In parliamentary democracy it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to seek dissolution of the elected chamber, and call for elections, and (except in exceptional circumstances) the constitutional monarch is expected to agree ("Who's the boss?" by Puskar Bhusal, #96). The 1994 intervention by the Supreme Court, setting aside the dissolution sought by PM Manmohan Adhikari, and accepted by the late King Birendra, may be debated for its merits and demerits, but it set the bad precedent of interjecting legal mediation in basically political matters. It contributed to further weakening the post of Prime Minister, and bred irresponsibility by encouraging politicians and "intellectuals" to take to the Courts that which should be resolved in the political field of Parliament and the "King-in-Parliament". No constitution is perfect, and neither is the 1990 Constitution of Nepal. Except in very clear cases of the breach of the law, it is best to leave the mistakes and adjustments of the parliamentary process to the political sphere. Judges must not develop into political headmasters.

Mithun Jung,
Naxal

. The issue of whether or not the country can bear an untimely election ("The next six months," #96) can be debated forever. But the fact is that the constitution gives the prime minister the prerogative. Party president Girija Prasad Koirala should reflect upon his past: under what circumstances did he dissolve the House of Representatives in 1995? What would he do if it were he who was expelled from the party? Koirala has been the most irresponsible member of the party, and his actions have imperilled the party and the nation. Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba is a politician too, but at least he is relatively clean and seems to show that he has the long-term interest of the country at heart. He was forced to set up a "jumbo cabinet" to protect himself from being overthrown. But he lacks ideological steadfastness and has surrounded himself with the most corrupt ministers. The allegations that Deuba is pro-royal and undemocratic are baseless. Marrying into an elite family is not his fault. His ideology, as far as I know, has no link to his marriage. Deuba is no saint, but it is now a question of who is the best in a mediocre pile.

BP Bastakoti,
UK

. Neither Deuba nor Koirala are democrats. Deuba is the prime minister and above the party leader, and he must see the national interest above party interest. The extension of the emergency rested on parliament, so he should have had an open debate in house before deciding. On the other hand, Koirala should have debated the issue first in the party central committee. Again, he took a unilateral decision to expel Deuba from the party without consultations. How can three people punish a leader elected by millions of Nepalis? Yes, democracy in Nepal is in danger. But it is because of dictators like Deuba and Koirala.

Hari Pokharel,
Taiwan

. I am saddened and disappointed by the dirty game played by Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala. He doesn't seem to care that the Maoists are spreading across the country, he doesn't care what the Nepali people want: all he wants is power and he is out to get it by hook or crook. At least this time Deuba was doing something to crush the Maoists. He called for dialogue, which didn't work. Koirala is jealous of Deuba because he is gaining popularity. That is why he wants to pull him down. Koirala should think about his country and not just about himself.

Basu Shrestha,
USA

. Hats off to Kunda Dixit ("One year later", #96) for giving us balanced news. Yes, the roles of the king and the prime minister should be like that of nang ra masu, which I believe both King Gyanendra and Prime Minister Deuba can be. I wish Deuba all the best in the coming election and believe that we have a brighter future in King Gyanendra (and Prime Minister Deuba), and that they can lead us out of the mess that we are in. I personally like His Majesty's no-nonsense attitude.

Sameer Rana,
Wisconsin, USA

. The Nepali Congress has done it again. The nation is in the midst of a crisis in every imaginable way and its so-called leaders are busy in their utterly disgusting power struggle. I have never been a great fan of Nepali politics but I have never hated it as much as I do now either. I have seen the royal massacre, the Maobadi's opportunism and dozens of Nepali deaths being reduced to mere statistics, but there is a limit. I, at least, deserve to be spared of worldwide humiliation because of this ridiculous clash of egos. Give me a break. I just want no news about Nepal for a month. Is that asking too much?

Sajju Khatiwada, via email

. The prime minister is a member of the ruling party and implements in a constitutional method the policies and programs of the party for the benefit of the people and the country. Here, the word "benefit" is used in its aesthetic sense. Regarding the issue of extending the state of emergency vis-a-vis the tussle between Deuba and Koirala, did Deuba register the proposal to extend the state of emergency without the knowledge and consent of his party? Just one question to Premier Deuba: Shouldn't he have conveyed his justification to the people and the nation through national TV, radio, and the print media on the morning of 23 May? Every action of the government stinks of hindsight coverup. The Maoists were declared "terrorists" because of the greed for foreign funds to combat "terrorism". The call for the Maoists to "surrender" their arms does not make sense, since surrendering arms means surrendering. Politics in Nepal is like trying to hold the World Cup in Dasarath Stadium: it just doesn't work except on paper.

G Buddhiman, by email