Editorial»
Abide by Laxman Rekha
DEC 04 - Politics today has become a dirty game because of the politicians who do not abide by the ‘Laxman Rekha’ once they come to power. It is every politician’s responsibility to see that the Laxman Rekha is not crossed in any pretext and disguise. Abiding by Laxman Rekha can be interpreted in a variety of ways, among others, including a demand for the government to respect the freedom of the press and a call for restraint by politicians. It applies also to the need to observe legal and constitutional obligations by the concerned government.
Now this issue has gained momentum with political parties and politicians’ protesting the change in the recommendation made earlier by the constitutional council, entrusted with the responsibility of suggesting names to the king to fill up the vacant posts of constitutional bodies. Though the finance minister has claimed that there is a provision of revision in the list of recommended name, many political parties are not convinced with his views and have stated that the act of revision has violated rules of conduct that constitutes the core essence of Nepal’s newly restored parliamentary democracy. This development has drawn massive attention of the media and the general people. Certainly, with the revision of the list offered earlier by the constitutional council, the very norm and essence of constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy has been once again weakened.
However, it is significant that many top politicians who have opposed the revision in the list forwarded by the constitutional council, at one point or the other, had been the subjects of legitimate public criticism for the their gross violation of constitutional norms. In fact, the background for October 4 declaration was prepared by these politicians who crossed the Laxman Rekha several times. With the revision in the list sent earlier by the constitutional council, it is once more clear that our country is far from having a democratic tradition and institution, even after more than one decade of the restoration of limited democracy. The chief justice has also been criticised by the media for his failure to uphold the democratic spirit of the constitution.
However, the root cause of the present development is not the failure of constitutional council, but the 1990 constitution itself, which has left many issues vague and imprecise. The constitution says nothing specifically on what the government will do in case the king refuses to accept the recommendation made by the constitution body, or for that matter any recommendation made by the government. Such complication felt now will continue to crop up in future too, as long as the constitutional provisions remain ambiguous and obscure. Of course, ambitious politicians can over look the precise and distinct constitutional provision too, but then no excuse should be valid for leaving things unclear and ill defined in the constitution.
Very recently, Sri Lanka faced confrontation between the Prime Minister and the President, mainly because of some dualistic provisions of the President and the Prime Minister’s powers. Sri Lankan President is not a figurehead of a state. Chandrika Kumartunga is constitutionally all-powerful head, and so she took over the portfolios of defence, interior, and mass communication on November 4 to the great discomfiture of her Prime Minister. The cause of present crisis in Sri Lanka is the struggle for power between the President and the Prime Minister. Chandrika Kumartunga is the head of the executive of the government, apart from being the commander in chief of the armed forces. Therefore, she is not going to handover her executive power to the Prime Minister, whatever the latter might say to plead his case for more power.
In our country too, the fundamental cause of the present crisis is the loose definition of power between the king and the government. If the king has refused to give his consent to the sole name recommended by the constitutional council earlier, it is for the simple reason that the king does not want to yield any power to the government that is not clearly defined in the constitution. It is, therefore, futile to say that the king has returned or refused to accept the earlier recommendation forwarded by the constitutional council. The king has done so as he knows that the present constitution has given him enough room to assert for his own role and power.
Now the question is not whether the king or the chief justice is crossing the Laxman Rekha, but whether the present constitution has given them any room to manipulate, according to their wishes. It is in this context that we have to raise the question of indeterminate constitutional provisions of 1990 rather than questioning whether or not the chief justice has fulfilled his constitutional obligations. Now Madhav Kumar Nepal and Girija Prasad Koirala should realise that the root cause of the present problem is not the king’s refusal to accept the recommendation of the constitutional council, but the present constitution, which lacks clear demarcation of rights of the King and the government. If it had been so, now the king would have accepted everything recommended by the government as a constitutional obligation. It is not expected that the king will do every thing in accordance with the wishes of the parliament or the government, if he is not constitutionally required to act.
Many politicians belonging to the Nepali Congress and the UML have said that the king has crossed the Laxman Rekha in politics by refusing to accept the earlier recommendation of the constitutional council. However, it should be recalled that had the movement of 1990 resolved the boundaries of rights and powers, by now the king might have acted like the king and queen of Japan and Britain. We have to accept that our constitution does not prescribe the same provisions as demarcated for the king of Japan and the queen of Britain.
Having said all this, it is every responsible politician’s moral duty to abide by certain rules and regulations. Of course, constitution needs to be clear and precise in guide lining political and other measures for conducting the government’s business, but it should not be forgotten that no constitution could itself be perfect and flawless. Many things are left open to the discretion of the politicians holding the crucial posts. If they cross the Laxman Rekha, certainly there will be political disaster and catastrophe. The ongoing fiasco, which resulted due to the revision made in the name recommended by the constitutional council, could have been avoided easily. Not only in Nepal, in America and Europe too, politicians are found crossing the limit of their authority. In those countries too, the governments hardly care for the people’s sentiments. For instance, the Spanish government has dispatched its troops to Iraq despite over 90% people’s opposition to such an action. In Nepal, however, we expect that our politicians and leaders will abide by certain constitutional norms and respect their people’s sentiment in future.Posted on: 2003-12-03 11:05
Headlines
Advertisements
