By Dr. Gyan Basnet
Nine months after the failure of
the Constituent Assembly to write a new constitution, major political parties
of Nepal have agreed to form an election government led by sitting Chief
Justice (CJ) Khilraj Regmi with the aim of holding new Constituent Assembly
elections by mid-June. People now are expressing doubts and asking what
guarantee there is that a CJ-led government will be able to complete its
mission on time. The formation of their new government under the CJ in fact
fulfils the long-standing demand of the opposition parties — primarily the
Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML — for the Bhattarai government to make way for
an election government. With the demise of the Constituent Assembly on May 27
last year, the political process became stuck over government formation,
eclipsing the larger constitutional issues, especially those related to
federalism. Dr Bhattarai’s proposal for an election in November was rejected outright
by the opposition parties, whereupon President Ram Baran Yadav failed in
several attempts to set a deadline for the formation of a national unity
government.
Since he was proposed as Prime
Minister to lead the election government, the CJ, now Chairman of the interim
electoral government, has been at the centre of political debate across the
country. He revealed his selfish attitude and hunger for power by wishing to
hold the posts of PM and CJ at the same time: the nation as a whole was
dumbfounded. Should he not himself have been ashamed even to consider it in the
first place? Where were his professional ethics and his morality? There are
fears, therefore, that the CJ-led government will now even further complicate
the situation in Nepal since the political decision of the four major parties
is opposed by many smaller parties as well as by legal groups, and there are
widespread protests.
In the first place, Maoist
Supremo Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda advertised the post of PM at his
party’s conference, and later other political parties gave their consent. Did
these actions of the political parties not make the post of PM look cheap,
rather like goods for sale in the market? Have democracy and the political
parties truly failed in Nepal? The republican and democratic character of their
Constitution demonstrates that all power ultimately stems from the people. The
political parties should be the pathfinders for the nation highlighting
milestones along the road to true democracy. Why then did they force them to
accept as a PM someone from a non-political background? Should the political
parties not justify this now to their people? Should they not be forced to
admit their own failures publicly? The people demand a justification.
The formation of a council of
ministers by a bunch of bureaucrats and with the CJ as Chairman to lead an
election government is a blunder aimed at cheap political consensus. It is a
gross violation of the popular will, and it runs counter to established
democratic norms, principles and values. Rather than accept the CJ as PM by
breaching such principles, the political parties should, as a hard option, have
joined the Bhattarai-led government, which effectively was the successor of the
last government before the demise of the Constituent Assembly.
I have a few points to illustrate
why the political parties should have made this choice:
Firstly, finding an alternative
to Dr Bhattarai as PM was a matter of national urgency that was much in demand.
It was the vital departure point for seeking a solution to the present
political deadlock. However, that alternative should have been sought from
other branches of government: it needed to come from within the existing
political forces. The parties failed to offer a candidate for the post, and
they were unable to remove Dr Bhattarai. Blind acceptance of the CJ instead
seriously undermined constitutional and democratic principles. Joining a
Bhattarai-led government would, in theory at least, have helped to continue the
democratic norms and protect the basic values of constitutionalism. What the
other major political parties need to understand is that neither Dr Bhattarai
nor Prachanda decides the fate of ther nation or the outcome of any election:
it is the people, who are sovereign, expressing their will through the election
itself. The political forces should not have feared to knock on the doors of
the people: which party leads the election government is not as vital as
ensuring that the election itself takes place.
Secondly, by joining the Bhattarai-led
government the various political parties would have shared power and at the
same time countered the monopoly and ‘Hitlerism’ of the Maoist-led government.
As ‘iron cuts iron’, the political parties could not only have been part of the
greater political decision-making process but also have defeated the evil
attitude of the Bhattarai-led government by actually becoming part of that very
government. They could have gained a forum, and street politics would have been
avoided. This should really have happened nine months ago. It was wrong to
assume that the post of PM was everything. The PM alone cannot drive the
vehicle, and there are many departments that could have been divided among the
parties if they had joined a broad political consensus.
Thirdly, there is an important
question being asked in the country today: have democracy and the political
parties truly proved to be failures in Nepal? Had the political parties joined
the Bhattarai-led government not only would they have conveyed a positive message
to the people that democracy was still on track, but also that the political
parties, the true drivers of democracy, had in over eighty years of history not
failed us yet. At the same time they would have conveyed the message to the
international community and all well-wishers of our country that we are still
capable of solving major problems on their own.
Finally, the CJ-led election
government is absolutely no solution to the present crisis. Mr Regmi may
complete his given task successfully, but a questionable political tradition
will now have been established in the country. Will the nation not in future be
committed to more dependency on the Apex Court even in small matters of
national interest? History shows that the thirty-year Panchayaty system killed
off our fledgling democracy and put them decades behind in terms of economic,
social and political development. The horrendous ten-year civil strife put them
even further behind, killing and displacing thousands and destroying public and
private properties. Through the acceptance of a CJ-led government by breaching
rules and established principles, a whole generation is sure to suffer in the
future. There is no guarantee that this government will be able to achieve the
fresh election sought and lead the nation towards its future.
There are many important issues
to mull over in these matters. ‘Power tends to corrupt and absolute power
corrupts absolutely.’ What happens then if the present Regmi-led government
does not complete its given task, and he, like a leech, clings to power and
even desires to be a new ‘king’ like Dr Bhattarai? Would that start new street
protests demanding his resignation? Is there no ending to this vicious cycle in
Nepal? Is it also not wrong then for the popular will to be subjected to the
mercy of the judiciary?
The solution should have been sought from within the political parties. The essence of politics is discourse, dialogue and compromise among the political forces in order to achieve positive political outcomes. A broad political consensus on power sharing was more vital than ever before. The nation demanded it as the alpha and omega of overcoming the present political deadlock. However, their political parties failed them. The political parties, the so-called vehicles of democracy, have seriously failed to perform in the political theatre of their country. In the name of political agreement, they have grossly breached established principles and practices, and once again they have deceived the people and destroyed their hopes for political stability and peace.
The solution should have been sought from within the political parties. The essence of politics is discourse, dialogue and compromise among the political forces in order to achieve positive political outcomes. A broad political consensus on power sharing was more vital than ever before. The nation demanded it as the alpha and omega of overcoming the present political deadlock. However, their political parties failed them. The political parties, the so-called vehicles of democracy, have seriously failed to perform in the political theatre of their country. In the name of political agreement, they have grossly breached established principles and practices, and once again they have deceived the people and destroyed their hopes for political stability and peace.
Nepal has been lurching from
crisis to crisis for years. Dr Bhattarai has left his position as a failed
Prime Minister and failed leader, and the political crisis that remains is even
more chaotic and messy. It is good that he has gone, but I seriously doubt that
the Regmi-led government will be able to clean up the mess that he has left. I
fear that the Regmi-led government will serve the interests of the country less
than the petty interests of those who conspired to achieve this takeover.
The existence of the new election
government makes a mockery of democracy, and of established rules and
principles. It exists by artificial arrangement, and it does not represent the
general will of the people. Truly, people of Nepal have lost, the essence of
democracy has been killed and the agendas of the evil ones are the winners.
Today, a pertinent question confronts us all: when shall they be able to
establish ‘a government of laws and not of men’ in their country?
Courtesy: Eurasia Review,
April 04, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment