From The Nepali Press
Who is to blame?
Rajdhani, 2 February
FROM ISSUE #233 (01 FEB 2005 - 10 FEB 2005) | TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBSCRIBE NT PRINT REFER WRITE TO EDITOR
Multiparty democracy has always been regarded as a successful medium for rule all over the world. Nepal has remained monarchical for the last 250 years. The unity between the king and the political parties has been the strength of the rule of the nation. Unless this is understood, instability will continue. The royal declaration called for unity and it seems necessary for multiparty advocates to make maximum use of this. Some of the positive steps taken in Nepal failed in performance due to lack of skill. The king's move was not unexpected. Even before February First, the political situation of the country was clear. Deuba rejoining the government after he proved himself an incapable prime minister was an open invitation for disastrous consequences. It was during his government that the Pajero culture and horse-trading of parliamentarians began. Like Girija said, Deuba was responsible for handing over democracy to the palace. It was Deuba who dissolved the House of Representatives. Even after breaking up Nepali Congress, he leeched on to the regime. Such is the block in our restored democracy's chapter. Whenever a new step is taken, new problems will be born. It will have negative impact if the establishment fails to carry out its responsibilities satisfactorily. Fear has gripped the people ever since the Maoists launched their armed rebellion. The important lesson we have learnt is we have done virtually nothing, just posed as mere spectators all the time. Instead of looking for people to blame, maybe we should blame ourselves?