Editorial

The gradual realization that the constitution, at best, is not functioning and, at worse, should be torn outright, braces the country for the impending change. The general conclusion is that change is inevitable. How imminent is more or less a guesstimate on part of the supposed knowledgeable! The fact of the matter is that national politics has been so distanced from Nepali interests that those in the know would be non-Nepalese who have come to the center of political change in Nepal and have been claiming a hand in the change for quite some time now. Among the many, many things this country owes that former ruler is an early realization that this country particularly needs a system that can keep foreign interests from dominating Nepali national interests. The panchayat system he introduced in the country did not deny his people the right to choice of public personnel through elections. He did however insist that the organized partisan interest does not overwhelm national interest. What has been proven since the past three decades since the restoration of the multi-party system in 1990 is that the political organization has overwhelmed the constitution. The latest constitutional crisis, which is not recognized as such by practitioners of politics in the country, stems from crass partisan interests overwhelming constitutional interests. Suffice it to say that for three decades of Panchayat rule, the opposition was narrowed down to its ‘partyless’ traits which impinged on the individuals’ right to organize. The tragedy is that the panchayat or its philosophy ultimately became so transient it was made to bend to repeated organized interests backed externally if not sponsored outright. Since the panchayat had the monarchical leadership as its central role, this was interpreted as securing monarchical politics while the fact was that the monarch is asked to coordinate constitutionally as would the Western monarchs if their constitution was as threatened as in Nepal. As is clear by now, national performance was at its peak when the king led and its dilution began when latter-day liberalism compromised panchayat cohesion to the benefit of the systemic opposition. Mahendra’s achievement is so openly accepted today that it is in stark contrast to the deliberate and systematic subterfuge of national denial perpetrated by a system that could no longer cover up national achievements. This singular popular recognition has, rightly, served as a beacon and thus beckons. A tempting pat on our backs would be welcome when the streets are gradually talking of Mahendra-ism and the restoration of the 1990 constitution. But Mahendra-ism was admitted to be one tempered by national need and the need of the times. There is already the broad framework of national policy (re-discovered again) in Prithwi Narayan Shah’s treaties on governance. What can be emulated is at the top since politicians will be politicians and they will pursue the possibility. Mahendra met each member of his cabinet personally as also collectively. He regularly met with his opposition however vociferous their criticism. His sources of information were so effective that the opposition after coming to power exclaimed in consternation that timely information had become utterly lacking for the government after 1990. Most importantly perhaps there was rigid command and control and reward and punishment. None escaped these fundaments of king Mahendra and it should be high time that functionaries should be reminded of this.