There are no two ways about it: The latest government attempt to amend the National Criminal Procedure (Code) Act-2017 via an ordinance is a subversion of democracy. The government on Monday forwarded the ordinance to President Bidya Devi Bhandari's office amid criticism from the media, the civil society and influential second-rung leaders of the ruling coalition. If the President authenticates the ordinance, it will pave the way for pardoning of politicians convicted of heinous crimes, including murder.

In all likelihood, the same coalition partners will band together to form the next government. If so, why are they in such a rush, when they can easily wait for a few more weeks until they come back with a fresh mandate? This betrays the criminality in their minds, for they seem ready to cross all constitutional bounds to come to power. And they still believe people will continue to support them. But the electorate is increasingly wary of their diabolism and is looking for options, something that was also reflected by the spectacular rise of the Rashtriya Swatantra Party and the Janamat Party in the recent polls.

What they stood against just over a year ago when KP Sharma Oli introduced dubious ordinances, they are doing exactly the same. In the latest case, they are undermining the institutions established to uphold justice and security—the courts, the police, and the intelligence agencies. The ordinance imbroglio has also shown that the parties have no trust in the ability of the House to come to informed decisions on matters of national interest; in fact, there is no more appropriate venue than the national parliament for such debates. Irrespective of the merits of an issue at hand, an ordinance should only be used in national emergencies—and this brazen attempt to appease potential coalition partners by freeing jailed politicians does not qualify as one.

The government’s attempt to get an ordinance authenticated during a transitional period is an attack on the ideas of justice and democracy. If the ordinance gets approved as it is, the power of interpreting the law shifts from the judiciary to political actors. That would be a dangerous turn of events for a fledgling democracy.

As the guardian of the constitution, the President has the responsibility to follow the charter’s letter and spirit. Yes, in the past, she has gone beyond her call of duty and breached her constitutional bounds to favour a particular opinion or political ideology. Yet that does not mean all the decisions she makes are politically motivated or that she is incapable of telling the right from the wrong. The President has been given some residual powers precisely to prevent the kind of travesty of justice the current ordinance represents. At the fag-end of her term, the onus is now on the President to set the right precedent.