Nepal: 1990 Constitution And After

On the eve of King Gyanendra’s visit to India, the Antar Rashtriya Sahayod Parishad held a seminar on 21June, 2002 on the subject of "Constitutional Monarchy and Democracy in Nepal".  In view of poorperformance of the government after the introduction of multi-party system, word is going round that thepeople of Nepal are fed up with the political leadership and that they long for a return to the Panchayat daysand direct governance by the King. These stories are being spread around deliberately by vested interests. What Nepal needs is not less, but more of democracy.  This paper presented in the seminar reflectsthe author's views

The present dispensation in Nepal is based on the 1990 constitution, the country’s fifth if one is takeinto account the interim constitution of 1951 proclaimed as Interim Government of Nepal Act of 30 March 1951.

King Birendra ascended the throne in 1972 and continued with the Partyless Panchayat system.  Despitehopes of many, he continued with the rigid Panchayat regime.  When pressure mounted in the form ofprotests by the students he relented a little, but too little in accepting certain changes in the mode ofelections to the Panchayat after a referendum on May 2 1980.

This Constitution with multi party democracy did not come up as an evolutionary one but was forced on KingBirendra after a year-long struggle in which both the Nepali Congress and the Communists combined to form apeople’s movement.  Contrary to allegations that India had a role, it was the economic crisis whichprovided the momentum for the agitation- the result of confrontation with India over many issues of which themain one was the import of Chinese arms across the Himalayas.  The final march of the protestors towardsthe Palace on that fateful day in end April when many of the marchers were gunned down by the army resulted inthe King climbing down. Not many may be aware that many of those who led the march towards the Palace are theones now fighting the government in the central region. Abolition of Panchayat system of government, formationof an interim government under Krishna Prasad Bhattarai soon followed.

A draft constitution was prepared within a few months by a committee in which all the three groups theNepali Congress, the communists and the royalists were equally represented.  There is no record of thediscussions that took place in the drafting committee but some details are known.  On most of the issuesBhattarai of the Nepali Congress joined with the royalists.  It was said that the argument for retainingmonarchy despite opposition from the leftists was that Nepal being a multi ethnic, multi lingual society rivenwith social tensions would need the monarchy to hold such a segmented society.  Nothing could be fartherfrom truth.  In fact Bhattarai in spite of having undergone imprisonment at the hands of the King ( thelongest among the Nepali Congress leaders except Ganesh Man Singh) was generous enough to go for a compromisein which the communists were outmaneuvered.  With monarchy being retained, the demand to declare asecular State was deftly given a go by as the King symbolised the Hindu ethos as a reincarnation of Vishnu.

The Constitution had many good features and the inclusion of " right to information" was animprovement on the Indian constitution.   But there was one provision that was India specific- Article 126of the Constitution (125 of the draft) which needs approval of  two thirds of majority of both houses onany treaty on certain provisions which included waterr resources.  At the draft stage itself it waspointed out by friends of India of the long term implications of the provision.  What happened later isnot clear, but what is clear is that on this issue both the royalists and the communists combined to retainthis provision.  The result is there for all to see that no project has been implemented for the lastmany years and the only treaty signed between the two countries i.e the Mahakali treaty is in tatters.

Corruption soon followed the interim government: Not that there was no corruption before , but it was more widespread and painful to many of the younger cadreswho had suffered so much to bring in a multi party democracy.  It was sad to see many of the leaders ofall hues becoming corrupt and it looked as though they were in a hurry to collect as much as possible beforethey were to quit.  People who were traveling in bicycles then started going about in luxury cars. People who used to purchase bread from the Krishna Pavrotti meant for the middle class switched over to theAnnapurna hotel bakery for their bread.  People who used to assemble in the small tea shops along the Newroad and Thamel started meeting in the coffee shops of the five star Annapurna or the Yak and Yeti.  Thelife style of almost everyone had changed.

With corruption came internal bickering right from the top.. Prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala and thesupreme leader of Nepali Congress openly differed on every issue and Bhattarai as party President made it moredifficult for Koirala.. The Nepali Congress had a clear majority but yet had to resign soon due to internalopposition.

Things got worse subsequently and we have seen a succession of prime ministers and there was an interimperiod with the Communists coming to power in a coalition.  The instability continues to this day withthe two septuagenarians G.P.Koirala and Bhattarai fighting with each other directly or through proxies and everyone is  aware of the latest development with Deuba being suspended from the party for three yearsand Deuba in his turn having a general convention demanding his reinstatement.  The party is poised tosplit vertically and the gainer will be the communists.  The country is due for another election.

