Prime Minister’s reform programs

The Kathmandu Post (4 November) in its lead news quoted the Prime Minister’s 15-point reform programme, including a civil-military campaign, a “unified command” to tackle the Maoists, and the formation of the Human Rights Promotion Center (HRPC).  Further, he said that his government had entered a "new phase" indicating that it would no longer seek a solution to the Maoist problem through negotiation.  In its editorial, The Kathmandu Post (6 November) said that the civil-military campaign is “an undemocratic blow” and it would further provoke the Maoists.  It alleged that the PM, “failed miserably” in achieving consensus with the mainstream political forces on a concrete proposal to resolve the conflict between the two sides.  While commenting on the formation of the HRPC, the editorial called it “another hogwash” and said that the it “may send across a message that the government is trying to cover up its dismal record on human rights violations”.  The Post also blamed the government for not announcing a specific timeframe for elections and said that without political consensus among the mainstream political parties, the elections would turn out to be hollow.

14th year Constitutional Celebrations

On the occasion of 14^th year of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal on 9 November 2003, The Weekly Telegraph (12 November) in its editorial indicted constitutional experts for “criss-crossed implementation”.  It laid equal blame on both the King and the political parities for exceeding limits and neglecting the provisions of the Constitution when it came to their personal or political benefit.  The editorial charged the King for misusing the controversial Article 127 on 4 October 2002 and said that, “when constitutional crisis gripped the nation, the King was told to unknot the political tangles, the King did so as per the advice of the then prime minister but with proper political finesse resulting in the continuation of the current state.” The politicians, who were hiding at the time of drafting of the constitution for obvious political reasons, are in the forefront in highlighting the gains of the constitution. In conclusion, “the constitution has many times been interpreted by various political parties and actors in a manner that has suited them most… the constitution for majority of the population amounts to a simple paper which has yet to guarantee their rights and duties”. The editorial asked both the political parties and the monarch “whether they both have done justice with the constitution or not?”

The Kathmandu Post in its editorial (10 November) opined “the King’s oft-repeated belief in multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy seems weathering slowly.”  It cited the Maoists insurgency, which paralyzed the country during the past and claimed “a responsible ruler and the government are not expected to make the security situation an excuse to undermine the constitution of the country.”  It considered the incumbent government was an illegitimate one and said that it had made “no tangible progress in resolving the Maoist conflict”.  Perhaps holding elections or restoring the Parliament would have been an appropriate move on the part of the King who still holds the key to resolving the current constitutional impasse.  The editorial cautioned, “any further delay in restoring the 1990 Constitution may dearly cost the future of democracy, and also the monarchy in this country.”

The Spotlight (14-20 November) in its editorial said, “Constitutions are, indeed, very sacred and indispensable instruments” and “if the people do not know how to exercise their rights and duties and if the rulers fail to perform their tasks, even a perfect constitution will not work.”  It urged for negotiated peace with the Maoists and the need for speedy economic development with good governance.  It blamed both politicians and bureaucrats for the maladies of the country and called the King to take “revolutionary steps” to restore the democratic process with clean, honest and patriotic politicians.

Nepal and Foreign Aid

The Netherlands has decided to cut off bilateral aid to Asian countries including Nepal on account of them not being properly utilized.  The Kathmandu Post (20 November) in its editorial said that the Dutch Government “will certainly lose its image cultivated over the years in this part of the world”.  The editorial suggested that instead of penalizing the poor people of the recipient countries for corruption and inefficiency of their governments, it could have reviewed the aid-flow mechanism and put pressure on the recipient governments.  Further it opined that though the scrapping of aid in Nepal would not have serious impact on the recipients’ economy, it could affect political relations, peace and harmony between the peoples of the two countries.

A news item in the Spotlight (28 November-4 December) appreciated the packages given by the International Monetary Fund ($72 million) and World Bank ($ 70 million) under the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) and stated that the “decisions are complementary to each other… [and] also expected to boost the confidence of investors and donors”.  The World Bank country director for Nepal, Ken Ohashi said that Nepal’s failure to achieve a negotiated resolution to the Maoist conflict, restore democratic institutions based on participation and accountability, and strengthen the protection of human rights would pose serious risks to economic development efforts and severely limit the ability to achieve the PRS objectives.