Dr. Tulsi Giri is apt to trigger controversy, the latest episode last week when he told journalists that the Nepalis should choose one—either the monarchy or the multiparty democracy— as, according to him, the two cannot cohabit and that the focus should thus be on strengthening one. He is known for his outspokenness—whether now as a vice-chairman in the King-headed Cabinet or during the Panchayat era when he was chairman of the Council of Ministers and later the prime minister. Then he was reported to hold the same view, differing with King Birendra’s decision to hold a referendum on the type of political system the country should have. At a time when the political parties want to mend fences with the palace on the basis of the 1990 Constitution, to which the King himself has expressed his commitment a number of times, Dr. Giri’s statements are not only highly objectionable but reflect unfavourably on the palace in the public mind. The international community too has stressed such a reconciliation to restore peace within the framework of multiparty parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. Dr. Giri has sown serious doubts in the public mind whether he is indeed disregarding the King or his statements are inspired.

Dr. Giri should know that the 1990 Constitution has not been declared dead. Multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy represent Nepal’s national consensus. But views such as Dr. Giri’s and the government’s actions that tend to support such views sound archaic to 21st century ears and may make other political forces and the general public rethink the existing consensus. Reacting to Dr. Giri, CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal said on Saturday that his party would also start talking only about multiparty democracy, not about the monarchy, challenging the ‘royalists’ to go for a referendum on ‘active monarchy’ or ‘full demoracy.’ Nepali Congress president G. P. Koirala said in Biratnagar, also on Saturday, that the upcoming Congress convention would make a ‘historic decision about the future of the monarchy.’ There are other political currents flowing in that direction. If those in power cannot move with the times, who can tell these currents may not eventually prove unstoppable?