Dr. SURYA SUBEDI is a Professor of international law at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom , Dr. Subedi briefly visited his home country last week en route to Vietnam for which country he is a legal advisor. Despite living in UK he has been paying close attention to the events taking place in Nepal .
In the following you’ll find excerpts from an interview done recently.

National interest
All political forces should come together and identify what are our non-negotiable national interests. Then you can work out the modality to achieve those national interests.
Elsewhere, whenever there is any problem, people do not disagree on fundamental national interests – all political parties will have, more or less, similar views. In our country, I have not been able to see the degree of consensus and the degree of willingness to work in support of national interest. I find this frustrating.

Constituent assembly
When there is a revolution; when a new nation is born out of colonial administration; when there is a break-up of a nation; when there is clear political vacuum then you need a constituent assembly to prepare a new constitution. We do not have that political vacuum.

Parliament
I have said all along that the weakest link in the governance of our country had been our parliament. It should have played a much more effective role. During the 1990s, the parliament was not that much effective. In a democracy, it is parliament that has to play the decisive role. My focus is how to make the parliament effective. First of all, make sure that elections are conducted in free and fair manner. Second thing, the parliament should be given the ultimate power in the governance of the country. That is what people's sovereignty means.

Political coexistence
The very idea behind democracy is the peaceful political coexistence. Nowadays, politics is based on consensus. In this county people are not seeking such consensus. Having your rigid position is one thing but moving forward on the basis of peaceful political coexistence is the very basis of democratic governance, rule of law and civilization.

Main obstacles on the way to a political coexistence
All sides have made mistakes. Their various 40-point or 75 point proposals, more than two-third of them can be included in any political manifesto of any party. This is a wish list. You have aspirations to build a nation and you have listed a number of things that you want to achieve. To achieve them you do not need to fight with other political forces. You need to bring other forces on board and move ahead.
I think the problem in this country is not giving enough time for democracy to mature. Our experience with democracy was short-lived. In countries like UK, the system they have now has evolved through decades and centuries of hard work. They have gone through these phases of crises that we are going through. But here, people have not given enough time for democracy to work.
Where we are today is the result of the Maoist rebellion. When the country had just embarked on the democratic path, the Maoists did not try to achieve what they wanted to achieve through parliament. The Maoist rebellion, which began some ten-eleven years ago, is the problem why we are in the present situation.

National dialogue
Can come about when both or all sides show some flexibility. At the moment, I see the ball being in the court of the King. The King has to demonstrate some flexibility and preparedness for dialogue. And then we can see whether the Maoists or the seven party alliance are willing to negotiate. Those who are in power should demonstrate their willingness to negotiate with other political forces. I have not seen that willingness so far.

Topic strategy in place
The strategy that is in place, what we have seen, makes us doubtful whether he can achieve. The strategy that is in place now doesn't convince me that he can deliver even in two more years. The people he has brought to power have no popular base. The people who are in power are not following sensible policy. For instance, there is a vice chairman of council of ministers saying that democracy and monarchy cannot go together. I cannot accept that idea. The constitutional monarchy has worked in many countries quite well. It had worked in our country for ten years quite well. I don't see why it cannot work again. I am a firm believer that democracy and monarchy can go together. There is no either/or.

Topic International community
The major powers of the world including the United Nations have a commitment to reduce poverty. To reduce poverty, they have concluded that a country should have a democratic, accountable and transparent government. They have an interest in making sure that wherever they give assistance, their money is used as wisely as possible, which would benefit the poor people. That is why they are saying that unless and until there is a democratic and transparent government, the funds given by foreign governments may not be used properly.
All these countries are, by and large, democratic countries and their taxpayers ask how the money provided by them is being utilized. They keep asking these questions in the parliament. For instance, in the UK, every now and then, MPs raise such questions about Nepal and other countries. We now live in a globalized world with its own set of vale systems. These values are democracy, rule of law, good governance and human rights. If you depart from those values, the international community will be concerned. Because once you say you are a part of international community, you have to subscribe to the values of the community. Otherwise, you could end up a pariah state.
Initially the international community did not have a good understanding of Maoist movement – what they stand for and what their ultimate game was. There is not much that the international community itself can do. It is our problem. The international community can assist us only when we have a sensible policy to move forward. They can be the positive force.
When democracy is in trouble, they try to help the government. But when the government itself cannot help itself, then the international community will be concerned about what is going on and how they can help. I think the international community has played a very encouraging role here. They have not, in my opinion, subscribed to the idea of constituent assembly. I don't think they would ever support the Maoist revolution or whatever you call it. They are firmly of the view that the country like ours needs both – the monarchy and the democracy. These two forces should go hand in hand. Experiences of so many countries have shown that monarchy and democracy can go together – known as constitutional monarchy. That is what they want to see in Nepal . I do not think they want to see any other force ruling the country.

China and India will not go at loggerheads about Nepal. Both are developing their relations in a way that will be economically meaningful to both of them. It is not the situation like the one in 1960s or 70s. Both are emerging global giants and economic power. They do not want to quarrel over Nepal. They do not want to have small differences spoil their emerging developing good relations. I think both of them would have some common understanding that Nepal should find its place and its people within the country should find resolution of political problems. And once we come up with sensible solutions, both of them will support. Yes, we have two neighbors but I do not think the overarching objectives of these two neighbors would differ that much in today's world no matter what the internal political system in these two countries are. Actually, I would think, they would find it very strange if Nepal becomes an issue, which disturbs the evolving relationship between the two countries. These two countries have to compete with other western countries and economic giants. If they fight with each other, making Nepal an issue, I do not think they would be far-sighted leaders. So I think their interest lies in making sure that they do not have disagreements over Nepal .
While they may have differences of opinion regarding Nepal, they cannot afford to quarrel on matter relating to Nepal . They have a bigger challenge – to compete and establish themselves in the international arena. When they are trying to compete and establish themselves as global power, these two nations cannot afford to go back to the situation of the 1960s and fight with each other. Nepal is not a serious enough issue for them to contest. So, their interest lies in making their nations prosperous. Of course, India has always pursued the policy of non-interference. And I do not think India will be foolish to intervene in our internal affairs. It is our own internal affairs and we are capable of resolving with it. But we should have a dialogue within our own nation to come up with solution. Then Indians would also keep quiet.