Published: September 20, 2005
Op-Ed Contributor
Supporting Democracy and Monarchy or Defending Criminals in Nepal
Dr. Khagendra Thapa
Ever since King Gyanendra of Nepal declared a state of emergency and dissolved the government he appointed, the people - at least those of us living comfortably outside the country have been divided into the following groups:
1. An extremely vocal group against the declaration of the state of emergency. This group wants the rest of the world to agree to their point of view and force the King to restore the government that the King dismantled. They also want the King to lift the state of emergency. These people support the political parties and have decided to turn a blind eye to what the political parties have done in the past fourteen years. Their logic is political parties are a symbol of democracy. As long as you howl democracy, these parties have the right to do whatever they want. Some elites who are well established in North America belong to this group.
2. The second group (not as vocal and militant as the first group) supports the King in the declaration of the state of emergency and logically argues that the King had the right to replace a government which was appointed by the King himself. They also believe that by taking a major step he has put his life as well as his throne on the line. In other words, he made a 'make or break' move presumably in the interest of the majority of the people who have been victims of crimes committed by the Maoists and the political parties. Therefore, according to the thinking of the second group the King deserves a chance and some time to restore democracy. Interestingly, Manisha Koirala, a famous actress and grand daughter of BP Koirala, the first elected Prime Minister of Nepal and grand niece of Girija Koirala the Grand Marshal of the democratic movement, belongs to this group.
3. The silent majority who may support either of the above sides or do not care either way and have decided to keep quiet. Many of them may not be aware of what is going on and may not have access to the internet and/or may not have the ability to express their opinion. Some of them may even support the Maoists. However, they could not openly say that they support the Maoists since the Maoists are declared as terrorists.
Those of us who are expressing our views are from a number of groups including students, young professionals and very successful professional people. What I mean to say is that we are not stupid people and we have reasons to believe in supporting the side we choose. I personally have decided to choose the second group for reasons to be explained below.
The first group who are opposed to the King's declaration of the state of emergency truly believe that the political parties made mistakes but did not commit a crime and therefore they should continue the status quo. The King should have no say in politics and be confined to the palace. The Maoists problem can be and will be resolved by the political parties themselves. The King should not and must not interfere with the birth right of the political parties because they were elected by the people.
The second group, which supports the declaration of the state of emergency blames the political parties for the turmoil they created. They think that if the political parties had done their job honestly and responsibly, we would not be in the current mess in the first place. They believe that the political parties, specifically their top leaders, comitted a crime and they must be punished. The only person who can punish them is the King. On top of that the greatest crisis facing the country is the Maoists violence or the civil war. Since the political parties could not succeed in nine years, the King deserves a chance in an attempt to save the country from turning into another Cambodia or a failed state. There has been some discussion in the Nepalese and international press that Nepal is turning into a failed state.
Basically the difference between the two groups is that the first group thinks that it was simply a mistake and the political parties do not deserve any punishment and should continue the status quo. While the second group says they committed a crime against the country and the people therefore they need to be punished.
In an attempt to see if there is a common ground. Let us look at the definitions of the words 'mistake' and 'crime'. According to dictionary.com, the following are the definitions of the above words:
Mistake
An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness. a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention; "he made a bad mistake"; "she was quick to point out my errors";
A misconception or misunderstanding.
Crime
An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: "It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources."
Activities of the Political Parties
Here is a list of the questionable activities of the political parties and their leaders in the last fourteen years:
A few select leaders became extremely rich e.g. Khum Bahadur Khadka, Chiranjibi Wagle and many others by using their position of authority. The corrupt practices they were involved were conducted in such a way that there is no evidence left. All papers and records are destroyed and they were paid cash in most cases and there is no record. What is true is that these people were destitute before the introduction of democracy and now they are filthy rich.
For example, when corrupt leader Wagle was investigated by CIAA he and his son had a bank balance of Rs.175,000,000 excluding any other types of property.
Khum Khadka is believed to have at least ten times more than that.
