| isolated freak |
Posted
on 12-May-03 11:47 AM
an excellent piece by Suman Pradhan from today's TKP. aafu le garda, aafno pala ma sabai thik, arule garda sabai bethik.. when will our leaders be free of this mentality?
enjoy.
The boomerang effect
SUMAN pradhan
King Gyanendra is no King Birendra. The present monarch himself said as much in one of his first press interviews soon after ascending to the throne in 2001. That shrewd observation about himself was again there for display last week when, in a slew of interviews to national dailies, the King began a public relations exercise aimed at putting his views on current politics directly to the people.
That style is in sharp contrast to the late King Birendras who, after granting an interview to a local weekly in the early 1990s, never again spoke to the press due to the ferocious controversy his statements ignited. A constitutional monarch, who is traditionally seen as above politics and who, according to legal doctrines "can never do any wrong," should never speak to the press on current affairs without the explicit authorization of the government or so the arguments went.
Perhaps it was for this reason that King Gyanendra, while talking to mediamen last week, repeatedly stressed the point that he had indeed informed the Lokendra Bahadur Chand government of his intention to speak to the press. The implied message: the Chand government approved of the interviews.
The issue is not how an appointed government could refuse its appointer, but whether or not the ensuing criticism of the monarchs interview is justified. For, there has been plenty of controversy about the interviews in recent days and most of the flak has come from politicians and their parties.
The Nepali Congress and CPN (UML) have both slammed the Kings political proclamations as "out of bounds" for a constitutional monarch. "Should a constitutional monarch be speaking to the press like this," an incredulous Girija Prasad Koirala, president of the Nepali Congress, asked journalists today.
For an answer to his question, lets go back a year when a Nepali Congress government led by Sher Bahadur Deuba was in power. It was a time of emergency rule, army-Maoist battles in the countryside and, yes, King Gyanendras interviews to the press.
A few days after one of those interviews was published, Prime Minister Deuba held a press meet in his office in Singha Durbar. One of the questions that was hurled at him was: "should the monarch be speaking to the press in a constitutional monarchy?" Deuba answered: "if anyone can say anything against the King, then why cant the King reply back to his critics. I dont see any problem with it."
Mr Deuba and his party may not have seen any problem at the time, but they and other politicians certainly do now (though Deuba has split the Congress in two since then).
I wonder if politicians and parties take this episode as many of us do: as an express lesson on the importance of conventions and precedents. For once an action has been condoned, it can be repeated again and again and again. You can always hold contrary opinions about the controversy ignited by the late King Birendras interview in the early 1990s, but you cant deny that it at least established a convention which the monarch was reluctant to break in later years.
But since late 2001, an opposite convention has been established. Governments and politicians, by approving of the monarchs public proclamations on politics early on, undid the established conventions. For them to cry foul now simply smacks of opportunism.
That said, politicians also have a tendency to contradict their own arguments. For instance, the political parties main reason for launching "Peoples Movement II" is to protest King Gyanendras "usurpation" of executive power. In short, the parties have been arguing that the Kings October 4 sacking of an elected government and putting in place a hand-picked one was "unconstitutional." But Mr. Koiralas question about the Kings interview - "should a constitutional monarch be speaking to the press" actually raises a different question.
Did the veteran NC leader mean to say that the monarch was scrupulously observing constitutional provisions until last weeks press interviews? If yes, then why Janandolan II? Why, indeed, slam the October 4 takeover as "unconstitutional and illegal?"
But if Mr Koirala meant that this was simply one more act that breached the constitution, then why did he and other politicians give their silent approval in the early months of King Gyanendras reign?
If it is out of constitutional bounds now, it was out of constitutional bounds then when Mr Koiralas party and colleagues were in power. Talk of the boomerang effect.
|
