The Dilemma of Constituent Assembly:
Rise of Illiberal Democracy and Maoist Socialism
By Laba Karki, Ph. D.

It should be forewarned that the dilemma of free elections for constituent assembly (the process of electing a body for drafting a new constitution) in Nepal is that it will potentially lead to victory by anti-liberal forces, and thereby give rise to “illiberal democracy” and Maoist socialism-that is, a freely elected government, which however fails to safeguard basic liberties and individual freedom of Nepali citizens.

Fareed Zakaria (editor of Newsweek International) cautions that we are witnessing a disturbing phenomenon of so-called democratically elected regimes, even those that have been re-elected or re-affirmed through referendum, especially in the Third World countries from Peru to Philippines. He calls this phenomenon the “rise of illiberal democracies,” states that hold free elections but ignore constitutional limits on their power, deprive their citizens of basic rights, and do not honor the rule of the law.

Zakaria argues that democracy without constitutional liberalism produces centralized regimes with erosion of liberty, ethnic competition, conflict, and war- a looming possibility for Nepal following King Gyanendra’s recent relinquishment of executive power to the ex-parliamentary leaders. “Illiberal democracy” perhaps owes its roots to ancient Greece (where democracy originated). Plato, one of the greatest minds in Western philosophy, in his book “The Republic” warned civilization 2,400 years ago that “democracy” leads inexorably to “mob-rule” or “dictatorship of the proletariat” by stupid (sophists), who while they may have fine rhetorical skills (that can exert some control over the masses) have no true knowledge itself.

Examples of these mob-ruled democracies are rife in our own backyard, India. Plato, therefore, believed in some form of monarchial hierarchy. He argued that “democracy” could not work as a reasonable, just political system, possibly in the context of Nepal where the people are backward and the party leaders ill-educated and corrupt.

In Nepal’s context, the irony of the recent victory for peoples’ movement for democracy is the likelihood of formation of a Maoist republic-a virulent form of “illiberal democracy.” The young Nepali masses chanted slogans demanding “lok-tantra” or “people-power” during past April’s movement calling an end to King Gyanendra’s direct rule.

But, who were the people to whom the power belonged? Was it all the duly qualified citizens? Or, was it only some of the people-the leaders of the 'mob'? Reports indicate that the mass was driven not just by the Seven Party Alliance (SPA) but more so by the threats of extremist elements. And, with the Maoists’ call for constituent assembly, and its subsequent ratification by the restored Parliament, we are now faced with the stark prospect of a much more ominous dilemma-will the free elections transform Nepal into a Maoist republic with an illiberal, barbaric, and totalitarian constitution?

“The Maoists are seeking a secular, socialistic republic with radical land distribution and removal of the monarchy. However, few realize the dire consequences of electing a constituent assembly.”
Clearly, the real winners of the SPA movement appear to be the Maoists who are now at the helm of Nepali politics ready to radically alter the constitution of Nepal (1990). The Maoists are seeking a secular, socialistic republic with radical land distribution and removal of the monarchy. However, few realize the dire consequences of electing a constituent assembly.

Basically, the Maoist-dictated and drafted constitution will trample on individual liberty and freedom, lead to mass migration of Nepalis, extinguish the nationalistic spirit of Nepal, and negatively impact the fledgling capitalistic economy. Hegel (1770-1831)-- one of the greatest “idealist” philosophers-- said, “A constitution is the dwelling spirit of the history of the nation.” Hegel argues that a constitution is neither something manufactured, nor just papers like the many constitutions written and torn up during the French revolution.

A constitution, he says, is a work of centuries that represents the historical development of the spirit of the people. Accordingly, Hegel argues that it is impossible for the cultivation or imposition of a constitution from an external source to succeed at all. Thus, it follows that any attempt to radically impose extremist philosophy into the already living, breathing document of the constitution of Nepal 1990, is doomed to fail because it will be devoid of the spirit of the Nepali people and the nation. The textual meaning of the1990 constitution of Nepal incorporates the principles of a “liberal democracy” and it reflects the spirit of our nation, people, and glorious history. And, the articles provide for the separation of powers: the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch of government with appropriate checks and balances.

The Nepali constitution 1990 incorporates the “fundamental rights” of citizens just like the American “Bill of Rights”. A bicameral system with His Majesty’s Raj Parishad with emergency powers on the one hand, and the executive branch headed by the parliamentary Prime Minister on the other, functions as twin pillars of democracy with proper checks and balances. Anything less than the bicameral powers in the new constitution would be a denial of the history and spirit of our nation.

