| Username |
Post |
| amish |
Posted
on 17-Oct-02 11:16 PM
Int’l communities’ silence over Chand’s appointment
Post Report
KATHMANDU, Oct 17:It’s been a week since His Majesty King Gyanendra appointed Lokendra Bahadur Chand as the nation’s new Prime Minister. And yet, apart from a few neighbouring countries, no other friendly nation has issued a formal message of congratulations to Prime Minister Chand.
Apart from China, Maldives, Bhutan and Bangladesh other countries mainly the West and India have shown indifference, a deviation from the normal practice of felicitating the new Prime Minister.
It is also significant that while Maldives, Bhutan and Bangladesh have congratulated both the Prime Minister and new Foreign Minister Narendra Bikram Shah for being appointed to their respective positions, China has congratulated only Chand.
In an October 13 statement issued in Beijing, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji said that he was " very pleased" by Chand’s appointment as the Prime Minister and vowed to make "joint and relentless efforts with Your Honourable to further consolidate the traditional friendship and friendly cooperative relations which already exists between our two countries."
But the southern neighbour was not as forthcoming. Just what Indian officialdom thinks of this new government is evident in an article published on October 15 issue of Punjab Keshari newspaper. When asked to comment on the new Nepali government, the newspaper quoted an unnamed Indian External Affairs Ministry official as saying, "we are cautiously adopting a wait and see approach."
On the other hand, the silence from western democracies and India is being taken here as those nations’ apprehension about the new government. More precisely, their concerns about the procedure of the formation of the Chand government, according to diplomatic sources in Kathmandu.
It is to be noted that His Majesty King Gyanendra appointed the Chand government a week after dismissing the elected Sher Bahadur Deuba government on October 4 and assuming all executive powers.
On October 11, when the King appointed Chand as the Prime Minister, he also appointed a host of other ministers and even divided the portfolios among them. The other ministers were not appointed as per the recommendation of the Prime Minister, as was the custom earlier. Significantly, the King did not transfer executive powers to the new government as was expected but rather gave the Chand government five specific tasks to work on. Also, there is no fixed date for a general election to a new parliament.
All this could have fuelled the apprehension of India and other friendly countries, analysts here note. They point out that almost all the nations - India, US, UK, EU, Japan and others - had appealed for the constitutional process to be followed and elections to be held at the earliest before the King appointed the new government.
The EU did issue a statement after the new government was formed, but it basically called on the government and the Maoist rebels to begin a dialogue and sort out the security crisis facing the nation. There was no congratulatory message to the new Prime Minister.
Analysts note that much of the confusion stems from Article 127 of the Constitution which gives the monarch the authority to "untangle" any constitutional issue. King Gyanendra referred to that constitutional provision while sacking the Deuba government, and also while appointing the new Chand government.
The exercise of Article 127 is tantamount to suspending the whole Constitution, some constitutional experts have argued.
|
| orion |
Posted
on 18-Oct-02 01:27 PM
You make some very good observations and raise the excellent point that by using article 127, in the manner in which it has recently been used, not just is the constitution ridiculed, it is for all intents and purposes, practically voided. Sure, all the other provisions remain intact, but one of the main guiding principles behind the constitution - the relationship between King, the cabinet, parliament and the people stands very much changed as a result of the actions of the last few weeks.
Also, I think most people who disagree with the Kings decision , and this may include donors, feel that the only solution to Nepal's internal strife is to give those fighting the system a say in making national policy without letting them destroy the system. The use of military power against the Maoists won a lot of backing because among other reasons, the government talked about it as a tool to bring the Maoists into the mainstream, perhaps through negotiations that military pressure might result in. If the King can successfully put enough pressure on the Maoists and try and strike a deal with them, he may win over his skeptics including those in the international community like India and the US. But given everything on the ground I see the chances of that happening as slim, and on the contrary, I see things working against the King.
Lets say for some reason, the Maoists decide to negotiate. What will they be negotiating for? For being able to fight an election, form a government if they win, and be dismissed by the King if he thinks they pose some obstacle? I see no reason, why the Maoist leadership will want to compromise with the King now that the King does not feel bound by constitutional restraints, in letter and spirit, to stay away from executive power. And lets face it, *every* political party of any significance in Nepal, sees the King as an obstacle to the democratic process which really puts him in an awkward position because how can a King who cannot even co-exist with parties that support the Monarchy expect to make Maoists his loyal subjects? He has nothing to offer the Maoists now that he has proved that those who join the parliamentary process, are subject to dismissal if he deems them “incompetent”.
