Thoughts on a Republic

(Courtesy: Roop Joshi)

It seems that Nepal is soon to be a Republic. This has been proclaimed repeatedly across the political spectrum. The first sitting of the Constituent Assembly hangs like Damocles’ sword over the nation. Now there is talk that the decision on the monarchy may be taken even before the CA. It is therefore timely to indulge in a retrospection of Plato’s epitome on political philosophy, The Republic.

One of the issues which this timeless dialogue by the Greek philosopher - mentor of Aristotle and student of Socrates - dealt with, 1,600 years ago, is what an “ideal” State would be like. The state would have four great virtues: courage, wisdom, temperance and justice. Plato further divided human beings based on their intelligence, strength and courage. Those who have the most amount of these virtues are fit to rule the state – rule by the best, the Greek word for which is “aristocracy”. Over the centuries, the term “aristocracy” has been denigrated to mean government by people of the highest social class or by hereditary nobility. The true meaning of the word is simply government by those who have the greatest virtues to govern.

On the other hand, in Plato’s opinion, a “Democratic government” holds out the promise of equality for all of its citizens but delivers only the anarchy of an unruly mob, each of whose members is interested only in the pursuit of private interests. In his hierarchy of government forms, a democracy is almost at the bottom, with only tyranny following it.

This is not to decry democracy, despite Plato’s views which were utopian, but to realize that it can easily lead to the tyranny of the mob, each pursuing personal benefits. By the same token, Plato’s aristocracy is also an ideal concept, but the logic behind it cannot be denied. Ideally a monarchy would provide an individual with an abundance of the virtues of courage, wisdom, temperance and justice – something like the “Ram rajya” in Hindu mythology. “Ram rajya” is held up as the perfect example of governance by a wise and just king who placed the good of his people always above his personal interests. No matter that Ram was a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu. His human qualities, tempered with divine awareness, have always been held in admiration. The point being made here is that, in Plato’s Ideal Republic, “aristocracy” overshadows “democracy”. And let us not forget that Plato’s Republic is one of the fundamental expositions of political theory.

Ancient Greek political theories aside, 21st century reality is that democracies are the order of the day and are here to stay. A “representative democracy” (and here the definition of the Founding Fathers of the United States is relevant) is where representatives of the people are elected and whose power to govern is limited by laws enshrined in a constitution. These democracies are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of “mobocracy” thereby protecting minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. Moreover, the power of elected representatives is also checked by prohibitions against any single individual or group having legislative, judicial, and executive powers. In the words of John Adams, one of the signatories to the US Declaration of Independence and the 2nd President of the US, this is "a government of laws, and not of men.". Plato’s concern regarding the possible tyranny of the mob is thus nullified. “By the people, of the people, for the people” is the ringing cry of democracy. But who are the “People”? In Nepal, is it the 85% rural population, 52% illiterate, 40% subsisting below the poverty line? Are they being represented adequately in government? The current Interim Government can hardly lay claim to representing them. An outdated election and the barrel of guns by no means represent anyone.

Having defined the essence of democracy, and keeping in mind that Nepal is struggling today to nurture a vibrant multi-party democracy, let us consider the institution of Monarchy. Modern monarchies, in all cases, are symbols of continuity and statehood. The majority of monarchies that exist in the world today are symbolic, whether they are termed “ceremonial”, “figurehead”, or “constitutional”, i.e. they do not have political power. Cambodia reverted to a constitutional monarchy, enshrined in its 1993 constitution, after the tumultuous years of the communist (Khmer Rouge) holocaust and Vietnamese domination. In Spain, Francisco Franco ensured the resumption of a monarchy upon his death in 1975. Malaysia, certainly one of the foremost democracies in Asia, elects a king every five years from among the hereditary rulers of the nine states of its federation. Japan’s emperor continues to serve as a symbol of nationhood and unity. Thailand’s king, the longest reigning monarch in the world currently, is revered by his countrymen. The monarchies of the United Kingdom and Europe remain while the nations themselves are fully functional democracies. Surely, there is much to be learnt from the monarchies of the nations mentioned above – which, incidentally, are all Democracies.

Is it then far-fetched to assert that the institution of monarchy can still promote stability and a national identity in Nepal? Note the italics: the institution is being considered here, not an individual. The incumbent of the throne plays second fiddle to the institution if the latter is strong and well accepted. In the present context, the King does have a grandson and alternatively there is also the late Princess Sruti’s daughter. A ceremonial monarchy can very well be filled by a minor. Therefore, let us not be too hasty in discarding an institution that can serve the nation well at this crucial cross-road in its history. Here is an institution that has survived the last 238 years through many challenges, not least of which was the 104 years of Rana oligarchy. It is surprising and sad to see the achievements of King Prithivi Narayan Shah and his brother, Bahadur Shah, in creating a single unified Nepal in 1769 marginalised by the republicans. Did not King Tribhuban snatch back democracy from the Ranas in 1950? Did not King Birendra surrender to the wishes of the Nepali people to have a multi-party democracy in 1990?

So when the issue of republic versus monarchy is debated, and it is hoped that a mature vibrant debate will take place immediately, let us not rush to discard anything. Let us not be like the imprudent individual who discards his winter coat ignoring the upcoming winter. Finally, let us ensure that the outcome of this debate is dictated by the majority of the Nepali people, not by the tyranny of a mob or any self-interested group.