Editorial

The near certainty of systemic collapse now raises the anticipation of the forthcoming turn of events. A constitution that was admittedly ‘saved’ by a judicial instruction to appointment a particular person prime minister at a particular time and date finds itself in a judicial quagmire with constitutionalists admitting that the bar’s demand for the resignation of the chief justice would, if met by the chief justice, short circuit the constitutional process while, at this stage of the tussle between the bar and the chief justice, the tussle itself and the continued retention of the bench would mean that the judiciary is to be sullied further. It is certain, thus, that the extent the judiciary’s laundry is being washed in public would ask for a thorough overhaul of personnel there to reintroduce the necessary system of trust in those sacrosanct quarters for laws to be fairly interpreted and applied. Of course, the need for overhaul sent shivers down the spine of the executive and the legislature. It is in sharing their faults that the dirt has been rubbed on the judiciary which had so far shown a remarkable continuity amidst the flames and fury of political change. That the overhaul in the judiciary cannot happen without equipping the political system for such is not unknown to the beneficiaries of the system. It is not for nothing that talk of fresh elections is common to say of leaders and experts now. What is forgotten is that the judicial mess evolved around the constitutional impasse on fresh elections. The UML’s legislative majority was brought under a constitutional microscope. It is much talked of two-thirds was deliberately broken and a new Congress alignment forged to enable the judiciary to appoint a new coalition government which is the actual cause celebre for the moment. It is not just the judiciary thus. It is the total system that must be overhauled. Elections at this stage, the postponement of which the judiciary attempted to enable, one knows, will merely be a patchwork cover-up. The fault is systemic. It is also constitutional. The constitution must go. This much is understood. But, how? It is this question that prompts speculation. How fast and how severe the coming change, if it comes, comes is actually the current obsession of politics. It is to cut this short that the prime minister should tell the king to come to join elections if he insists on ‘doing’ politics. Deuba didn’t realize that this lure has escaped both novelty and shine. Both Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and Madan Bhandari have demonstrated that their public barb to the king hardly brought in safe electoral politics. Latter-day copy cats among whom Deuba is the poorest example only attract ridicule as we have. So, if it is the king that should bring the change and the 1990 constitution should be the destination, how sweeping and severe is the change to be? This is where much interest lies. Political developments over decades have left no institution, including palace politics pristine. To add to the challenge is the now widely realized and admitted foreign hand in the appointment of key state offices and political personnel. Also, the failure of king Gyanendra’s previous correction attempt is enough deterrent to attracting hope. Still, more will have to be done. Convincing efforts At change from the top to attract a hopeful population are urgent. There is one consensus though. The time gap is limited. Time, that is, for national survival to be made within reach.