Some of the leaders have murder charges against them. One of them was a murderer and was convicted of murder and was in jail before he was released and made a hero by democracy lovers. At one point, one jubilant prime minister went to his constituency and told them that he was so grateful to them for electing him to the parliament that he will forgive them even if they break the law and commit crimes.
The corruption became so rampant that the whole government bureaucracy including police, judiciary, civil servants and even the army became very corrupt. There was no rule of law. Maoists resorted to the politics of extortion and destruction and even the common criminals started extorting and threatening the people. So anyone could commit any crime and get away with it by claiming to be Maoists. So there was terror in the whole country.
In order to stay in power the political parties started to have jumbo cabinets. At one point, there were as many as forty nine ministers in the government. Any member of the parliament who did not get a chance to be a minister was given a huge bribe.
Are These Mistakes or Crimes?
If we critically look at the list of the activities of the leaders and check with the above definitions of mistake and crime it can be concluded by anyone with a little bit of knowledge of civic sense that these are crimes and not merely mistakes. Is encouraging constituents to be involved in criminal activities an act of crime or a mistake? In my book it is a terrible crime committed by the head of a government which is responsible for maintaining law and order.
Stealing money from the treasury and manipulating the financial system of a country for your personal benefit cannot be considered a mistake - an elected leader is there to serve the people.
Is murder, even if it was committed to promote democracy, a mere mistake or a crime? Murder is a crime in every country including Nepal.
Any reasonable person would say extortion and destruction of public property are crimes.
What was the Impact of the Crimes committed by the Multiparty Leaders?
Well, the question is how many people died in road accidents because corrupt leaders and other political thieves stole money set aside for road construction and repair? How many people died of diseases because the money set aside for building hospitals and buying medications was stolen by corrupt leaders? How many young Nepalese girls have become prostitutes in India because they could not get a proper education and hence jobs since the money set aside to build schools and hire teachers was stolen by corrupt leaders and their criminal friends?
How many young men had to leave the country and become manual laborers in India and other countries because they could not get the proper education?
All these things happened because thieves like Wagle stole money set aside for education. How much wealth is taken out of the country to educate the children of rich people in other countries because the money set aside to build colleges and schools within the country was stolen by corrupt leaders and their friends and relatives? How much revenue is being lost because the money to build factories and other industries was stolen by grand thieves like Wagle?
Monarchy or Failed State
If I am to choose between monarchy and failed state, I choose monarchy. Everyone is saying that Nepal is turning into an international terrorist's hub and failed state. If it becomes a failed state like Somalia, our poor citizens, friends and relatives will suffer more than they would under the monarchy.
Who is speaking for the parents who have lost their children in the civil war? Who is thinking about all those kids who have been orphaned and have no where to go? Who is going to take care of all those families who had to leave home because of the Maoist's atrocities?
Where is the justice?
Other than UML's program to give pensions to old people and give money to local governments themselves, I have not seen a single good thing done by the political parties.
Monarchy or Maoists
Political parties as an alternative force are finished in Nepal. The fourteen year long party of corruption and favoritism is over. I believe that less than five percent of people support the political parties. This means that we only have two choices left. Either we support the Maoists or we support the King.
The Kingship in unified Nepal is 238 years old. However, ruling by Kings in Nepal is at least 1400 years old. So we have a long history. We have lived peacefully in Nepal for centuries. The king serves as a symbol of unity of our people.
Those people who have been ignored by both Panchayat rulers and democratic abusers must be helped to come to the main stream of the society and their culture must be promoted. They must not be forgotten or ignored. The Maoists idea of regionalization and division of Nepalese people in terms of ethnic races is dangerous. It will lead to ultimate disintegration of the nation.
We are better off working together as a united people.
Dr. Khagendra Thapa is an award winning and distinguished professor at Ferris State University. He was elected to the Academic Senate of the University seven times, serving for 14 years.
* The views of Opinion writers do not necessarily reflect the views of NewsBlaze
Search News
Daily News