The Western world should be aware that the King has historically, traditionally and religiously been a symbol of unity and peace for the vast silent majority of various multi-ethnic and multi-lingual groups of people in Nepal. The constitution is the framework for the law of the land and defines how we as people want ourselves to be and what rights we ascribe to ourselves. The constitution, however, must give adequate powers to the monarch to provide checks and balances on the authority of parliament-the abuse of which was not uncommon in the past. (One should note that the American constitution was adopted in 1787, after more than a decade since Independence in 1776, and there has never been a time when a constituent assembly convened to change it; rather the constitution contains 27 amendments.)

Finally, we should be cautious and informed about the consequences of going for constituent assembly in Nepal. Democracy without constitutional liberalism and constitution without democratic liberalism is dangerous and should be discouraged. Else, we are faced with the reality of a republic without proper checks and balances, without a national identity, without the rule of law, without individual freedom of life, liberty and property--a classic scenario of “illiberal democracy” and the rise of Maoist totalitarianism that may ultimately lead Nepal to becoming a satellite state of our southern neighbour.

Laba Karki, Ph.D., J.D. is a practicing Attorney in Virginia, the USA, and has contributed extensively in the scientific and legal fields.

"The textual meaning of the1990 constitution of Nepal incorporates the principles of a “liberal democracy” and it reflects the spirit of our nation, people, and glorious history. And, the articles provide for the separation of powers: the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch of government with appropriate checks and balances.
The Nepali constitution 1990 incorporates the “fundamental rights” of citizens just like the American “Bill of Rights”. A bicameral system with His Majesty’s Raj Parishad with emergency powers on the one hand, and the executive branch headed by the parliamentary Prime Minister on the other, functions as twin pillars of democracy with proper checks and balances. Anything less than the bicameral powers in the new constitution would be a denial of the history and spirit of our nation."
IF THE CONSITUTION OF 1990 WAS REALLY SO GREAT, THEN WHY ARE WE GOING THROUGH SHITTTT RIGHTT NOWW?? IF THE CONSITUTION OF 1990 REALLY PROVIDED FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES, THEN WHY WAS CORRUPTION SOOOOO RAMPANTT DURING OUR LITTLE 14 YEAR EXPERIMENT WITH DEMOCRACY?? IF THE CONSITUTION OF 1990 REALLY PROVIDED "FUNDAMENTAL RGIHTS OF CITIZENS", WHY ARE TEHRE SOOOO MANY DISSATISFIED MASSES HIDING IN THE JUNGLE??? WHY IS EVERY ASPECT OF NEPAL, INCLUDING HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS AND ECONOMY, GETTING WORSE AND WORSE?"
THE CONSITUTION WAS A DELIGHT AFTER TEH 2047 REVOLUTION, ABSOLUTELY, BUT IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL ENOUGH. NO WONDER, OUR EXPERIMENT FAILED.

संबिधान सभाले नेपालमा राजसंस्थाको अन्त्य हुने कुरा निश्चित भएपछि उप-बुज्रुक राजाबादीहरुले गणतन्त्रले देशलाई तहसनहस पार्नेछ, नेपाललाई भारतले कब्जामा लिनेछ भनेर हाउगुजी गर्न शुरु गरिसकेका छन।

बेकारका तर्कहरु! राजा चाहिन्छ रे नेपालमा check and balance गर्नको लागि। बुध्दि हेर न लब कार्की पीएचडीको, चोरलाई साँचो दे रे।

Chakku you are one of those people whose IQ is not high enough to understand what this article wants to say. So just keep your mouth shut and let people who understand read it.

विनित, तैले माथि जे भनिस् नि त्यसैले देखाउँछ तेरो high IQ! कुरो बुझिस्?

i read the article, understood what he really meant to say and i gave my opinion on it. who the fuc-k are you to say i'm not entitled to do so?

Hey Chakku -- look at your language ! that shows your IQ ni hoina ra ba ?

i never said i've high IQ you ass-hole

By the way, this is the article that the article above heavily relies on:
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html

Alright, so she is saying that dramatically changing the constitution may not be good for Nepal, because it may eventually trample on our freedom of expression, speech, etc. Ms Karki's one-sided article--she seems pro-king to me-- never once mentions some of the restrictions that were imposed by King G on the media for example. What about all the media folks that were jailed for some of their anti-king opinions? However, we do need the king as a symbolic head for checks and balances, no doubt, and giving him adequate power is a necessity in a country like Nepal. There is no doubt that he is a symbol of unity, but let's be fair about it. Seems to me like Ms Karki would not want any deals to be made with the Maoists--which is not really a good idea because the war will just keep dragging on.

Laba Karki's article points to an intelluctual thinking but Nepal has no time for intellectual thinking as it is obvious by now. Utopian peace will never materialize as it is the nature of politicians to come to power by any means they can. The constitution therefore tries to restrict the autocratic or mob and/or terrorists mentality. 1990 constitution of Nepal was definitely crafted in haste and does not address a lot of issues. But, that does not mean the constitution can not be ameded through parliament or referendum.