I think all of this has factored into the rather muted response received from other countries by the new cabinet.
|
| VillageVoice |
Posted
on 19-Oct-02 04:38 PM
Orion, interesting observations.
Having publicly voiced my reservation against the royal takeover, I now venture into a very controversial terrain.
Now for argument's sake...
1. What is the number one challenge before us NOW?
Democracy, or national security? Then, can they coexist?
There's every reason to believe they can. Democracy, with all its shortcomings (the need for regular elections, for one, as Deuba found out) is still the best form of governance.
That said, the current situation in Nepal is very different from that of 2015. The country is in war now - facing a grave national crisis due to the insurgency which shows no signs of abating. What if, for instance, New Dehi decides enough's enough: we can't afford such a volatile neighbour. Or that Washington declares we have become another lawless state a la taliban-ruled Afghanistan? Far-fetched, I agree, but national security is a grave issue. You can't ignore it.
Personally, I never expected King Gyanendra to take over either, but such things do happen. And if India does decide so, there's little we can do - at least militarily. Do we want to welcome Indian, US troops?
It's in the interest of Nepal to QUICKLY arrest the current decline to a Banana Republic.
How?
Could an active monarchy be more effecitve?
The army holds the key in the current battle against the Maoist. And it remains deeply loyal to the palace. (You may not like it. I don't like it. But that's a fact.) Could the king give a new lease of life to the security forces?
Paschim for one argues that army needs to be democratised. Sure. I support that one hundred percent. But that's going to take a long time, at least a generation. And any drastic changes in the military structure, and its command and control could seriously weaken its ability to wage war.
2. Going by the events since the dismissal of the deuba government, a clear battle line is drawn between political parties and the palace. Neither can afford that. Nor least the nation.
So what's the way out? King Gyanendra, already under cloud of suspicion about his democratic commitments and more so after the dismissal of an elected Prime Minister, went a notch further in appointing a loyalist as the caretaker Prime Minister. A political blunder that has further alienated political parties; another action that gives credence to the claim that he *is* a reluctant democrat.
But it can also be argued that in Chand the king finds a perfect prime minster, who will follow his orders, and present an undivided face to the public. (Though I personally don't see this government going far without the participation - or at least support - from the political parties, whose organizations do reach the grassroots.
3. What can be a political tradeoff? Let the King be active but without crossing the proverbial Laxman Rekha?
I think it's become a political, not constitutional, debate now. The spirit of the 1990 constitution - that the supremacy lies in the people and not the king - has already been violated. But what next????
|
| Satya |
Posted
on 19-Oct-02 10:50 PM
I am quite surprised with Int’l communities’ cool response to Chand government. If they have no problem to support Musharaaf why should they have objection to support King Gynendra? May be they don’t see any possibility of “take” from the current situation in Nepal. Whatever is the reason I feel good that KG has got kicked on his buttock for his misadventure.
Unfortunately, we don’t see the end of the tunnel we are in. Concern raised by VV that India is a potential threat is 100% valid. If we welcome Indian troops then they will probably never leave. But I don’t think US could intervene militarily even though Bush the Jhaadi intends to do so. There is geographical obstacle – India and China.
VV: “The spirit of the 1990 constitution - that the supremacy lies in the people and not the king - has already been violated. But what next????”
If the Int’l pressure is maintained then KG will do something to pacify them by some sort of compromise. But whenever he gets a chance to use his unconstitunitional power he will raise his ugly head again.
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 20-Oct-02 03:36 AM
Friends, interesting remarks…let me just build on that reference to me on democratizing the army…yes, VV is very right…it's a long shot indeed, but an INEVITABLE one if we are to advance to become a better, functioning democracy (of which I personally think there is no alternative).
