Dialogue Is The Democratic Way

A Message From The Email Discussions

Nepalese are not begging any more. There is no question of DHUNGRO LUKAUNE.

Do you beg to the DAKA who just looted your house?

OR you want to punish him whenever & however you find.

I think, some of you still think that DAKA will return your looted money back to you, when you beg...If you think so, go ahead & beg to this 'so called mantriparishad ko Adhkshya' I am not for that.

Nepalese are already rising to crush him.. in a near future, you will find nobdy mentioning any name of that criminal and his institution. (that institution will no more be of Nepali's institution)

First of all, the mohi-magne-dhungro-lukaune metaphor has nothing to do with begging. Maybe you don't know a whole lot about Nepali villages. But mohi-magne is an act of a neighbor. People ask each other for mohi. It is not an act of begging, and not even an act of seeking aid, or an act of destitution. It is an act of social bonding.

So no, noone is proposing any form of begging from anyone.

Second, I vehemently disagree with 2/1. I have, more vocally than most, more diligently than most. On the other hand, I also try to understand.

It was not the king who dissolved the House in 2002. It was Deuba. Girija cornered Deuba withing the party, and Deuba looked for a safety valve. So half the people should blame Deuba, the other half should blame Girija. Take your pick.

Girija's response to the Maoist insurgency was always military, never political. Go back to 1996, to 2000.

And I think it has been cruel for anyone to suggest this king might have had anything to do with the palace massacre. Even kings deserve family lives, private lives.

As for Article 127. This king did not write it. As for using it, Nepal is in a sorry shape. If a full fledged civil war affecting 90% of the territory is not an emergency, I don't know what is. Nepal is near the top of the global agenda. Nepal is the most violent, almost failed state. Maybe Article 127 was meant for situations like this.

People like Girija Koirala and Madhav Nepal had the option to go for a Constituent Assembly and seek a political solution to the insurgency back in 2000. But they did not even entertain the idea.

2,000 lives are not enough, it has to be 12,000 before these democrats will finally come around to the idea of a Constituent Assembly. A dissolved, non-existent parliament is not enough, there has to be a 2/1 before these democrats will come around to really truly seeking a political solution to the insurgency.

And look at the utter lack of internal democracy inside the Nepali Congress. Should we blame the king for that?

Why am I saying all these things?

I don't want to falsely blame the king for things he can not rightly be blamed for so I can more effectively focus on things that he is responsible for.

1. He has overstretched Article 127 to the point it has become a constitution in its own right. That is flat wrong.
   
2. Since 2/1 he has lead an illegitimate government filled with people with dark pasts. That is objectionable.
   
3. He has been the chief executive for the past seven months. The insurgency has not grown any weaker. He has made no efforts whatsoever to seek a political solution to it, which is widely considered the only viable way. In short, he has failed.
   
4. The palace and the army have looted the state treasury. That is highly objectionable.
   

And there is the broad topic of peace making.

Yitzhak Rabin said: "You don't make peace with friends. You make peace with enemies." I don't mind your painting the king as a bad guy. But my point is that is precisely why we need to take the initiative for dialogue. I am seeking dialogue, as in political dialogue. I am not saying let's go hang out, chill out with the king, and forget the protests.

I want the protest rally to be the largest possible. But I don't want to close doors on the dialogue option.

Some of the things I might say to the king if I had a chance. Of course it would be in Nepali, although I am a little leery of all the grammar that goes with addressing a king: I might not get it right always. All that garibakseko, dibakseko stuff.

1. Your Majesty, President Clinton has said in his autobiography about a long talk on global politics he had with Queen Elizabeth that if it were not for the circumstances of her birth, she might have had a rather remarkable diplomatic career. I think that might be extra true of you. I think you are an able person. But it is not about your personal qualities. It is not about you being more deft at statecraft than Girija Koirala or Madhav Kumar Nepal or Sher Bahadur Deuba. It is about democratic principles. You may not take and legitimately keep the executive hot seat.
   
2. You have already so outstretched Article 127. Why not use it to reinstate the House so as to bring back the derailed democratic process?
   
3. I think there is no military solution to the insurgency. But there is a ready political solution. Do you agree or disagree?
   
4. If an interim government were to guarantee a constitutional monarchy, and the guarantee were guarded by the Supreme Court, would you then accede to the country going through a Constituent Assembly process? Because a Constituent Assembly is the only elections that can be held. No other elections are possible. And a Constituent Assembly is a good thing, it is a great thing.
   

