that King Gyanendra would turn proactive but not so soon. And the politicians of various hues seemed to have themselves helped
the king in usurping power. They kept playing the game of musical chairs, pulling out each other at regular intervals—Nepal has had 10 prime ministers in 12 years—plunging South Asia’s poorest country of 23 million people into chaos, leading to the senseless Maoist mayhem. When the top leaders of the ore the king seeking an interim government with representatives of parties in the dissolved Pratinidhi Sabha, people simply enjoyed
it. Former Attorney-General Meghraj Bahadur Bishta says, "Don’t blame the king. These politicians have turned the past 12 years of democracy into a dark chapter." The very people in the streets who had earlier celebrated the freedom from an all-pervasive autocratic rule celebrated Diwali before Dashera. Clearly backed by the revivalists and royalists, various trade organisations expressed "loyal gratitude" to the king for the timely royal takeover.

The new provisional government was what the king had
promised on October 4 while hijacking the constitution: a government with people of clean image but having no electoral ambitions. But what has shaken the politicians is the manner in which the constitutional monarch declared himself an absolute monarch and projected himself sovereign with responsibility to protect "nationalism, national unity and sovereignty" of the country. Indeed in the name of protecting and strengthening the gains of the 1990 revolution and the constitution, he openly violated the constitution. Naturally, political parties and human rights groups which are yet to recover from shock have started hitting the streets to protest the "unconstitutional and undemocratic" ways of the monarch. All major parties, including the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (UML) urged the king to reconsider his action that contradicted the constitution, as it would create mistrust between the monarchy, the political parties and the people.

Experts point out that though the constitution does not allow any power to be vested with the king, he on his own discretion invoked Article 127—which says if any difficulty arises in connection with the implementation of this constitution, His Majesty may issue necessary orders to remove such difficulty and such orders shall be laid before Parliament. Experts also pointed out that while invoking his responsibilities under Article 127 controls the very constitutional provisions he had invoked. Article 35 (2) makes it clear that the king has to act "upon the recommendation and advice with the consent of the Council of Ministers. Such recommendation, advice and consent shall be submitted through the prime minister". The subsequent clause says: "The responsibility of issuing general directives, controlling and regulating the administration of the Kingdom of Nepal shall…lie in the Council of Ministers".

The king’s action has even shocked former Chief Justice Biswanath Upadhayay, known as the father of the constitution. "When executive powers are taken by force there cannot be any legal implication," he says. "It has only political implications as it would lead to confusion and conflict."

Now the question being asked is if the monarchy without a popular government could really solve the country’s problems, contain the Maoists and hold elections, which the king himself has scrapped. Chand, however, asserts that his first priority would be to restore peace and security and prepare grounds for early elections. Nobody is willing to believe either the king or Chand. After all, Gyanendra’s father King Mahendra had dismissed the first democratically elected prime minister B.P. Koirala in December 1960, banned all political parties and foisted the autocratic rule.

With political parties regrouping to fight it out with the palace, the king would have more problems than his handpicked government could handle. As one UML leader says, the country is headed for a triangular chaos—all parties vs the king vs the Maoists.

BUSINESS TODAY | INDIA TODAY PLUS | SMART INC.
MUSIC TODAY | ART TODAY | THE NEWSPAPER TODAY | SYNDICATIONS TODAY

Write to us | Subscriptions | Advertise with us
© Living Media India Ltd