Saying that the multi-party system has proved to be a boon for Nepal and the non-party system is suitable for the climate and soil of the country, the then King Mahendra Shah had taken the ruling power in his hands. Mahendra had claimed that the party leaders valued their party’s interests more than the national interest and personal interests rather than the party’s interests. After 2047 BS, a multi-party system was restored in the country. If we look at the activities of every Prime Minister since then, the claim made by King Mahendra has been confirmed. Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli is the latest example of this. The ordinance he brought about by the Constitutional Council is the latest heinous example of personal self-interest. Prime Minister Oli has reaffirmed that the republic and the party system cannot function in Nepal.
If there is a lack of a law to take urgent action for the country and there is no possibility of immediate sitting of the parliament, then there is a provision in Article 114, Clause 2 of the Constitution of Nepal to untie the knot through an ordinance. Under this provision, the government has brought 9 ordinances this year alone. The ordinance brought now is the tenth. Some of the earlier ordinances were withdrawn after a major dispute arose. This time there is a big controversy. The ordinance made to amend the Constitutional Council-Work Duties and Rights Act 2066 BS provides that a meeting can be held in the presence of 50 percent including the chairperson and such a meeting can decide by the majority. According to the previous provisions of the Act, if the chairperson and at least four other members were present, the quorum for the meeting of the council was considered to have reached the quorum. There was a provision that every issue presented in the meeting would be decided based on consensus. If there was no unanimous decision, a second meeting would be convened and if there was no unanimous decision a second time, a decision could be taken by a majority of the members. The current ordinance provides that a meeting may be held in the presence of three persons including the chairperson and a decision may be taken by a majority of such meeting.
Stating that the existing provision has made the Constitutional Council a prisoner of indecision, Prime Minister Oli paved the way for the ordinance. The council has indeed become a prisoner of indecision, but there have been numerous comments on the need for an ordinance, time context, provisions in the ordinance, and the intentions of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. First of all, the country would not have come to a standstill if this ordinance had not been brought. Secondly, there is a constitutional provision that the sitting of the parliament must begin within 18 days in any case. The Act could have been amended by the Parliament. It is wrong to say that you can wait for so long but not for three weeks now. Due to this, doubts have arisen over the intention of Prime Minister Oli. According to the constitution, the Constitutional Council chaired by the Prime Minister will have six members including the Chief Justice, the Speaker, the Chairperson of the National Assembly, the Leader of the Main Opposition, and the Deputy Speaker. The reason for the provision of a separate body, the Constitutional Council, in the constitution is that the Council of Ministers is not empowered to appoint officials of constitutional bodies, including the Chief Justice. The main essence of democracy is the separation of powers. But the Oli government’s decision has challenged the principle of separation of powers.
Prime Minister Oli’s move has been hailed by many as a serious challenge to democracy. This is not just an accusation. It is an attempt at totalitarianism. Prime Minister Oli’s co-operation with President Vidyadevi Bhandari in this endeavor is partly compelling, as the constitution requires the president to implement the prime minister’s recommendation. Consultations could have been held for a day or two on such serious issues, but President Bhandari immediately approved the ordinance, conveying the message that the setting had already been made. This incident has eroded public confidence in the President. Now the fire test of Chief Justice Cholendra Shamsher Rana has started. The ordinance becomes inactive within a few days of the sitting of the parliament, but what is the legal status of the decision made according to the ordinance? The question reaches the Supreme Court. When a case is filed in the Supreme Court against the decision made by the Chief Justice with his participation, what is the verdict? May be predicted. Therefore, if the Prime Minister and the President are dragged into the controversy, the possibility of the Chief Justice also being dragged into the controversy has increased.
The Prime Minister of Nepal has done the same thing that Oliver Cromwell, who became the ruler of Britain by overthrowing King Charles I have done the same. Now the day is not far when Prime Minister Oli will have to face the fate of Krambel. It has now been proven that the longer it takes to restore the monarchy, the direr the future of the country becomes. Why monarchy?
The king of any country lives as a symbol of the unity of that country. The monarchy is the only institution that can play the role of guardian of all citizens. The king is common to all and plays the role of guardian of all. In the case of Nepal, it is the Shah dynasty that has geographically and culturally integrated this country, so the kings of the Shah dynasty are the guardians of every citizen.