And I would promptly report on the dialogue right here at this blog.

Generation Next
Mohi Magne, Dhungro Lukaune
To Meet Or Not To Meet
Opposition To The Idea Of Meeting With The King
Letter To Sharad Chandra Shaha
Mainstreaming The Monarchy

Generation Next

Look at these key figures:

1. 63% chose constitutional monarchy while the remaining were split between the 22% who preferred executive monarchy and the 15% who wanted a republic
2. ....... a thin minority of 5.5% respondents favoured a reinstatement of the dissolved HoR
3. (51%) favoured framing a new constitution
4. ..... suggested, by a clear majority, to go for a round table conference, interim government including the Maoists, and a constituent assembly

I first made mention of this poll at my blog entry Pradip Giri: DaMaJaMa on May 8. When I want to know where the people stand, this is what I go by for lack of something better and more current. Some of the key figures are as follows:

1. ...... between July 1994 and October 2002. The House of Representatives was dissolved six times, special sessions of the parliament were summoned seven times, and the government changed 12 times
2. 61% of the respondents feel that people do not enjoy equal rights
3. 58% feel that everyone is not free to speak one's mind
4. ...... that the people have the power to change the government they do not like is doubted by as many as 41%
5. ..... courts scored highest at 30% respondents expressing very high trust in the institution, followed by the election commission (26%), local government (25.5%), army (25.5%), police (21%), civil servant (21%), central government (19.5%), parliament (17%), and political parties (14%)
6. Nearly two-thirds of Nepali citizens stuck to democracy, with only 10% prepared to accept dictatorship in some situations
7. 64% ‘strongly agreed' that the ‘country should be governed by the people chosen by fair elections', only one-fourth ‘strongly agreed' that the ‘country should be governed by the king.' The figure was even lower, only 11%, for army rule
8. 63% chose constitutional monarchy while the remaining were split between the 22% who preferred executive monarchy and the 15% who wanted a republic
9. (79%), affirmed the suitability of democracy in Nepal
10. ...... opinion in favour of a ‘round table conference' is distinctly high, as 69% opted for it. Some 22.5% respondents suggested new election of the HoR. Only a thin minority of 5.5% respondents favoured a reinstatement of the dissolved HoR
11. half the respondents (49%) favoured the formation of an interim government including the Maoists. 29% respondents were in favour of a new elected government. Those who stood for all-party government consisted 20.5%
12. (51%) favoured framing a new constitution
13. ..... suggested, by a clear majority, to go for a round table conference, interim government including the Maoists, and a constituent assembly

