The day of the generals

SHYAM K.C. While presenting his party's vision of a new constitution last week, the Maoist party chairman told a Constituent Assembly (CA) committee that his party was for multi-party democracy and that it was committed to generally accepted human rights norms. As if to illustrate the sincerity of their leaders' pledge, Maoist-aligned groups took out demonstrations in different parts of the city to protest against the Supreme Court order regarding the tenure extension of some senior army officers. Similar protests by the Maoists were reported on Thursday in Nepalgunj. (The Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister said that the judiciary and the army stood in the way of “democratisation”, obviously meaning that kangaroo courts and the Maoist-aligned army should replace the existing judiciary and the national army.)
The Maoist protestors must have been incensed by the court's audacity to overrule a decision taken by a government elected by the people. After all, can't a government elected by the people do what it deems fit or proper or right? In most cases, decisions free of corruption and emotional underpinnings will ensure that the rights of the people are safeguarded at all times, and that no government decision infringes on the rights of the citizens, whether such citizens are employed by the government, private firms or corporations.

Did the government break an established precedent when it refused to extend the term of office of six brigadiers?
Not long ago, when a long-term lease on a piece of land owned by Nepal Industrial Development Corporation (NIDC) and used by a five-star hotel as an approach road ran out, NIDC wanted to reclaim possession of the land and close the road. The Supreme Court was moved by aggrieved parties, and the court ruled that the approach road should continue to be used as usual. Did not NIDC that owned the land have any right? Why did the court rule against the legitimate owner of the land? (There is a similar case about a closed path and road to the east of Sundhara. The Employees Provident Fund took possession of the land, and those trying to protect the Sundhara area have yet to move the court to legally open up the closed footpath and road. Surely, if a property used as a road for 25 years can continue to be used as a road, then the path and road used by the common people for over 100 years deserves at least the same treatment, if not more.)
The Supreme Court has had the distinction of upholding the basic rights of the people who have to face the colossal giant called the government. This is true not only in the post-1990 period but also during the panchayat era when the government, probably dissatisfied with the political leanings of some of its employees, had served them notice terminating their service. Some of these notices were upheld, but in many cases where the termination was not in accordance with the prevailing laws, rules, regulations and precedents, the employees had come out victorious against the all-powerful government. If such things can happen during the iron rule of the panchayat era, is there any plausible reason as to why this cannot or should not happen in a liberal democracy led by the most liberal of liberals, the Maoists?
The Maoist-led government has faced a series of reverses at the apex court. A media report said that the court ruled against the government in as many as six different but major cases. This may be due to the fact, as the prime minister admitted while addressing the nation sometime ago, that the Maoists and their coalition partners were not as experienced in governing as some other parties, like the Nepali Congress. But it must not be forgotten that the apex in any country is the last hope of individual citizens against the wilful imposition of the powerful on the weaker sections of the populace.
An individual waging battle against a powerful government is unthinkable, but the apex court in a democratic country makes the unthinkable possible. The court is also the last resort for those in the military who believe that they have been wronged by the military or by the government. The army and police personnel also have individual rights like any of us. The apex court sees to it that the individual, no matter how weak, gets his or her justice and that the government, simply because it is rich (thanks to taxpayers' money) and powerful (thanks to the army and police and other security agencies) cannot do what it wants throwing all accepted democratic norms and practices to the winds.
In a democracy as opposed to monocracy (or even mob rule, if you will), decisions are not taken based on personal likes and dislikes nor out of personal grudges. But there are rulers who do so, and the one place where the victims can be protected against their whimsical decisions is a court of law. Whether true or not, reports have been in the air for some time that the defence minister and the army chief do not see eye to eye on many issues, and that the government decision not to extend the terms of office of six brigadiers stemmed from this decision. But if the government took the decision throwing precedents to the winds and on the basis of personal likes and dislikes of individuals, such a decision certainly made the day for the generals.

Posted on: 2009-03-29 22:53:48