He not only did geographical unification but also built a real Hindustan by properly preserving the Vedic Sanatan tradition.
Today we are known as Nepalese in the world because of the contribution of the Shah dynasty. Therefore, it is the duty of Nepal and Nepalese to maintain the Shah dynasty as the guardian of the country and the symbol of unity. How dangerous is the presidential system for Nepal? This is evident from the attitude and character of President Bidyadevi Bhandari. In the presidential system, a person carrying political principles wins the election and becomes the president. If people who embrace foreign principles such as Marxism and capitalism are elected by the party and become president, how can such people represent the entire people? For example, the current President Bhandari, who won the election from the then UML and entered the Parliament, was made the President by the parliamentary system. How can he represent the unity of the country when there is no direct consent of the people to make him the President, or let alone the involvement of the people. On what basis can she be the guardian of the country and the people? The first and most important thing is that he is a communist activist who believes in Marxism. Do all citizens of the country believe in Marxism? Since the political views of the people and the President were different, there was no basis for him to be the guardian of all Nepalese.
In the presidential system, those who carry foreign hateful principles will never be able to represent Nepal and Nepalese as they will become president. A person who accepts such a philosophy that opposes Nepal’s originality insults the nation-builder and treats religion as opium is a heretic cannot be the guardian of Nepal under any circumstances. The monarchy is the only institution whose political philosophy in Nepal. Only the king can keep the country and the people in his heart, and only the king loves the country as much as others do. As King Prithvi Narayan Shah, Mahendra, Birendra, and Gyanendra are all Nepalese. Kings are never Marxist, capitalist, or socialist. They always prioritize the originality of the country. The flag carried by the king and the flag carried by the people are the same, the language spoken is the same and the thinking system of the country is the same, only he can be a symbol of unity. Seen in this light, those who call themselves Marxism or capitalist alive from any political party and become the head of state through a dirty political system can never live in the heart of all Nepalese.
Independent and sovereign geography is needed to run the state. An independent country is ruled by a king. Another important thing is that the king’s interest is hidden as long as the country is free and sovereign and intact. If the king never allows the country to be divided, he will never allow the interference and evil eye of foreign powers to fall on the sovereignty and integrity of the country. But those who become prime minister and the president only for a short period of time, like Jagire, can disturb the sovereignty and integrity of the country. Because they are not a permanent force, and their interests may not be in line with the interests of the country.
The kings of Nepal are the epitome of peace and stability. Due to its geographical location and geopolitical location, the monarchy is indispensable in Nepal. Nepal is one of the two most densely populated countries. Strategically, the interest of the western nations is, especially in Nepal. A power that does not want stability in Nepal and wants to be present in Nepal for its strategic work, the monarchy has always been against it and has been protecting the country’s identity. The Khampa Rebellion can be taken as an example. Therefore, there is no doubt that foreign troops will not be present as long as the monarchy remains in the country. King Birendra was the one to take the peace zone proposal to the world and also the planner of SAARC. These two plans could have played a huge role in Nepal’s long-term stability and peace. But ironically, if the peace zone proposal is recently thrown in the trash, SAARC is also being deactivated.
An example of the return of the monarchy
It is said that the fallen monarchy cannot stand again. But there are also returning cases. As in the UK. In the 17th century, the king was found guilty of treason and executed, and his successor was installed on the throne 12 years later. The most tragic event in British history took place in 1649. King Charles, I played catch-up with Parliament, the situation deteriorated and the country went to civil war. Rebel hero Oliver Cromwell won. A case of treason was filed against the king and the death sentence was handed down. And, on January 30, 1649, he received that sentence. For the next 11 years, the United Kingdom remained a republic, but it did not last long. And, in 1660, at the initiative of the army and parliament, the monarchy was continued by making Charles II, the son of the same slain King Charles I, king. This is called the restoration of the monarchy.
Similarly, the current monarchy of Spain was restored in 1975. After the overthrow of the monarchy in 1931, the tragedy of modern Spain began. Civil war broke out in 1936-39. During this time, Franco, a
(Bhujel is a retired engineer in the British Army)
