Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Where I Stand On The Monarchy Question


I stand neutral, but that is the neutrality of a democrat. And my observations of shifting moods on the same topic are those of a political scientist. And the moods sure have been shifting.

I feel the need to address this issue, because the Gagan-Girija imbroglio has brough it to the forefront like nothing before within the democratic camp. (Girijaspeak: When Republicans Are Royalists, 5 Steps To Democracy)

What do I mean by the neutrality of a democrat?

Gagan Thapa and the likes of him can be as republican as they might want to be. I greatly respect his commitment to the democratic cause. He has fast been emerging the very face of the movement. Freedom of thought and expression is a fundamental human right. Gagan has it. This is where Girija's commitment to the democratic spirit is suspect. His track record of playing foul by republicans like Gagan is a disservice to the cause of democracy. Girija does not have to share the sentiment, but he has to defend Gagan's right to be republican. And if cadres vote for Gagan, then so be it.

That umbrella I have for Gagan, I also have for the Maoists. If they are republicans, then so be it.

But then that umbrella also extends to all Nepalis. A poll from late 2004 shows a 60% support for a Constitutional Monarchy. I doubt the figures remain that high after 2/1 because what the country has right now is an Absolute Monarch. And the slide will likely continue. But whatever the figure, whatever the slide, or lack thereof, there is no escaping a Constituent Assembly.

If such an Assembly retains a Constitutional Monarchy, I sure am not going to have a heartburn. And I have full confidence an avowed republican like Gagan will respect the wish of the people. And I believe I have the best plan for a future form of such a Constitutional Monarchy. (Proposed Constitution)

A very small minority sentiment in the country - like 5% - is for an absolute monarchy. My "umbrella" covers also those people. Kirti Bishta, Tulsi Giri, Sharad Shaha - the Nepali Rasputins - all belong in that group. Through his ridiculous interpretations of the Article 127, King G has also shown his sentiments fall in that camp, his fantassies fall in that camp. I mean, Article 127 was supposed to have been like the appendix, there but unused. Instead he has ruptured that appendix.

I consider it my democratic responsibility to protect those with republican sentiments.

All three camps have been in the wrong at various times, in their various postures. But that does not mean all three are equally responsible. The king is primarily responsible, because he is the chief executive. And my natural allegiance of course is with the democratic camp.

I think the ideological stances on the question of the monarchy become less and less relevant over time. It is going to be more about shifting moods among the people. The movement has been gathering obvious momentum. The snowballing is happening. The king's orchestrated, cheerful photo opportunities do not deceive me.

If the mood shifts enough, the king is going to get his wish. The country is going to bypass the Constituent Assembly and head straight for a Democratic Republic. The rumblings can be heard.

He is set to receieve a major welcome in the form of a large protest rally when he shows up in New York on September 16. The diaspora grapevines have become live wires. A lot of organizing is going on.

In The News
at No comments:

Girijaspeak: When Republicans Are Royalists


Girija says Narahari Acharya and Gagan Thapa are "royalists." Acharya and Thapa just so happen to be the two most visible, vocal republican names under the NC umbrella. Logic?

Girija made sure there were no media people around before he made his remarks. Logic?

His remarks displeased most people in his hearing distance, not to say beyond. Logic?

Girija has said a republican setup is out of question. But then he is on record saying he is for a Constituent Assembly. How can you be for both? An Assembly turns the monarchy into an open topic of debate to be decided by the people. Logic?

Girija is for House revival, which is to say the 1990 constitution is alive and kicking. But he is also for a Constituent Assembly, which is to say the 1990 document is dead. Logic?

Girija repeatedly warns the king the country is on its way to becoming a republic, which means he is a closet republican. But then he has made it absolutely clear he is not a republican. Logic?

Girija is and has always done his very best to undermine all the up and coming names within the Nepali Congress. But he accuses the likes of Gagan Thapa of wanting to disband the party? Is Gagan Thapa that big a threat? So big that if Gagan Thapa were to want, there might not be a Nepali Congress tomorrow? Logic?

In a monarchy, the sovereignty might rest with Gyanendra. In a democracy, the sovereignty might rest with the people. But in the Nepali Congress the sovereignty rests with Girija. Logic?

In a democratic party policy decisions would be made by the central committee and the general convention. But in Girija's party policy decisions are made when Girija faces a microphone at this or that public event. Logic?

Absolute monarchy is hell, but the 1990s were no paradise either. But Girija has been singularly silent on the self-criticism front. Logic?

When the palace detains and releases Girija, he is a freedom fighter. When the palace detains and releases Gagan, he is a palace lackey. Logic?

There was Shaha Rule, then Rana Rule, then Shaha Rule, then Koirala Rule, then Shaha Rule. Logic?

Girija wants the king to be brought within the law. But he does not want the kingship to end. Kings are, by definition, above the law. Logic?

The last time Girija was a student was when he failed his I.A. exams, which was some time in the last century. But he shows up at the NSU convention in Pokhara, and tries to steer its proceedings. Logic?
In The News
at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)