yazadjal.com

Multi-party democracy with universal adult suffrage is a very recent phenomenon in human history. Europe had Hohenzollerns, Hapsburgs and Romanovs till the end of WW1. Even in Britain, till the mid-19^th century, the vote was restricted to wealthy property owners and the total number of voters was only about 500,000. My point is this: since libertarians believe in minimal government, what could be smaller than a King? Hong Kong and Singapore are prospering without democracy. Why can’t Nepal do the same? Why is India crying hoarse for the restoration of democracy in Nepal while in our very own Bihar, right next door to Nepal, democracy has produced disastrous results?

Adam Smith, writing in the mid-18^th century, could never have imagined universal adult suffrage. Thus, in his Wealth of Nations, he gave three tasks to the King. In his own words: "According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to: The duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, so far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice and oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and public institutions, which it can never be in the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain."

So, according to Smith, if the King looked after defence, justice and public goods, society would flourish like never before, in "natural liberty". By "natural liberty" Smith did not imply anarchy. He called it "the system of natural liberty", with emphasis on the word "system", which meant living under the common law, based on natural law. He assigned to the sovereign, the "duty of establishing an exact administration of justice". If the King of Nepal can do these things, which good kings have been doing for millennia, the poor people of Nepal will be free to generate wealth for themselves. The Maoist rebels will fade away, for the people will realize that what their monarch is doing is in their best interests.

If a monarch seeks legitimacy, which King Gyanendra must, then the administration of an "exact system of justice" must be attended to most urgently. The solemn oath to ensure Justice lay at the heart of medieval kingship. So, Edward II, at his coronation ceremony was asked, inter alia, "Sire, will you, so far as in you lies, cause justice to be rendered rightly, impartially, and wisely, in compassion and in truth?" And Edward answered, "I will do so."

Similarly, French kings swore at their coronation: "I will honour and preserve each one of you, and I will maintain for each the law and justice pertaining to him." The French called their king "a debtor for justice", and it was no empty phrase.

The same was true for the rulers of the Indian Princely states. In Charles Allen and Sharda Dwivedi’s Lives of the Indian Princes, the Maharawal of Dungarpur makes it abundantly clear that Justice was a prime value to Indian Princes when he is quoted saying: "I was head of the Executive and head of the Legislature. I had a Judge of the High Court, Rao Bahadur Chunilal Harilal Setalvad, who was a retired Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay and one of the best men in the entire judicial service of Rajputana. He used to come once in ten weeks, stay ten days, take a fee of 5000 rupees and go…. As far as the courts were concerned, there were practically no pending cases – and that was a characteristic feature of the Indian (Princely) States. I used to see to it that statements of case law from all the courts were produced and if the number of cases more than three years old exceeded ten or twelve, then the Magistrate or Civil Judge was called upon to dispose of them straight away – and if he didn’t, his pay would be stopped. Justice delayed is justice denied and even a crude decision is a decision. Now nothing happens for years on end, with thousands of under-trial prisoners languishing in jails for ten years or more."

As in the case of the Maharawal of Dungarpur, the King of Nepal can recruit good judges from the international skills market. Simultaneously, if he declares unilateral free trade and the judges preserve property rights, the Nepali people will realize they don’t need democracy and party politics. Instead, they will seek their sustenance in the free market and their security and justice under their monarch. Instead of appointing ministers through the democratic method, King Gyanendra can appoint the best people available through a worldwide talent search.

With free trade (with a freely tradeable currency) and property rights under the rule of law, Nepal will gallop from feudalism to full-fledged capitalism. The lure of Maoist ideology will fade as free markets and the resulting prosperity kick in. Then, democracy can be ushered in. Democracy now is a bad idea.

A shorter version was published in the Times of India on July 1, 2005. I can’t find the link to that.