Reality check: Seven-party legitimacy under a cloud

AjayaBhadra Khanal
Kathmandu, December 30:

http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullstory.asp?filename=aFanata0scqzpba7Va5a8a.axamal&folder=aHaoamW&Name=Home&dtSiteDate=20071231

Does the seven-party alliance represent the Nepali people? It is a question that is being emphasised, in two opposite ways.

First, the issue of people’s representation has been raised by people and parties associated with the right. Their claim: the seven parties have encroached upon the rights of the people to decide the fate of monarchy.

Most people opposing the declaration of republic pending “implementation,” curiously, were once the champions of monarchy, who wholeheartedly implemented the constitutions that had been handed down by the Kings. Every constitution in the past has been “given” to the people by the Kings. Compared to these practices, the current move by the seven major political parties, who once garnered more than 80 per cent of popular vote, can be considered a progress.

The move, however, can be challenged, whether by the right or the left, based on the principle that the people have a right to decide the fate of monarchy and the political system of the country.

There is another logic, based on the historical development of the idea of democracy and modernisation, that monarchy is an institution that is inherently contradictory to a rational and democratic society. Opting to retain monarchy would be similar to voting to adopt an authoritarian political rule. While popular will might be able to support monarchy, rationality would always have to oppose it.

The issue of legitimacy and representation has also been raised by the civil society and the international community which does not support monarchy. Under normal democratic practice, no government or parliament can claim legitimacy without the acid test of popular consent. With the last elections held nine years ago, and the Maoists not having undergone this test, the SPA faces questions about its legitimacy.
A more pressing concern, however, is the ability of the SPA to represent the interests of groups not included in the government and the parliament. Does this mean that we need a restructuring of the interim government and the interim parliament before the Constituent Assembly elections?

There are two clear answers to this question. The interim government can continue if it is able to convince groupings not in the SPA that it can legitimately represent their interests.

If the SPA is unable to earn their trust, then there must be a restructuring to represent groupings not included in the current structure. So far, there are little signs that the SPA has the will to go the length to earn the consent of outside political groupings.