The army, like all publicly funded institutions -- from the civil service to the Police -- must be representative of, and be answerable to, the diverse people of Nepal and their representatives. It shouldn't be an elitist, disaggregated ethnic club with skewed loyalties. Democratizing it thus, by legal steps through the parliament, advocacy and awareness, recruitment reforms, and ideas such as the one that Biswo floated on a civilian think tank on pratirakshhya, as well as infusion, among other things, will be key…and all this will be good for its own sake.
The other reason is that the king in Nepal has two sources of power: one is legitimate -- people's faith and support for the historical institution; the other source is perhaps not as legitimate, and that's the Army. The king will continue to misbehave (constitutionally) as long as he has a secure command of the Army. To force the king to remain within his constitutional limits, the link between the army and the palace ought to be weakened gradually.
Therein comes the "democratization" part -- and it should be a conscious agenda of the state for the next generation…until then, the only way to restrain the monarchy is through parliamentary measures by tightening the constitutional loopholes and ambiguities that we now know exist. The next parliament thus has a historic task to accomplish.
Unlike day-dreaming republicans (who unrealistically forsee its overthrowing sooner), I expect the institution of constitutional monarchy to exist in Nepal for at least another generation (20-40 years)…and only if this "democratization" idea delivers some fruit, a republic could be a viable option thereafter…
But the king and the institution's legitimate support base is the people -- even after 30 years, if their sentiments are with the institution, monarchy shall continue to exist. Strength of the army can only prolong or cut short that institution's longevity. As history (of even the most brutal tyrannies and dictatorships) has shown, people and their collective wisdom always triumph eventually. It's just a matter of time (and a lot of pain).
|
| Satya |
Posted
on 20-Oct-02 07:51 AM
Paschim: ‘Unlike day-dreaming republicans (who unrealistically foresee its overthrowing sooner), I expect the institution of constitutional monarchy to exist in Nepal for at least another generation (20-40 years)…and only if this "democratization" idea delivers some fruit, a republic could be a viable option thereafter…’
Night-dreaming Paschimji has interpreted republicans’ views in his own terms. While republicans believe that republic is the only solution for the bright future of the nation only few of them foresee the possibility of overthrowing the monarch in near future. I had the same opinion as Paschimji when I was as young as he is now. It is an illusion, which is leading us to nowhere. Even though we wait another 1000 years we will have no environment for a republic as long as monarchs like KG supported by monarchists like Paschim rule us. Paschimji, please be assured that there will be no Republic of Nepal overnight. When you wake up after long night-dreams for 20 to 40 years you will be still in the Kingdom of Nepal where terrorized people will be living below the poverty line.
Of course, nobody can guarantee that republic will solve all problems we have today. But republic provides us more opportunities to advance to the right direction.
|
| VillageVoice |
Posted
on 20-Oct-02 11:01 AM
Talking about the *Royal* Nepal Army's loyalty and the Maoist problem, following's an interesting article by Deepak Thapa in Himal.
http://www.himalmag.com/may2001/cover.html
|
| Orion |
Posted
on 20-Oct-02 02:30 PM
Hi Village Voice,
I read your posting last night, meant to respond, got busy with the weekend and now that I am replying, I am glad I waited because Satya and Paschim have enriched this discussion with their view points. Plus allow me to say, Village Voice, that it is always a pleasure to read to your view points.
I do not know where to begin. I am one of those who finds it hard to believe that the Army under the direct rule of the King can dramatically improve it's performance over the Maoists. Like I have said elsewhere on this and other forums, nothing in the ground has changed after the Royal takeover of 2002. The ground realities of battle - weapons, ammunition, supplies, operational command structure -all of which are decisive factors on the battleground - have not changed and are unlikely to do so as the result of the King wanting to rule the country through a proxy at Singha Durbar. Unless one makes the argument that the King has been disingenuous in the conflict with the Maoist so far , and has let the country bleed till he found the opportune moment to capture power, one would have to think that there really isn’t much the King can do with the Army that he hasn’t already done.
