"The Constitution is not Democratic" - B. P. Koirala (Interview) (Sunday, April 26, 1981)
Why have supporters of the multiparty system decided to boycott the 9 May poll in protest? Bhola Chatterji(BC) finds out, and asks B. P. Koirala why he had accepted the 1079 referendum verdict if he opposes elections now.
BC: Do you think the results of the referendum (which gave the party less Panchayat group and the multiparty group 55 per cent and 45 percent respectively of the total votes polled) held in May last year reflected the will of the people? If so, why do you oppose the implementation of the referendum verdict? Alternatively, if you believe that the referendum verdict was manipulated, why did you then accept it?
BP: My interpretation of the verdict of the referendum is different from the King's. Nowhere in the referendum was the electorate asked whether they wanted the continuance of the present system. The clear choice before the electorate was a reformed Panchaya. Nowhere was it mentioned that the election was being held to decide whether the people wanted a party less political system. But half an hour after the verdict was announced the King made a statement that the verdict had gone in favor of the party less Panchayat system! I think the King misrepresented the verdict of the people.
BC: Why don't you participate in the 9 May general election on the basis of universal adult franchise?
BP: About six months after the King announced that he would hold the referendum of 1979 he made a very significant declaration to the three essential principals of parliamentary democracy would be incorporated in the Constitution regardless of the verdict of the referendum: (1) there would be direct election on the basis of universal adult franchise. He did not say party less national Panchayat; he took care not even to mention the word Panchayat he asid National Assembly, Vidhayaka Sabha; (2) The Prime Minister would not be appointed by him but elected by the Vidhayaka Sabha; (3) The Prime Minister and his cabinet would hold office as long as they enjoyed not the King's confidence but the confidence of the House. These three basic principal of parliamentary democracy, the King said, would be incorporated in the Constitution regardless of the verdict of the referendum. After that, many Constitutional experts said that the proposed referendum would now be a redundant exercise, because the King had already conceded the essence of parliamentary democracy. There was therefore a demand for further clarification from the King as to what the people would be expected to vote for in the referendum. The general feeling was that whichever side won the end-result would be parliamentary democracy. At any rate, the concept of party lessees would be removed from the Constitution. But the people are very unhappy because only half an hour after the announcement of the referendum verdict the King said that it was a victory for the stand his father (the late King Mahendra) had taken, that the people had given the stamp of approval to the party less system initiated by his father. That was a wrong interpretation which he imposed on the people.
Again, the King enjoined the Constitutional Reforms. Commission set up the referendum to incorporate in the Constitution not only the opinion of the majority as expressed in the referendum but also that of the minority, which means the opinion of two million voters favoring the multiparty system should also find reflection in the Constitution. But there hasn't. We were expecting a Constitution which would be acceptable to us. The Constitution is very unsatisfactory; it is not democratic, it suffers from a spirit of timidity the giver of the Constitution had developed cold feet.
BC: Do you still believe that the palace is an indispensable factor in Nepalese politics? If so, why do you not agree to participate in the political process King Birendra has initiated?
BP: As regard the King's role let me make it clear that we are not for monarchy; rather, we are for kingship. I would not say monarchy, for there is a debate going on whether one is a Rajabadi or a Rajtantrabadi. In the peculiar situation that obtains in our country the King has a role to play. We are transforming the society, we are changing its economic structure, we are changing the political structure, we are changing the social structure in fact we socialists are engaged in a total revolution. We want that the King should also play a role in this social transformation. If we could get his assistance in this great enterprise our task would be easier. But if we use our resources to fight against the King the country will suffer. If we want to overthrow the King we must build up appropriate machinery for that. In that process a situation of civil war would develop. Our political systems, our economy, are too fragile to sustain such an upheaval. I have told the King and I have also said it in public that I am for kingship not because I am a sycophant, not because I am terrorized into making that kind of statement, because the worst that the King could do has already been done to me. So I have no apprehension, nothing to fear from the King, and temptation? What rewards, what gifts could he bestow on me? Prime Minister Ship? I am not prepared to accept the Prime Minister ship given by him.
There have been some positive indications from the place I have talking so freely! I have been moving all over the country criticizing the Constitution and the man who gave it. So I am not filled with despair. Some of our people are in despair; they feel that nothing can be expected of the King, he does not see the writing on the wall. But I am not that despondent; I still have confidence because the King has seen the writing on the wall. My confidence in my line of reconciliations is based on the fact that it has borne fruit. When I come here from exile there was total darkness. People thought that I was committing some kind of suicide. Even Ganesh Manji thought that the choice before us was between slow death in India and dramatic suicide in Nepal and we had chosen the latter course, I said "no, it was not that. And we have registered very big gains during the last four years". I think this is due to our line of national reconciliation. It has stirred the palace to some positive actions like the referendum. However manipulated it might be, the people were involved in it. I could move about, all the political parties could move about. And direct elections freedom of speech and the like. I think that is the King's positive response to our line of national reconciliation, and this should not be abandoned in haste.
Citation: B. P. Koirala, "The Constitution is not Democratic", (Interview) in Sushil Koirala (ed.), Democracy Indispensable for Development 100-103, (Varanasi: Sandaju Publications, 1982)
Back