In his recent Royal Proclamation, King Gyanendra has again reiterated his commitment to constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. King Gyanendra’s words and languages used in the proclamation have many points of unity with the country’s organized political forces. Despite his commitments towards constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy, King Gyanendra, too, has shown his own limitations and constraints while leaders of other organized political parties are, knowingly and unknowingly, inching towards irrelevant and uncompromising path harping the political slogans to the extent of demanding republic. Similarly, King Gyanendra has not shown flexibility towards organized political parties insisting to continue to follow his own three years road map. What is inevitable now is country’s major political forces – the monarchy and the organized political parties - will head towards the confrontational course. As Nepal ’s geo-strategic position demands unity and coexistence among political forces to remain as an independent state, no one can follow the extremism for longer period of time. History has taught us that division and confrontation is going to be costly for nation as well as for political forces.
Personally, there may be some likes or dislikes and the King may have personal grudges against the behavior of political leaders but these leaders represent organized political parties with mass following. Some leaders of political parties, too, may have likes and dislikes on the functioning style of particular individual King but they cannot discard the importance of the institution of monarchy - which guarantees Nepal ’s independence, stability and unity. Whether one likes it or not, monarchy is an institution originated and gradually evolved in Nepal and it has strong roots in this country. Despite taking most unpopular actions in recent years, the overwhelming majority of people still abide by its legitimate order. This is what shows the deep-rooted feeling towards monarchy in Nepal .
At the time of national crisis, Nepalese are fortunate to have the institution of monarchy - which saves the country from heading towards chaos. Leaders of organized political parties must realize this political reality and give up speaking rhetoric and political jargons against the institution of monarchy to the extent of calling to remove it. Not humiliation but respect to the King and institution of monarchy will bring the substantial political change. The country has gained nothing but extreme results in the three years’ campaign of hatred against monarchy.
The King and his followers, too, must keep in mind that organized political parties are also originated in Nepal and they have been gradually evolving in this society. The role of organized political forces that are mobilizing a large number of people cannot be minimized just on the basis of certain likes or dislikes or on the basis of behavior of certain individual leaders. Instead of humiliating each other, the King and the political parties must find out ways to solve the political problems following the concept of live and let live. The King in his proclamation shows the way out for broader alliance for the sake of the country’s independence and sovereignty. As the King says patriotism can be made a common meeting point with organized political forces, it needs to be further clarified. For the resumption of meaningful agreement, political parties also need to show their commitment towards the common cause that is patriotism. The time now is whatever the proclamation the King has made; it needs to be translated into action. Nepali Congress as a major centrist party appears to have few differences with the message of the King. The King- who has legitimized the dissolution of previous parliament – may have the moral pressure not to undo that. Instead, the King seems to be determined to hold the elections of parliament within a definite period. Let whatever may come, he is determined to hold the elections. And that is quite plausible and in accordance with the letter and spirit of the institution. The Congress party, on the one hand, does not see the elections can possibly be held and, on the other hand, believes that it can do away with the (despotic monarchy). The tragedy with them is that whatever is possible in accordance with the constitution they don’t want to accomplish – that is holding the elections of parliament – whereas what is not possible that is removing the monarchy, they want to achieve. Till the party come to the realistic and pragmatic agenda, there appears no chance that these two nearest political forces could unite and work together for the promotion of democratic process in the country. Whatever the numerical strength of the communists in the street, the vast majority of the silent masses may not support them. If the King and democratic parties prominently the Nepali Congress reach into some sort of understanding and agree to work together, other political forces would automatically follow the suit.
As King Gyanendra said “the essence of Nepal ’s glorious history is fact that the Nepalese people themselves determine Nepal ’s national agenda in the interest of the country and their own.” The most pertinent question in this context is the initiative has to come from the King and being a moderate political force, leaders of Nepali Congress must have positive mindset to respond. Time is passing away very fast for them to act in accordance with the call of each other’s duty.