On the question of India, I am a skeptic here unlike many of the people I admire including journalist at Himal and Nepali times and some of my friends in the parliamentary, republican and social justice movements. I think for India to want to send ground troops into Nepal, a couple of things must happen. Firstly, India must feel that the security situation in Nepal poses a severe threat to India's overall strategic military security. Secondly, India must feel that the situation in Nepal poses a direct threat to its tactical ability to maintain law and order within its own territory. They need to convince themselves that both of these conditions are true, before they will get support at the necessary levels of their government to send in troops to Nepal. The misadventures of the IPKF in Sri Lanka are still on the minds of the Indian military, intelligence and foreign policy establishments. Also, with the Indian Army stretched fighting wars from Kashmir to Nagaland , unless India is convinced of a quick and decisive military victory in Nepal, I feel the more saner voices in New Delhi will prevail, because fighting a war in Nepal is going to be extremely demanding at best and absolutely disastrous at worst
I think the Indian generals are smart enough not to be drawn into a conflict where they see little chances of winning. By sending troops to Nepal, India does what King Gyanendra did - align the entire Nepalese political spectrum against it. Military power alone is difficult to win a war in Nepal as we have seen by the events of the last few years. Does anyone seriously expect India to come in, commit its troops to fighting Nepal’s war, and then at the cost of local hostility and lots of money occupy Nepalese land? Nepal is no Sikkim both in terms of the world situation and the ground realities in these two countries. India and King Gyanendra both do not have enough muscle power to suppress the long term aspirations of the people - democracy and independence BOTH for along time. Military power can be used against a hostile population only for a limited period of time. From where I see things, the risks of invasion are far higher than the risk of trying to do things politically without deploying troops, especially given the tremendous clout India enjoys among the political circles in Nepal.
Besides, India has little to gain from occupying Nepal - the benefit of getting access to Nepal’s hydro power potential (" potential"- mind you - India will still have to invest billions to convert the potential into actual energy), I think, is too less compared to the cost of running a colony. What about a proxy government some might ask? Well, they can very well do that without sending in troops. I do not see the presence of Indian troops in Kathamndu a pre-condition for that. I think this whole India factor, while an understandable fear, given the antipathy many of us in Nepal have toward India, is being given far more attention that it deserves and this plays straight into the hands of Gyanendra who knows, that by adding the India dimension to the existing issue, he can get some reluctant parties to at least mellow down, if not support him outright.
In terms of what next, I expect to see several more months if not years of military conflict between the King and the Maoists. I am of the opinion, that the Maoists will not negotiate to be mere subjects of the King and given very little that King Gyanendra has to offer the Maoists, it is unlikely that we will see a hand shake between Gyanendra and Prachanda. A lot depends on the role of the parties – which in spite of all the complacency – seem to be the only moderating forces in this conflict. If the moderates, as represented by the parties attain power, perhaps through an election, then I think getting to Maoists into the mainstream might not be as difficult as compared to if the King retains total power though a proxy PM. In the latter scenario, I only see peace returning to Nepal with the eradication for both the Monarchy and the Maoist militancy. Of, course this is the longest path to peace.
|
| Orion |
Posted
on 20-Oct-02 02:51 PM
Pashcim, on a lighter note, if Republicans are being accused of "day dreaming", parliamentarists of "night dreaming", what should monarchists be accused of - wild fantasy? :)
Cheers.
|
| kalankisthan |
Posted
on 20-Oct-02 04:37 PM
I am happy!!
Tyo bajiya Crook Chand lai peon nabanai chaddina bhanera kalanki paani tyanki ko kassam kha the 2046 saal ma. Bhai haalyo ni bajiya Gyaane ko peon.
Thikka paryo!!
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 21-Oct-02 05:30 AM
Satya-ji…tapain haru tat tatai faalnu parchha bhannu hunchha …ma bhandai chhu -- bandobasta milayera matrai…raktaamya hoina, safa kisim le alli barsa pachhi, hunna? :)
Orion, yes, occupation is geo-politically incorrect and an extremely costly mis-adventure for them…esp. when they can achieve so much by just a strong ambassadorial presence in Lainchour, and credibly threatening us with sanctions, transit/border hassles and all that (which can easily embarrass, if not topple a regime). Status quo is cheaper for them…haamro pida -- no policy will ever change our grand geographical woe of being India-locked on three sides…I am hoping Surya Subedi, a law professor in England, will one day publish his account of what transpired between Raja Birendra and Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 when they are said to have discussed similar bilateral tensions with brutal candidness…both suave gentlemen (but not terribly clever), and both no longer alive…Subedi was party to that memorable, but little-known exchange!