Going for constituent assembly election under the maoists guns will make the matter worse for any democratic party. If the Maoists are truly honest about upholding people's verdict why cant they declare that they will lay down their arms when the date for constituent assembly election is declared?

Making a deal with Maoists for ever lasting peace is something I can not foresee and I hope I am wrong on this. I am not the type who would offer half of my property to the gangster who points a gun at me. I would rather die fighting than encourage the gangster to come back again for another half...

I agree with you NepaliCNN. But I don't want any deals with Maoists even if it is feasable. I want them to be punished for their atrocities. Accepting them and pardoning them will mean we have to release all the prisoners from jails too and then do not keep a jail anywhere cause a prisoners' crime may be less than that of the Maoists !

संसद पुनर्स्थापना हुनु अघि राजाले पार्टीसंग झुक्न हुँदैन भनेर लव कार्की पीएचडी ले लेखेको अर्को article पनि पढौं........

By Laba Karki

Kathmandu - The major issue facing Nepal today is not whether our King Gyanendra should restore parliament but rather whether we as Nepalese should be united strong as a nation under God against the Maoist terrorists and the foreign bullies.

In the present-day political crisis in Nepal, monarchy is not just a unifying force but a purifying antidote needed against the poisons of Maoists to permit the highest level of individual freedom without anarchy. Humanity has always looked to philosophers and thinkers for moral guidance during all major political crises. In the world history, we find one prominent philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who greatly impacted the English political, social, and economic theory.

Nepal's political crisis echoes a similar political overtone like that of the Seventeenth century England (circa 1637 A.D.) when King Charles I and the English Parliament were in a heated struggle. Thomas Hobbes developed his political theories during those turbulent times, and therefore, revisiting Hobbes' teachings may provide answers to Nepal's current political deadlock.

Thomas Hobbes said, "All mankind is in a perpetual and restless desire for power...that stops only in death." Further, Hobbes claimed that Man is naturally a selfish hedonist guided by unenlightened self-interest. Accordingly, Hobbes argued that the best government was one that had the great power of a Leviathan (sea monster) to keep society in a state of peace and prevent political turmoil. This Leviathan was the State whether in the form of Parliament or a strong King. Hobbes believed in the rule by a powerful King because he felt that a country needed an authoritative figure to provide direction, leadership and protection from internal and external threats. Importantly, Hobbes' social contract worked in a way that gave the State (King) a monopoly on authority in return for the State (King) to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state peace and order (by punishing the deviants).


Hobbes appears to be darn right on the issue of Nepali politics because Nepali party leaders are generally known to be selfish and wicked who cannot be trusted to govern. Because of party politics, Nepal became divided among various factions that mirrored ethnic divisions. As a result, the poor were left out and Maoism gained ground in the hilly regions. The natural tendency of the herd, said Nietzsche (1844-1900), was to combat progress...and when it rose out of its rut and attempted experiments, it nearly always made mistakes...and got hopelessly bogged in error and imbecility. Therefore, giving away power to the party herd at this time by our King is premature because it would create a dangerous situation that would unleash the same party feud and rampant corruption of yesteryears and make every Nepali's life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Importantly, a powerful State (King) is needed to deal with the Maoist (terrorists) who have breached the peace in Nepal and plagued and terrorized ordinary Nepalese lives. John Locke (1632- 1704 A.D.), an ideological theorist of present day American capitalism, said that the central function of the government is to protect private property and that all humans were equal and free to pursue "life, health, liberty and property." Unless a powerful Monarch can deal with the Maoist insurgency, we Nepalese individuals will not be free to pursue our own "life, liberty and property." The Maoist insurgency has abridged our fundamental rights and therefore this current crisis justifies King Gyanendra's royal move to usurp power and exercise this power for the sake of quelling the Maoists.

Hobbes' teachings also resonate deeply in the modern day twenty first century political systems of the world. For instance, King Bhumibol of Thailand is revered as the central unifying element in the pillars of the nation. Although the King has little direct power under the constitution, the King commands enormous popular respect and moral authority, which he has used on occasion to resolve the political crises that have threatened national stability. Likewise, Jordan's King Abdullah II exercises immense influence in the politics of Jordan and his authority exceeds that of a constitutional monarch. Jordan's economy has improved and the King has been credited with generating Mid-East regional stability. Therefore, a strong Monarch is much needed during national political crises for solidarity and stability in the nation.

King Gyanendra has said that he took power in February 1, 2005 only to restore democracy and to bring order to the political chaos. Thus, this move is congruent with the Hobbesian principle of returning the King's promise to exercise power to maintain peace and stability in the nation. In his Nepali New Year's speech to the nation on April 14, 2006, the King has again called upon all political parties to join in a dialogue, "to bear the responsibility of and contribute towards activating the multiparty democratic polity..." Accordingly, as a necessary and preliminary step to restoring democracy, the King has called for participation of all parties in general elections to initiate a "meaningful exercise in multi-party democracy." Thus, the King has meaningfully exercised his power for the sake of Nepal's peace, stability and democracy.

