People are the real bases of politics of any country. All concepts of sovereignty like right of self-determination and freedom make people the focal point. In a confusing situation of political contradictions in Nepal , the mass of the people who are actively taking part in rallies organized by the King and the political parties are the real indicators. If they are made the base, a synthesis of view will emerge, which would again remind us that the point of unity is greater than that of conflicts and disruptions.
If the people are given free chances to exercise their rights guaranteed by the constitution to choose their governance, most of the problems in Nepal could be resolved to a large extent. The context of the problem at present lies upon the full operation of the constitution again. The King has already instructed the government to complete the elections for municipal and to the parliament level within mid 2007 in whatever the circumstances may come. That has brought the political parties into the agitation again to foil the elections without any viable alternative. However, the mood of confrontation may hardly help to achieve their need.
Mysticism has come into the political predictions that a Tsunami like mass upheaval would bring the change that they desire. A liberal democratic party like Nepali Congress seems to have fallen into a well-laid trap by communists-dominated alliance, which has the declared goal to achieve republican state through the decision of constituent assembly. But, it is not clear who will decide to overthrow the present constitution and hold an election for such constituent assembly. One is not sure if the constituent assembly overwhelmingly decides in favor of active monarchy, whether that decision would be respected by varied brands of communists. At least one thing is very clear, these Romanists in politics would never permit to reactivate the constitution by means of elections from local level to the parliament.
Days are under the countdown for the elections of the municipal level. More than one fifth of the enlightened population of the urban areas may get involved in the elections. Considering the responses to the past elections, people in Nepal have always given positive response for any kind of mass participation in the elections process. Even they who don’t come to the polling booth may hardly support any disruptive move by agitating parties. Even if parties disrupt the elections, people may consider it against the sanctity of the elections. It would be very difficult to justify obstructing the people from going to vote and it will not appear as a sound democratic practice. One may simply wish that political parties resist the temptation of creating disturbances at the polling time. It is equally true that this kind of elections will not have the support and respectability as it has been seen in the past.
Some people say that the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq have some lessons to Nepal but elections of those countries were held under the control of foreign army occupying those countries. That is not the case here in Nepal . It would have definitely a better chance for credibility. However controversial the actions of the King might have been, monarchy is still a highly revered institution. So, despite protests and dissensions, some edifice of elected bodies may come into operation.
In fact, holding municipal election is not the real solution of the present problem. The country has to get united within the framework of the constitution. For that purpose, every segment of politics has to realize the commonalities of interest in democracy. Sandwiched between two big military powers, Nepal cannot afford to remain a divided house. Conflicts of interests have to be resolved. Even the loud thinking of constituent assembly is not a ready-made solution that can work like a machine to produce desired results instantly without any chaos or conflict. Considering all pros and cons of the situation, let the constitution be reactivated and let all these controversies put into its agenda. The reactivation of the constitution can be done through only two ways: either go to the elections under credible political arrangement or let the previous house be a base to begin with. The precondition of the revival of the parliament seems to have been already hinted, time and again, by the King to find out a commonality of interest of all. The King has a clear indication that the national interest be the meeting point of all political forces. Unfortunately, that has gone unheeded in the mood of anger and agitation. Politics need a cool-headed approach at this critical time. Compared with any other controversial schemes, this could be less controversial because most of the political parties have commitment in the present constitution and they participated in three subsequent general elections without any reservations about the constitution in the recent past.
But there must be restraint from both the sides. Political parties have to resist their temptation to declare that the revival of the previous parliament would be a stepping stone for republic. That kind of extremist views would do more harm to the cause of democracy than any. The politicians who declare that the revival of the parliament would facilitate them to do away with the institution of monarchy are, in fact, promoting the cause championed by some hardliners who have been lately ushered into the power game. Sensible leaders have to protect their parties from provocateurs who are making the task more and more difficult.