As for wild fantasy…rajtantra lai bed mathi jhundiyeko ghyampo nai mandiun…dherai jana ghyampo lai laat hanne sapana matra dekhchhan…ghyampo phutera ke niskine ho kasai lai thaha chhaina...all I'm saying is: "idea" thik chha kaalaantar-ma, tara, "practical" timing golmaal hunu bhayena!
|
| Orion |
Posted
on 21-Oct-02 10:46 AM
Paschim,
It seems to me, based on your previous 2 or 3 postings, that you disagree with the approach and not the idea itself of a republican system of democracy. Correct me if you feel I have misinterpreted your views. On that assumption, I think the approach can and should be discussed and debated since there is more than one way to get there - but I think most important point to note in this whole republic vs. monarchy debate is that the institution of Monarchy has proved itself to be a destabilizing force in Nepal. Consequently, long term stability in Nepal can only come either as the result of severely and explicitly curtailing the powers of the Monarch in the constitution or taking the more radical approach and abrogating the institution of Monarchy altogether.
Which of these two will play out depends to a great extent on how King Gyanendra plays his cards out. I am pretty convinced that Gyanendra intends to rule through the might of the military because he doesn’t have either the legitimacy or the political organization to muscle support at the grass roots and run a democracy. In my conversations with supporters of the King, I have gotten the sense that what Gyanendra is really looking at right now is more of subordination and not so much of support. The dangerous thing with this approach is subordination is much harder to preserve and channel into nation building than support. Plus, the two institutions that he needs to subordinate , i.e. the Army and the Police, are really stretched all of which leads me to believe that if King Gyanendra takes this route, he may be able to pull through for a couple of years but the end result, more likely than not, will be the removal of the institution either during his lifetime or most definitely during the life time of his son.
The other approach of making up with the parties may be better for the Monarchy long run. If he does that, then he at least has the Congress and UML advocating the preservation of Monarchy. Perhaps this is the approach he will take. But in order to take this approach, he needs to win over the very same parties he seems to detest. Perhaps when all the anger and belligerence settles down, this is precisely what will happen. If not, I see the Monarchy speeding to destruction.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 21-Oct-02 11:33 AM
I think Orion's right in pointing out that nothing has changed under KingG as far as tactical and strategic positions of the RNA against the Maoists is concerned. For this very reason, I have always been questioning what new the king may be able to do to defeat the Maoists. One thing is certain: It cannot be solved military. Another certain thing: Only people's power (in terms of democracy, NOT a Maoist's theme!) can solve the problem peacefully.
The very root of the problem is that the people, especially in non-metro areas, had been denied even the basic rights and services for decades--both during and after the Panchayat. Solution lies in providing those services and rights to every single soul throughout Nepal. I dont think monarchy, by definition, would be able to do that.
RNA...Paschim's absolutely right! Reforming the RNA, though seemingly insurmountable task, must be sought after vigorously--little things that seem not to matter must be done. Who knows, things might turn out to be not as hard as they may seem. The bottom line is, we need free-er society to prosper. The more we walk the path towrards real freedom, the more we will be blessed with peace.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 21-Oct-02 07:36 PM
It's quite an emabarrasment to see that the power that was given to the people
have been taken back by the same forces that were operating in the Pre 1990 days.
Only few folks have been changed here and there is clear, but the central message is clear: Palace seemed to subtley be in control all this while.
When Mr. G decided to make a preemptive strike at assuming power himself, he was
able to. So is that a testament that the power was ever with the people? Why wasn't there a massive protest ? Why wasn't a case filed against the King-- for having acted
(un)constitutionally-- to the supreme court? Those who were dispossed from authority
were supposedly the ones who wanted the preservation and continutaion of democracy? If these "chosen ones" had so much courage and enthusiasm as to always contrive situations of calling midterm elections, whenever their egos didn't strike a chord with their competitor's, they were misbehvaing, too. Just because the constitution allows for it doesn't mea that you could continually abuse it. When a country was in a crisis of its own, Mr. S.B.D didn't need to call for an elections slated for November. That just shows a crisis in leadership. And when Mr. G did take over, there was no uproar, not even a massive protest. Common folks had been disheartened by the elected
officials on one side who only extol their and their parties' virtues, and the Maoists, who were waging a revolution by guns, on the other. So, the power grabbing occured, this time not from the members of the contesting parties, but from another end:the Palace.
