Election: Prestige or necessity ? BY ANIL PANDEY anilmelvin@hotmail.com California The failure for the King and political parties to work together may be called as unfortunate, paradox or manipulation by foreigners. But it is easier to understand it has the clash of egos. Both of them accept that the only way to bring about peace and stability in the country is to follow the Constitution of 2047. Although the seven political parties have said that they would accept for no less than election to constituent assembly they will not be able to carry for long that slogan of the Maoists that would only help the authoritarian rule. There is no doubt that the political parties will have a secure future in carrying the King's thinking than to carry the Maoists guns. This scribe cannot believe the claims seven parties, which do not understand this simple logic, that they are running the agitation. It is proved beyond doubt that peace and prosperity in Nepal is possible by the joint endeavour of the King and the political parties. But the parties, which ignore the King and the King who ignore the political parties cannot bring peace to this country. No one can deny that King Gyanendra has really tried to do something good for the country. It is true that the political parties had failed to hold the election and the political situation of the country was thrown into confusion and disorder in the absence of general election. Everybody knows that the only alternate to election is another election. Everybody has felt that the balance of constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy was disrupted because of the outdated thinking, and personal ego and arrogance of the political leaders. Everybody knows that this haughtiness on the part of the political parties has now led to the danger of foreign interference and Maoist intervention. Still, there is no sign of tearing down the cloak of vanity and attempt for conciliation. Because of their arrogance, the political parties are feeling shame to participate in the local and national election called by the king. But if the parties are willing to accept that the King has been traditionally being honoured as guardian of the country, the process of reconciliation will take speed. In his every speech, the King has been repeatedly expressed his commitment to constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. The King has also committed that he would bring the derailed political process back on track and hand over the responsibility of running the country to the people through election. Doesn't the King have the right to find way to return back to the preamble of the constitution? Shouldn't he get the cooperation and support to make it easy for the people's representatives to take over the reign? The parties and the people can only doubt the King's intentions if he do not return the executive power to the people within the time he has asked for. Only then the parties and the people can say, why should they participate in the election called by the King. It is nothing but the example of the meanest level of thinking on the part of the political parties to say that if they will become inferior and the King will be superior if they participate in the election conducted by the government headed by the King. Therefore, it would not surprising if the King do not agree to the parties' expression that they would want to rule without the King. However, there is no evidence that the King has any ulterior motive. In his earlier and lately the address to the nation on February 1, the King has expressed full commitment to make it easier for multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy. The King has also called on those who are taking up arms to join the mainstream politics. It would be wrong to think that the King has ignored the political parties by calling them to participate in the elections and to form their government. It would have been wiser for the parties to participate in the election just to apologize to the people that it was their mistake, which gave rise to Maoist insurgency. All the political leaders should understand that they should rather promote the feeling of nationalism than to continue playing dirty politics upon the lives of people. Our politicians have failed to gauze the people's nerves and understand their feelings. People now do not want constituent assembly and another constitution. Because no matter how good a constitution may be, it can be only as good as the people who handle it. Nepal's true friends and well-wishers have rightly concluded that democracy in Nepal can be promoted only if the King and the political parties join hands and work together.