Mohanising King Gyanendra
Media Communications Center
March 12, 2007
By Toya Bhadhur Gurung (Gorkhali)
The anti-monarchy Nepali parties could not dare subject the issue of monarchy to a referendum. Their rationale was that they were uncertain as to result of such a referendum. Or, as another point of view has it, the monarchy would be shown to have some popular base. So referendum had to be prevented ! So being a typical Nepali "democrats" it was too risky for the advocates of Nepali democracy to allow the people to have a direct say on the issue of monarchy ! So their fear of monarchy has extended to the fear of what the popular will maybe. And that, it seems is what the Nepali democrats think democracy is all about --- bypassing the popular will !
Fear of the people's will of the Nepali democrats is not by all means limited to the issue of monarchy. The non-elected parliament had declared Nepal to be a republican.The Nepali democrats, of course, construe this, as a democratic exercise !
Nepali democratic "progress"' was made so easily by declaring the country to be a country. Why could not the date expired parliament make such "progress" by declaring Nepal to be a republic as well ? By what incapacity could they not do so ? After all, they do claim that they have the mandate of the Andolan II (uprising), facilitated mostly by the Maoists. Without the Maoists, their series of previous Andolans before April 2006 had been insignificant, for all to see. The communists using the principles, slogans and process of democracy to achieve their ideological goals is understandable. But the Nepali "democrats" undermining democratic principles is indicative of the type of Nepali democracy that is being installed.
Instead of directly getting the mandate of the people through a referendum to make Nepal a republic, they have now opted for an indirect method to do so. They now want their partisan candidates in the proposed elected Constituent Assembly to do away with the monarchy. Why this indirect method ? Why wait for about 4 months to do so ?
Meanwhile, the politicos, like the dry mountain brooks that roar only during the monsoon ( Urrladho Khare ), are subjecting the monarchy to various types of raucous threats, allegations, and vilifications. Some thing akin to barking dogs that cannot bite? Or is it just a display of their social origin, which the simile of Urrladho Khare conveys? That is, a typical behaviour of upstart plebeians when they gain an upper hand over autocrats. Or is there some thing more to this?
They have threatened the monarchy by saying they will remove the institution through their own candidates in the Constituent Assembly. They have threatened the monarch by saying that they will use retroactive laws ( and this is Nepali democratic ethos !) against him. Retroactive laws made by a non-elected parliament ! They have threatened the monarchy by contravening the prevailing inheritance law of Nepal ( and this by the advocates of the "rule of law" !). Why all such verbal threats sans actions?
In addition to such threats, there seem to be some carrots dangled before the monarch to induce him to abdicate on his own. The notion of "Ceremonial Monarchy" ( whatever it may mean in operational terms) suddenly propped up in the brain of Girija P. Koirala.
Anyway, it was heard that an advice was conveyed to the monarch, that if he were to abdicate voluntarily, the parties would reinstall him as a Ceremonial Monarch !! So this imported notion of Ceremonial Monarchy, coupled with subsequent geopolitical "advice" to abdicate, only to be reinstated as a Ceremonial Monarch was indeed revealing. Was not Mohan SJB Rana assured of continuity in exchange for compliance to such "advices"? Were not many similar "advisory assurances" reneged subsequently, in many previous occasions ?
Another carrot dangled before the monarch, is of course, the notion of being made the first president of republican Nepal, if he voluntarily abdicates. Such carrots dangled before the monarch and supplemented with various threats of possible humiliations and deprivations must have been assumed to be sufficient motivation for the monarch to abdicate or leave the country voluntarily.
Will all such vociferous threats motivate the King to abdicate and / or leave the country on his own ?
The question now remains as to whether the King of Nepal will fall for this failed leaders motivated bluff.
The anti-monarchy Nepali parties could not dare subject the issue of monarchy to a referendum. Their rationale was that they were uncertain as to result of such a referendum. Or, as another point of view has it, the monarchy would be shown to have some popular base. So referendum had to be prevented ! So being a typical Nepali "democrats" it was too risky for the advocates of Nepali democracy to allow the people to have a direct say on the issue of monarchy ! So their fear of monarchy has extended to the fear of what the popular will maybe. And that, it seems is what the Nepali democrats think democracy is all about --- bypassing the popular will !
Fear of the people's will of the Nepali democrats is not by all means limited to the issue of monarchy. The non-elected parliament had declared Nepal to be a republican.The Nepali democrats, of course, construe this, as a democratic exercise !
Nepali democratic "progress"' was made so easily by declaring the country to be a country. Why could not the date expired parliament make such "progress" by declaring Nepal to be a republic as well ? By what incapacity could they not do so ? After all, they do claim that they have the mandate of the Andolan II (uprising), facilitated mostly by the Maoists. Without the Maoists, their series of previous Andolans before April 2006 had been insignificant, for all to see. The communists using the principles, slogans and process of democracy to achieve their ideological goals is understandable. But the Nepali "democrats" undermining democratic principles is indicative of the type of Nepali democracy that is being installed.
Instead of directly getting the mandate of the people through a referendum to make Nepal a republic, they have now opted for an indirect method to do so. They now want their partisan candidates in the proposed elected Constituent Assembly to do away with the monarchy. Why this indirect method ? Why wait for about 4 months to do so ?
Meanwhile, the politicos, like the dry mountain brooks that roar only during the monsoon ( Urrladho Khare ), are subjecting the monarchy to various types of raucous threats, allegations, and vilifications. Some thing akin to barking dogs that cannot bite? Or is it just a display of their social origin, which the simile of Urrladho Khare conveys? That is, a typical behaviour of upstart plebeians when they gain an upper hand over autocrats. Or is there some thing more to this?
They have threatened the monarchy by saying they will remove the institution through their own candidates in the Constituent Assembly. They have threatened the monarch by saying that they will use retroactive laws ( and this is Nepali democratic ethos !) against him. Retroactive laws made by a non-elected parliament ! They have threatened the monarchy by contravening the prevailing inheritance law of Nepal ( and this by the advocates of the "rule of law" !). Why all such verbal threats sans actions?
In addition to such threats, there seem to be some carrots dangled before the monarch to induce him to abdicate on his own. The notion of "Ceremonial Monarchy" ( whatever it may mean in operational terms) suddenly propped up in the brain of Girija P. Koirala.
Anyway, it was heard that an advice was conveyed to the monarch, that if he were to abdicate voluntarily, the parties would reinstall him as a Ceremonial Monarch !! So this imported notion of Ceremonial Monarchy, coupled with subsequent geopolitical "advice" to abdicate, only to be reinstated as a Ceremonial Monarch was indeed revealing. Was not Mohan SJB Rana assured of continuity in exchange for compliance to such "advices"? Were not many similar "advisory assurances" reneged subsequently, in many previous occasions ?
Another carrot dangled before the monarch, is of course, the notion of being made the first president of republican Nepal, if he voluntarily abdicates. Such carrots dangled before the monarch and supplemented with various threats of possible humiliations and deprivations must have been assumed to be sufficient motivation for the monarch to abdicate or leave the country voluntarily.
Will all such vociferous threats motivate the King to abdicate and / or leave the country on his own ?
The question now remains as to whether the King of Nepal will fall for this failed leaders motivated bluff.
Print
Email