So, in a way, these democratically elected officials have been thrown off their lofty seats for the time being , and now different faces have assumed the seats. But, these faces are not new. Why can't we ever have younger leaders who are more creative and enterprising? Are we in such bad shape that we've to "accept and not bemoan that we're gettting back old clothes that we had pushed aside 10 years ago"?
Isn't it a shame that we've been so oblivious to this embarrasment and still accept it, thinking this is not so bad and that things will improve.
Why have we got to this stage? Even during the Royal tragedy, the lack of transperancy ensuing the decimation, and the inaction and lack of focus of the goverment (which was headed by MR. G.K. during that period), and the control of information by the palace coterie, was some form of indication--at least to me--, that in times of chaos,who the real power really is.
And now, with this current takeover, it is a clear signal where the power was all this time. The power,it appears, has always been with those who have support of the Army, and this time, it is king G.
Given, the current disgrunteled state of the people both with the Maoist and the former government ,and the parliamentary leaders, and with the army by his side, the king might feel that he has support and is in command. But, such illusions are not everlasting, and neither can the king keep sustain his powers and keep people happy just
with this logic.
It would be in his interest to ensure that right wingers don't get very powerful very soon. Otherwise, it would be just a matter of time when people will be disenchanted with him and his lot,too. When the Maoist first started their cause, people were sympathetic to it as they were tired of the government. But, it was just a matter of time
when they their enthusiasm waned seeing that these Maoists were violent and didn't have real objectives.
So, the king has come to power at a very crucial time. Niether can he allow the insurgency to get out of contol, nor can he see that the PM and his coterie build an empire--this applies to his kinspeople,too. Otherwise, we're bound to see more bloodshed
and chaos in an already vulnerable state our country is in. Just moblising the army won't just solve the problem either as it won't be able to thwrat the insurgency.
It has to come through the grass roots level. I think it has to be done by empowering people in the villages and giving them mental strength and inspring them so that they can muster enough courage to fight against the wrong and ills being done there.
So, let's see how Mr. G. will allow Mr. C. work this plan . But, although it might appear like a short term relief --as far as implicit assumption that the stability issue would be resolved as he is the focal point of power today ,and don't have too many trying to grab the lofty seat--, in the long run, we've been cheated and we as a democratic nation, have seriously lost power. Unless, the king makes some smart strategic moves and tries to create a balance of power and also maintains a democratic and more and secure stable environment --which would, therefore, grant him public support-- , we might end up seeing more confusion as we proceed from this point on.
Protean.
|
| orion |
Posted
on 22-Oct-02 09:27 AM
Hi Protean - you make some very good observations. Before I get to discussing some of the points you raise, I think the constitution says you cannot challenge the decisions of the King in court - which is why I think there aren't court cases against the royal takeover.
I agree with your general premise that all institutions in Nepal have failed in many ways. Even the Nepali Congress and UML admit that. The 1990 constitution allowed elected leaders to get away with their whims and fancies. They were subject to some accountability, but not as much as is necessary, to maintain a healthy democracy. I think other than the ego and reckless behavior of politicians, the lack of accountability that tolerated this behavior, is to blame for the shortcomings of the last 12 years. The same constitution also allowed the King to have more power than he should have had without the accountability that needs to come with that power. The only consolation if any, was that you could throw out elected politicians if you did not agree with them - happened twice in the last 12 years when 2 elected government were forced to step down at the ballot box. With a King, the only way you can get him step down if you don't agree with him, is to overthrow the system - an approach that is radical and not without risk. It was a blunder in the 1990 constitution not to subject the King to the tax code and the judicial system. Perhaps we will see this corrected in the future. If we had more accountable politicians and King, we may never have been in this situation
On the question of popular reaction to the Kings move, a couple of things need to be taken into account. Yes, there isn't a mob reaction to the move. Mob action is often related to the emotional part of national psyche. As you point out, people were frustrated with the previous government and felt less compelled to protest as emotions weren’t running very high this time. Does that silence translate into support for the King's move? I think that is really debatable. I find it hard to believe that the UML or Congress grassroots voter have suddenly turned into royalists overnight.