Finally, democracy or no democracy, multi-ethnic groups of people in a small nation like Nepal need a strong and powerful leader-like the Hobbesian Leviathan-one who can unify and deal with the evil Maoist terrorists and wicked opportunist demagogues of Nepal including the big bullies of the South Asian region. The King's exercise of authority, especially during this national emergency, is an antidote that may save the nation against the fatal consequences of Maoist terrorism and foreign takeover. Only when there is political dialogue between the King and the political parties under the right environment, and only when parties participate in general elections, then power should be vested in the representative assembly (not constituent assembly) that is chosen (by vote) as the "voice of the people."

Therefore the King should increase his stance and not yield to the pressure of the party herd at this critical juncture.

Who is this character and why does he think that quoting Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and every other Philospher will make us Nepalese realize the error of our ways and go back, kneeling and crawling to KG to beg him to come back and continue his noble reign of terror and repression!

"Therefore, giving away power to the party herd at this time by our King is premature because it would create a dangerous situation that would unleash the same party feud and rampant corruption of yesteryears and make every Nepali's life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Right...and having the blood sucking Monarchy- the same entity that choose to spend ludicrous amounts of money on Harley Davidson's, Armoured Jaguars et all is not corruption- that to this Royalist fool is Noble and Moral!..talk about twisted logic!!


"In the present-day political crisis in Nepal, monarchy is not just a unifying force but a purifying antidote needed against the poisons of Maoists to permit the highest level of individual freedom without anarchy"

Highlest levels of Individual freedom?..Seriously, which rock on which planet has been this moron's home for the last three years? Repression on an unprecedented scale - the ongoing "forced dissappearances", mass scale detention of supporters of Democratic government, violence on a unprecedented scale against demonstrators- death of ninteen people who wanted nothing other than their rights are all supposedly the hallmarks of this "unifying force" and the highest level of individual freedom...Sure!

"Unless a powerful Monarch can deal with the Maoist insurgency, we Nepalese individuals will not be free to pursue our own "life, liberty and property." The Maoist insurgency has abridged our fundamental rights and therefore this current crisis justifies King Gyanendra's royal move to usurp power and exercise this power for the sake of quelling the Maoists"

We Nepalese individuals HAVE NOT been able to pursue life, liberty and property with a Monarchy in place for the simple reason that the Royals of Nepal believe ever so strongly that the National treasury is their personal bank account and have plunged the nation into economic ruin..lest we forget, the Maoists were supported by the very monarch who get his back side booted out of power not too long ago!..History has a weird way of working out!

If you think of some leader who has love for the country - it will be a monarch .

Some of you people need to relax. I know this dai personally--no ad hominem attacks please!

Mr Karki,
You may be PHD with high qualification, but your opinion is just baseless, and something to fool the Nepalese who may not understand the politics. What do you mean by republic without proper check and balance, national identity and rule of law? I am not sure if you are aware of this, but United States is the country with world's one of the best check and balance system, and it has no monarchy. Check and balance is the sytem that we create; it is not what monarchy creates for us. Give me one proof that Nepal will be a republic without national identity and rule of law. You mentioned this statement, but provide us with the fact to prove this. All Nepalese are not just as stupid as you are.

Chakku Ji,

Tapai le yo article kaha bata paunu bha?..source ko link pau na please.

Namaste'

Just google "Laba Karki".
http://newsblaze.com/story/20060424064951nnnn.nb/topstory.html

Thugged Out,

I will try and refrain from personal attacks on this man - but, come on, you have to agree that when one writes articles that are so blatantly one-sided and puts them in the public realm, then, as public, we are entitled to comment on his views.

You may know him in a different capacity and I don't dispute that he may be a nice guy, but, honestly, I find his blind loyalty to the Royalist ideal rather nauseating :-)....like all other threads, this one too will have to be something that you and I agree to disagree on! :-)

If SPA were able to disarm Maoist before the constituent assemble election, there is nothing to worry about. They experimented the feasibility of maoism in 21st century and it proved to be a disaster. Now with the demographic base they have garnered in their failed experiment, they want to capitalize it as a political power. As a political power they are less popular than in 2048.

People want rule of law, human right and freedom . They don't want to be bullied by state and the maoist anymore. Peek into the aspiration of the people and you will be optimistic about thee change.
King showed the "Howguji" of Indian invasion, loss of nation and nationalism,disintegration of the country, bad governance and many more. In this modern era, these haugujis are not anything more than scarecrows.

Yeah, I understand. BTW, he is a lawyer, just like you.