Present Monarchies
There are around 35 countries with various forms of monarchy in the world. Out of these, three nations: Australia, New Zealand and Canada accept British monarchy as their own, and most of the monarchies are constitutional, fully controlled by the legislative of the respective countries. Asian/middle eastern monarchies for active politics, British for historical and exemplary reasonsand African for some bizarre reasons appear in the limelight. Otherwise, most of them are purely ceremonial. I tried to find out the countries that embraced republicanism from monarchical rule in the recent past. The nearest date I could trace back was in 1979, twenty six years ago, when the Shahs of Iran were ousted. Before that, again Shahs of Afghanistan were overthrown in 1973. Hence, we can understand that overthrowing monarchy is not as easy as it used to be between the 18th century and early 20th century. As the previous two monarchies that fell were Shahs, and taking into account the present situation, we can assume that it might be the turn of another shah dynasty to fall, in Nepal.
Analogy with Britain
A short account of the history of British monarchy shows the similarity between it during the late 17th century and the present monarchy of Nepal. The beginning of monarchy dates back to prehistoric era but the genesis of the modern British Parliament occurred in the 13th century with the inception of House of Commons. Earlier, 'witan', 'council' and 'house of lords' were appointed, which had limitations subjected by the monarchy.
''Parliament is a servant which became a master. It originated with three royal needs; the need of monarchs to obtain advice and information; the realization that subjects were more likely to pay taxes if they knew what they were for; and the need to find some way of dealing with complaints, grievances, and petitions from all over the realm. The third function of Parliament gradually atrophied as, in the Middle Ages, an elaborate network of local and national courts was established, though the concept of the High Court of Parliament survives in the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords and petitions are still submitted. Two other characteristics which have survived are that the advice is not always palatable, nor the taxation paid cheerfully even after explanation given. Representative institutions developed for similar reasons in many other European countries, though they varied in composition and powers according to local circumstances.'' - Oxford reference Library.
friction
Till the 16th century, British monarchy (Tudor dynasty at that time) had a close relationship with parliament but in 1603 a new dynasty; the Stuarts inherited the English throne. They had different assumptions about the nature and prerogative of royal power. In 1625 when Charles I from assumed the throne, 'friction between the throne and Parliament began almost at once. The Parliaments of 1625 and 1626 refused to grant funds to the King without redress for their grievances. Charles responded to these demands by dissolving the parliaments and ordering a forced loan.
In 1628, Charles was desperate for funds and was forced to call a third parliament. This parliament presented him with the Petition of Right - a bill that declared forced loans, imprisonment without trial and martial law illegal. Charles accepted this bill but, in 1629, after criticism of his illegal taxation and support of the Arminians in the church, he dissolved parliament and imprisoned its leaders. For eleven years, Charles ruled without parliament - a period described as 'the Eleven Years' Tyranny'. ' - British History Timeline.
This led to civil war -armed conflict and political machinations took place between parliamentarians and Royalists between 1642-1651. Then the King was executed and military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell began. He ruled England, Scotland and Ireland as Lord Protector from 1653-1658. In 1660, King Charles II was restored but the monarchy still had their bad habits and eventually provoked 'glorious revolution' in 1688, after which Parliament secured primacy in the English constitution that has endured ever since. Till date, the English parliamen has gradually diminished the power of monarchy and from this year, it will abolish the authority of the Buckingham palace in the election of House of Lords, the last remaining notable power of the monarchy.
Last year, spending of Buckingham Palace was 36.7 m pound but it was a decrease of £100,000 in the annual spending. British monarchy owns tens of millions of pounds properties all over Britain, spends lavishly and at the same time donates millions back for charity. British people love them but if the monarchy tries to enforce autocracy like King Gyanendra, the greatest symbol of British heritage will crumble tomorrow.
On the contrary, Nepal was yet to be unified when all these things happened in Britain. In my view, our monarchy is now in a situation of the 17th century British monarchy. This is the time for the Nepalese people to choose between constitutional monarchy and republicanism. If the King tries to dominate the quest of full democracy, the republic of Nepal is inevitable. If he gives up to the people's will for parliamentary democracy forfeiting all of his extra constitutional power, the institution will survive.)
Republicanism in Nepal
Republicanism is not an arbitrary whim of politics in Nepal. It started with the fall of Rana regime. The beginning of communist politics brought the concept more than a half century ago. From the inception of the idea, republicanism has been the hot topic for young generation and it remains a favourite (fantasy?) of the youths till today. The trend suggests that Nepalese youths embrace the idea and gradually forget about it as they get older. Pushpalal Shrestha, Nirmal Lama, ManMohan Adhikari, Mohan Bikram Singh and even Keshar Jung Rayamajhi started their communist career with the dream of achieving communist republic. Modnath Prashrit, CP Mainali, KP Oli, Madan Bhandari joined communist politics with the same purpose. But as their youths passed, their quest for communist republic faded. Madan Bhandari, as a communist leader for the first time, acknowledged encompassing constitutional monarchy within a newly defined 'janatako bahudaliya janabaad'. And the majority of communist leaders endorsed his idea of parliamentary democracy.
Youthful Passion?
It used to be, but not now. Now the scenario is totally different. The development of Maoists rebellion and the resulting consequences in Nepali politics has made the subject a very important issue. Previously the idea of republicanism was the subject of interest for communist leaders. Now it is embedded in youths of all political faith and background. Students are in its favour, leaders have considered it as an option. Even senior Nepali Congress leaders have taken the subject as seriously as others. And now almost all the political parties have adopted republicanism as their base for election politics.
May be many people do not identify the creation of republic Nepal as a must, but there is a growing realisation throughout the country that monarchy is also not indispensable. 'We don't need absolute monarchy. If monarchy obstructs our democratic endeavours, we can embrace republicanism. We can carry on without monarchy'. This kind of public opinion is firmly cemented in the political realm of Nepal. It seems we are witnessing the dying days of Monarchy in Nepal.
No comments:
Post a Comment