In terms of organized protest - I am surprised too. I think the parties are playing their cards carefully. They are in a tricky situation - if they go against the Monarch, they will indirectly strengthen the Maoists. Which they don't want to do. If they don't go against the Monarch, they will have allowed him to trample over them and everything they have believed in. If they wait for the King to make a bad move and pounce on it, they will be accused of letting the country bleed to further their agendas. In the districts the parties are caught between the Maoist on one hand and the royalist Army on the other. Which is why I think you are seeing unprecedented unity, minus street action, among the parties. But I do think that if this stalemate situation between the King and the parties continues, we will see protest in the coming days.
The least-difficult way out of this crisis is for the King and parties to make up. Perhaps that is what they will do. After the anger and dust settles, perhaps both sides will compromise and find a way out. The parties and the King have a need for each other in the existing situation. The King more so than the parties. If they don’t make up, then the whole country, lead by the institution of Monarchy, is headed for years of strife and crisis.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 22-Oct-02 06:19 PM
Orion, I agree that the democratic forces won't just switch loyalities and that making unstrategic moves and creating chaos by opting for massive uproar (by calling nation
bandhs--the most redundant form of demonstration) is not what's called for. Sitting idle
isn't heralded either.
The poiltical machiney was not effective and efficent-that we all agree. We are also cognizant of the fact that the constitution was not meticulously drafted and that, it needs amendment.
It's time to adopt newer, and more creative ways of working at this current state that our nation is in.
The war between the Maoist and the Army is going to go in an infinite loop. Case in poitn: Sri Lanka. With the terrain that is suited for guerilla warfare, this war being waged in our country by the maoists can't be stopped just by mobolizing the army. As has been shown tiome and again, these problems are adressed with grass roots awareness, mobilization, and by strategic thinking. In the end, the answers to these problems could be a series of dialogues and has to brought about by logical ,and strategic thinkers who are politically neutral.
Just having Mr. C. (a staunch supporter of palace ideologies) doesn't expedite the solution. If the right moves are not made, there could be a trio in the power equation. The palace (with support of Army), the Maoist, and the constituents of the multiparty parlimentary system--chiefly the congress, communists and other democratic parties combined. It would be good if all of these competed with each other democratically and fairly. But , brute force approach would lead to more disarray. The old panchayat folks used to apply the conservative" use of force "approach, and I don't see that adding any value today. It'll be just a matter of time this would lead to further disenchantment and consternation.
So, what could be done:
1.The democratic forces should be given a chance. They should then correct their ways.
The King could follow a balanced path and not dictate every decision.
2. Try to find other ways than just using force to crush the rebellion.
3. The palace and the democratic forces should help each other to create order and rule of law in the country (this might be difficult and counterintutive, but doable). The operative word used by the Monarch to describe the congress leaders has been " inept". If the C. governemnt does not become proactive, he'll soon find himself being accused of ineptitude.
4. Find ways to build trust and support of the public. The most basic thing to do now is
to grant some form of security to people and restore their confidence.
If all or some of these matters are not pusued in earnest, we might see more trouble in the years to come.
Protean.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 24-Oct-02 02:36 PM
Thought I would post an article written a while back in the Guardian as it was releant to the topic of why a reform is needed.
_______________________________
Article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,713083,00.html
________________________________
Thought ,it would shed some light as to why a reform is warranted in the hanlding of the current situation as opposed to a "quid pro quo," approach by the government.
To do so would entail a lot of hardwork;consultation with strategists, intellectuals, village leaders, international leaders and institutions, and others to name a few; and working hand in hand with the previously elected members of parliament. I think, King G. and his appointed Mr. C, should work at this expeditioulsy. Othewise, we're bound towards more chaos in the future. No sign of work in this direction has been observed so far.
|
| protean |
Posted
on 24-Oct-02 04:05 PM
On a similar note, supreme court rejected the petition to challenge the King's action.
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2002/october/arc508.htm#4
__________________________________________________________________
In the future, we the drafting of constitution (if and when we reach that stage) should put the King's authorities in check ,and put the monarchy within the limits of the constitution.
Now, it's time for us to allow King G. to adopt the neutral stance, and attend to
the problems at hand.
|