Today the economy is in shambles. The recent issue of Far Eastern Economic review places the GDP growth tobe the lowest in two decades with a growth of 1 percent whereas the ADB places it at somewhere in the 3.5percent range.  One factor has been the cost of the counter insurgency operations.  Another could bethe falling tourist traffic.  More importantly it is bad governance that has brought Nepal to this sadsituation.

If Nepal ‘s development is arrested, it has itself to blame.  It is understood that the key toNepal’s development is the exploitation of its water resources.  Water resources in Nepal is like thekeys to a bank locker where two persons hold the keys to open.  Without India’s support and willingnessto purchase power, Nepal is hardly in a position to use its water resources for its benefit.  Nepal isstill to get out of its mind set that it had been cheated in the past in the projects implemented.  Thisis not true but the mistrust continues.

The monarchy after the 1990 Constitution. 

It must be said to the late King’s credit that he never interfered openly unlike the present one evenduring times of crisis.  Except for Bhattarai he had no special liking to other top leaders of the NepaliCongress and particularly the Koirala clan but he scrupulously avoided any confrontation.  But where hefailed was in not letting the army deal with the Maoist insurgency much earlier despite repeated requests fromKoirala even after the worst ever terrorist incident that occurred on 1^st April 2001 at Thati Dandain Rukumkot village of Rukum.  In many instances the terrorists used to pass near the army camps beforeattacking Police Posts and yet the army never came to help. However it was the terrorists themselves whoforced the army to intervene when they attacked the army posts in Dang and Solakhumbu in end November 2001.

The present king Gyanendra is known to be an assertive and decisive person unlike his brother who alwayslooked for a consensus within his own family and his advisers.  True to his form it is learnt that hetook the initiative for declaring the emergency and for its extension which resulted in the latest splitwithin the Nepali Congress as the party’s assessment party was that with the terrorism bill already inposition, counterinsurgency operations could be managed.

In one of his rare interviews in October 2001, he made certain points which point to his thinking on someof the issues of Nepal.  The interview looks to be authentic The Palace has not disputed the report andif it was not correct, King Gyanendra true to his form would have put the editor of Nepal Samachar patrabehind the bars.  He made certain points that were interesting.

1. If the present constitution was made after a consensus of all political parties and the late King, isnot the participation of the King necessary on the important issues of the nation?.

2. Neither the wishes of the King nor that of the Maoists can bring about a republican system in thegovernment.  It is necessary for all to work within the system.

3. The people have a pre-emptive right to happiness under the present system.  However the situationis serious given the public complaints that they are subjected to ridicule and exploitation in the name ofdemocracy.

4.  He cannot keep quiet while witnessing such a plight of the country and the people.

5. He intends to play an optimum role for the good of the country and the people in keeping with the spiritof the Constitution framed in the cause of constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy.

Here is an active King who is unhappy with the way democracy is functioning.  But he cannot be apassive onlooker! This is a veiled warning to those politicians who are fighting among themselves withoutcaring for the people’s welfare.

Is there, therefore a threat to democracy?

We do not think so. No doubt the politicians have not acquitted themselves creditably in the governance ofthe country.  This charge you could be laid on many of the Indian states too.  But there is hope forNepal.  The younger crop of politicians who had sacrificed their youth in their quest for a multi partypolitical system are all in important positions now.   Persons like the last prime minister SherBahadurDeuba and others like Ramachandra Paudel, Chiranjeev Wagle, Balbahadur KC, Arjun Narsingh KC and manyothers are highly motivated and well regarded. Some of the UML leaders like Madhav Nepal are very balanced andresponsible.  Some of the local NGOs within the country are doing excellent work.  There are manyacademics, environmentalists like Deepak Gyawali, media persons like Kanak Mani Dikshit  of highintellect.  Nepal is not hobbled by any dynastic problems either though the Koirala clan is still active. In course of time, King Gyanendra would also come to realise his own limitations in the governance and theneed to work together for the benefit of the people and the country.

Conclusion

It looks that Nepal is still working towards a viable political order.  It has had democracy for a briefperiod of one year and some months in the sixties and now from 1990 onwards.  It will take time and itwill be rather unfair to pass any judgement.  The twin crisis, the Maoists (read terrorist) and theeconomic slowdown will have to be tackled by a determined leadership.  It is hoped that both thepolitical leadership and the King would work together to get over these major problems facing Nepal beforethinking of reviewing the constitutional monarchy as is being demanded by the Maoists

(Dr. S. Chandrasekharan is Director, South Asia AnalysisGroup)