The seven-party alliance has announced that it will bring ‘two million’ people on to Ring Road today. The demonstrations are expected to provide an extra edge to a popular movement, with its central demand for constituent assembly. The alliance wants the House of Representatives restored to prepare for constituent assembly through the formation of an interim government and talks with the Maoists. On their part, the Maoists prefer a downright formation of an interim government to hold the assembly polls. However, they have agreed to sort out this difference through discussion. After the parties have turned down the royal offer, there is no way of ending the movement and bringing back peace and democracy other than conceding, at least, the demand for the restoration of the Lower House of Parliament.

The alternative is to resort to even more brutal repression. But this is unlikely to tame the tidal wave of pro-democracy protests; what it is more likely to do is to render the possibility of keeping a ‘ceremonial’ monarchy even more remote. Therefore, the wisest course open to the King is to grant the first key demand of the alliance — the restoration of the Lower House — as it would set in motion the process of resolving the conflict, including the bringing of the Maoists into the competitive democratic process. While the restoration of the House in view of the failure to conduct the general elections has been of the essence, unfortunately those riding to power through the October 4 (2002) step rubbished it, calling it out of the question or unconstitutional, even as they sat in the saddle in a manner not recognised by the 1990 Constitution.

Not unnaturally, they are now paying the price with compound interest. But even more inexplicable is the failure of the Supreme Court, the sole interpreter of the Constitution, to restore the Lower House even when the elections could not be held within the constitutionally stipulated period of six months. Despite successive chief justices’ pledge to open hearing on the review petition seeking House restoration, such an issue of vital importance to the nation has been kept pending for more than three and a half years. This is certain to reflect poorly on the SC. Even at this belated hour, when the masses do not appear to have the patience to wait for weeks for the court to decide on the issue, opening the case would still be a worthwhile move, sending a last positive signal. Though the restoration by the SC would be fully legal and best, it would be much speedier yet legally defensible for the King to restore it under Article 127 in order to remove a constitutional obstacle after seeking the SC’s opinion under Article 88 (5). The least preferable option, however, from the standpoint of legitimacy, would be for the King to restore the House direct through the controversial use of Article 127. Noteworthy is the fact that, unlike till relatively recently, nobody is now talking of House restoration in order to put the Constitution back on the rails, but to lead up to the constituent assembly elections and a new constitution. This just might salvage the situation for the palace. Times have moved on.