• What The People Feel by Krishna Hachhethu .....‘king in council of ministers' in 1951, a combination of ‘sovereign monarch and elected parliament' in 1959, and recently ‘king in parliament' in 1990 ..... ‘The days of monarchy being seen but not heard, watching the people's difficulties but not addressing them and being a silent spectator to their tearstained faces are over.' ...... initiating a system of executive monarchy in contravention of the 1990 Constitution...... parties and leaders concentrated more on power politics and self-aggrandizement, breaching democratic values and norms, which in turn contributed to an intensification of political instability, anarchy and chaos...... between July 1994 and October 2002. The House of Representatives was dissolved six times, special sessions of the parliament were summoned seven times, and the government changed 12 times..... intensification of power-centric intra-party conflicts, defiance of party whips, disintegration of parties, horse trading of members of parliament, manipulation of constitutional loopholes, political intervention by the palace and the court...... 61% of the respondents feel that people do not enjoy equal rights; 58% feel that everyone is not free to speak one's mind. Even the minimal achievement of democracy in ensuring that the people have the power to change the government they do not like is doubted by as many as 41%........ courts scored highest at 30% respondents expressing very high trust in the institution, followed by the election commission (26%), local government (25.5%), army (25.5%), police (21%), civil servant (21%), central government (19.5%), parliament (17%), and political parties (14%)....... Nearly two-thirds of Nepali citizens stuck to democracy, with only 10% prepared to accept dictatorship in some situations; 28% said democracy or dictatorship did not make a difference to them ...... level of support for democracy in Nepal is comparable to that in a long-standing democracy like India and is much higher than many countries of Latin America..... 64% ‘strongly agreed' that the ‘country should be governed by the people chosen by fair elections', only one-fourth ‘strongly agreed' that the ‘country should be governed by the king.' The figure was even lower, only 11%, for army rule......... (79%), affirmed the suitability of democracy in Nepal...... When asked to choose what they liked most about a democracy, 68% chose freedom to speak and act, something they have been denied by the imposition of emergency in the country...... the king's intervention of 4 October 2002 ..... 84% surveyed Nepali citizens observed that things got ‘bad' or ‘very bad' after this intervention ...... 63% chose constitutional monarchy while the remaining were split between the 22% who preferred executive monarchy and the 15% who wanted a republic...... a clear residue of yearning for king's rule among the less privileged sections of society: among women, rural dwellers and the less educated....... support for abolition of monarchy goes up with education and exposure and reaches 29% among the highly educated...... the support for executive monarchy declines sharply with age: 35% of the elders support this idea while only 18% of the young and middle aged respondents are for an executive monarchy...... A majority of respondents, who come up with definite answers, suggested the need for a round table conference, an interim government including the Maoists, and a new constitution....... opinion in favour of a ‘round table conference' is distinctly high, as 69% opted for it. Some 22.5% respondents suggested new election of the HoR. Only a thin minority of 5.5% respondents favoured a reinstatement of the dissolved HoR....... 68% men and 71% women, and 70% villagers and 66% urban dwellers stamped on ‘a round table conference'....... a greater support to the round table conference than a fresh election of the HoR...... Choice to ‘round table conference' stepped up from 66% in hill to 72% in terai to 80% in mountain...... Support to the round table conference climbed up distinctly with the increase in education, from 60.5% (literate) to 70% (school level education) to 75% (higher level education)....... close to half the respondents (49%) favoured the formation of an interim government including the Maoists. 29% respondents were in favour of a new elected government. Those who stood for all-party government consisted 20.5%....... (51%) favoured framing a new constitution ...40% respondents suggested amendment of the constitution. Those who stood for retention of the present constitution without any amendment was very thin, a mere 9%....... Among the surveyed Nepali citizens who subscribed to a new constitution, the overwhelming majority (76%) supported the election of a constituent assembly....... accepted in terai by a substantial majority of 76%, followed by 74% in the hill region, and 50% in the mountain...... To overcome the nine-year long armed conflict, Nepali voters (among those who come up with a definite answer) suggested, by a clear majority, to go for a round table conference, interim government including the Maoists, and a constituent assembly ......... The king's claim to represent popular will and aspirations in the royal proclamation is not backed by any of the known and reliable instruments of public opinion like free and fair elections or a referendum...... survey offers little evidence to support the king's presumption about popular will...... King Gyanendra's action of 1 February is not quite in line with, if not directly opposed to, the way the people of Nepal think....... the coming days will be hard for the king.

Mohi Magne, Dhungro Lukaune
To Meet Or Not To Meet
Opposition To The Idea Of Meeting With The King
Letter To Sharad Chandra Shaha
Mainstreaming The Monarchy
Royal Family Pictorial

If the people's wish were to be done, this is what would unfold:

(1) The obstinate Girija should forget about the 1999 House. The 1999 House is dead. The 1990 constitution is dead.
(2) The monarchy is not dead. Those who want a republic get cancelled out by those who want an executive monarchy. 63% want a constitutional monarchy.
(3) The seven parties should revise their 4-point agenda, and adopt a 3-point agenda: (a) roundtable conference that would lead to a Maoist disarmament that might involve inducting some of their armed cadres into the state army, (b) interim government, and (c) elections to a constituent assembly that guarantees a constitutional monarchy.


Let me elaborate on that third point. Why? Because the people want a constitutional monarchy. And that is also the best way to neutralize an executive king and and send the army back to the barracks. If the support for the monarchy in any form or fashion were 20% or 30%, would I be saying the same thing? No. I consider it my democratic responsibility to respect that 63% figure. Just like I consider it my democratic responsibility to protect Gagan Thapa's right to be as republican as he might want to be. There is no contradiction between my two stances.

And, by the way, did you make a note of this: ........ courts scored highest at 30% respondents expressing very high trust in the institution, followed by the election commission (26%), local government (25.5%), army (25.5%), police (21%), civil servant (21%), central government (19.5%), parliament (17%), and political parties (14%)

Girija is a big reason why. If you were to ask, Girija Babu, if it is a choice between reviving the House and reviving democracy, which would you rather have? His quick reply would be: House! This man has taken democracy hostage due to his obstinate demand.

But I guess after 12,000 lives and a 2/1 coup, he did finally come around to the Constituent Assembly idea. That is progress. And for now we go by that.

And, yes, it would be perfectly democratic to hold elections to a Constituent Assembly where a constitutional monarchy is already guaranteed.