Shiva Gaunle's praise of the king's constitutional role is well deserved ("Thirty years of King Birendra's reign" #23). However, there is one aspect of his role which has not been strictly constitutional, the nomination of members to the National Assembly. The Constitution states: "Ten members to be nominated by His Majesty from amongst persons of high reputation who have rendered prominent service in various fields of national life." The supposition that adequate representation of certain interests will not be possible through the competitive system of election. Does this not imply that those nominated should be of non-political or non-partisan nature? There have been a number of cases in the past ten years of politicians who would otherwise find no chance of entering the House, and even those of dubious character, have been nominated. As constitutional monarch, the king is above partisan politics. Shouldn't his nominees also be the same?

S Grimaljee
Kathmandu