WORLDWIDE CAMPAIGN TO RESTORE DEMOCRACY IN NEPAL

To the President, Congressmen and Senators, USA, P.M. India, U.K., Secretary General U.N., and other World Leaders.

The King of Nepal usurped power from a democratically elected government and there was not even a murmur of dissent from the worlds capitals against the totally unconstitutional step of the Nepalese king (see discussion below). This is yet another attempt by the Nepalese monarchy to kill a nascent democracy the last one being in 1960, which led to autocracy and repression in Nepal till 1990. Will the common Nepalese again fall into the grind of poverty, slavery and repression by the privileged few? Will the world just keep watching while all this happens and yet do nothing? Will the educated Nepalese keep quiet and blindfold themselves while their motherland degenerates into feudalism?


Perhaps the worlds disinterest with the affairs of Nepal is because it is not a lucrative destination for the big corporations or because it does not have weapons of mass destruction and no oil fields. But are the Nepalese not humans? After centuries of slavery a shaky democracy was beginning to take roots, people were finding their voice, and now suddenly democracy has again being taken away. The king has made Lokendra Chand Prime Minister and Badri Mandal Deputy Prime Minister, who are both Panchayati (autocratic feudal system of governance prior to democracy) byproducts. The king has already reneged on his word of appointing a non-political person as PM. It is all too obvious that he wants to restore the 'Panchayat System' of autocratic monarchy. Ignoring major parties also exhibits this. The former democratic system of governance (however corrupt in Nepal) provided at least a scope for the common man to speak out without the fear of losing ones life - under the monarchy this is no longer true. Several journalists have already vanished for not towing the line (see the Reporters without Borders news on the extra-judicial killing of a Nepalese journalist known for his Maoist leanings http://www.rsf.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=50). If the world leaders do not put pressure now the autocracy will get so much entrenched that there will be no opposition left.


Yet everything would be fine for Nepal, if only the king was a great personality. Unfortunately, he is so archaic in his beliefs that he sacrifices animals to ward off evil and bring more fortune to his family. In fact during his last visit to India, in June 2002 he even sacrificed animals at various Indian temples thereby showing utter disrespect to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of India (see website on animal sacrifices in Nepal: http://www.stopsacrifice.org). With such irrational and superstitious beliefs how can he lead Nepal forward? Neither do the majority of Nepalese believe in the propaganda of the kings supporters that he is a unifying factor for Nepal wrecked by an internecine feud between Maoist insurgents demanding rights - most of them equal to the directive principles of state policies (articles 24-26 of the constitution) and which had been totally disregarded by the elected politicians. The only people who would benefit from monarchy are the Nepalese feudal while the vast majority sinks into poverty.


What does the constitution of Nepal say? Unlike what the king (and his supporters) have been mentioning that his acts are sanctioned by the constitution vide article 127, Article 127 is not an article that gives the king a free hand. It can only be applied in cases that are not solved by other regulations of the constitution. The article simply mentions the king, i.e. the constitutional head of state, who can issue necessary orders to remove difficulties in the implementation of the constitution. Such orders must then be laid before parliament. This already makes clear that the king cannot act independently from other constitutional bodies. Since the application of article 127 is an executive function, the fundamental rules of executive procedures must be observed. This means according to article 35 (2) that the king can only act on the advice and recommendation and with the consent of the Council of Ministers.


King Gyanendra, in the application of article 127, removed caretaker Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and his council of ministers out of office. But this was neither the recommendation of the Prime Minister nor was it a constitutional difficulty that had arisen. The problem as forwarded by Deuba was simply that he could not fulfill the constitutional regulation to hold general elections within six months after the dissolution of the House of Representatives as prescribed in article 53 (4).
Thus, a constitutional application of article 127 would have meant, for example, that the period of time for the holding of elections was extended by some months. And this was exactly what Deuba had recommended when he approached King Gyanendra. This would have been a strong intervention into the regulations of the constitution but, against the background of the circumstances, it would have been justified. Gyanendra fulfilled this recommendation, but only in the second position and not mentioning a time limit, which is regarded as necessary for the application of article 127 (Dhungel et al., 1998, pp. 680 f.)


In the first position, King Gyanendra mentions the removal of caretaker Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and his council of ministers. This brings us to the question if the monarch has any constitutional right to remove a prime minister from office. The answer is given by article 36 (5) which mentions four reasons:

a. If he submits his resignation to the king,

b. If a no-confidence resolution has been passed by a majority of the total number of members of the house of representatives

c. If he ceases to be a member of the House of Representatives

d. If he dies.

None of these happened, and other regulations is not to be found in the constitution. This leads to the conclusion that the removal of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and his Council of Ministers was an unconstitutional act. Either King Gyanendra has been misguided concerning the monarchs constitutional role or he has acted fully aware of this breach of the constitution.


The above passage makes it amply clear that the move of the Nepalese king is:
(1) Unconstitutional (including the formation of a new council of ministers)
(2) Motivated by the desire of personal gain and not the benefit of Nepal or Nepalese
(3) Only a minor fraction of Nepal - the feudal society and the opportunistic business class supports his actions for reasons of personal gain
(4) Under his leadership Nepal will return to feudalism and absolute monarchy with no freedom for the common man
(5) The king is in no position to unite the country and his ascension to absolute power would lead to repression of all Nepalese in the name of curbing the extremism of the Maoist.
(6) The security forces have been a completely failure and are unable to even identify the Maoists let alone fight them. The army is killing only ordinary people in villages. Thus, providing arms cannot be a means to strengthen democracy it will only be used for suppressing the common people.


We the undersigned therefore urge YOU, WORLD LEADERS, to take an initiative to bring democracy back to Nepal. The puppet regime consisting of the kings hand picked slavish feudal followers, do not represent the countrys voice. Therefore have no business with them till true democracy is restored. Nepals biggest source of foreign exchange donations should be stopped immediately. Several western nations are giving money to this government to buy weapons to kill the so-called Maoist terrorist. While the terrorizing actions of the Maoists should be condemned giving more weapons does not resolve the basic problems for which the Maoists are fighting.


AVANTIKA REGMI
November 2, 2002