Resolve deadlock

The high level committee formed under Prithvi Raj Legal, vice chairman of the National Planning Commission, had pledged to resolve the deadlock over 10 percent service charge on hotel bills within two months. The committee would not have come into existence had hotel union leaders and hoteliers not used a series of threats and counter-threats to press their demands. Such an intervention on the part of the government came only after the tourism sector had suffered a series of setbacks. It is unfortunate that the deadline for resolving the deadlock ends on February 10. The committee has not yet been able to come up with a satisfactory solution. The facts show that the country’s tourism industry has, since then, lost millions of rupees, affecting the ancillary industries - horticulture, food products, fishery, poultry - badly. It is now likely that the Central Action Committee of hotel workers will, as it has warned, again go on a strike, if the committee fails to resolve the service charge impasse before the deadline ends.

Differences between union leaders and hotel owners surfaced last December when the former demanded the 10 percent service charge. This was in addition to the existing Value Added Tax. The hotel workers had even threatened that, if their demands were not met, they would go on a strike till the tourism industry was crippled. The situation took a new turn as soon as Deputy Prime Minsiter Ram Chandra Poudel stepped into the picture. The deputy prime minister held a meeting with union leaders and then excluded the hotel industry while taking a final decision on the service charge demand. As a result, the Industrial Friendly Committee (IFC) decided in turn to shut down the hotels begining December 11. This was a serious threat to the tourism industry. The IFC called off their threat only when the Prime Minister begged for two months’ time to defuse the conflict. What is regrettable is that the committee has not yet realised how hard the dispute has hit the tourism industry.

That the hotel industry contributes 4 percent to the country’s Gross Domestic Product is a fact that the government has failed to take proper note of. The industry contributes more than 158 million US dollars to the national economy. It is also true that the tourism industry has suffered a great setback since the hijacking of the Indian Airlines jet in December 1999.

The damage done to the tourism sector by hotel owners and union leaders would at least take five years to recoup. It is certain that if the government appointed committee fails to resolve the service charge deadlock and union leaders strike again to press their demand after February 10, the tourism industry may not be able to recover for a very long time. It is, therefore, high time the committee worked with a sense of urgency to resolve the differences before it is too late.

Recent trends of constitutionalism

By Rudra Prasad Sharma

Constitutionalism or the living practice of theRule of Law, corroborated by the constitution as the fundamental law of the land, is one of the main objectives of the constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990. In the ten years of constitutional exercise, some trends have been witnessed which deserve an intellectual discussion so as to promote a better constitutional exercise. In the academic sphere this constitution is considered as one of the best constitutions of the world. It guarantees fundamental rights to a greater extent like the right to property and right to privacy which are still lacking in some of the other democratic countries.

Contrary to this sweet theoretical aspect, the Nepalese experience of constitutional practice has been bitter over the years. The rights of a detained person are never considered seriously while charges are being framed. The character diversity of offenders and diversity of situations have never been a matter for consideration while proposing sentence. Government attorneys move with a mission of subjecting detained persons to the hardest possible penalty, and this has been taken as the best compliance with their obligation. In matters of prosecution, prosecuting randomly with the application of law providing the stiffer penalty has been considered the best representation of the state. Torture has been used as a means to extract confession. The accountability of the prosecution for discharging the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is manifestly neglected. Government attorneys generally fail to corroborate with essential evidence the allegation made in the charge sheet. Worst of all, such incidents occur with impunity. The incidents of human rights violations are mounting every day. Over 1,600 lives have already been claimed by such incidents.

Besides, some people are already in the jungles, defying the constitution. Although they claim to be seeking a golden future for the people, they are also excelling in "human rights violation", recruiting minors in their armed forces, extorting money, and so on . In this way, people are being squeezed by two contradictory forces viz. the Maoists and the government.

Why do people chose violence? This is a matter of great concern. Those who are pleading for violence in the name of an uncertain golden future should find it worthwhile to read a legendary story. Astyagkas in Xenophon’s cyropoedia asks Cyrus to give an account of his last lesson. ‘One of the boys in our school who had a coat too small for him gave it to one of his companions a little smaller than himself and took away the companion's coat, which was too large.

The preceptor made me the judge of this dispute, and I decided that the matter should be left as it was, since both parties seemed to be better accommodated then before. Upon which the preceptor pointed out to me that I had done wrong, for I had been satisfied with considering the consequence of things, whereas I ought first to have looked at the justice of it. Justice never would allow violence to be done to anyone’s property. So, are the Maoists doing justice by extorting money in the name of an uncertain golden future? Why can they not pursuade the people to elect them to power whereby they could curb all the evils?

Another important thing which badly needs to be heeded by both parties, namely the government and the Maoists, is the scope and function of law. They always cite the holy name of " Rule of law". But have they understood the function of law, what law is and whom the law is meant for?

Law does not say to man, "labour and I will reward you". It says," labour and I will assure to you the enjoyment of the fruits of your labour". Law provides for subsistence, by protecting men while they labour, and by making them sure of the fruits of their labour. Security for labour, security for the fruits of labour; such is the benefit of laws, and it is an inestimable benefit. Whoever proposes a coercive law should be ready to show, not only that there is a specific reason in favour of it, but also that this reason is of more weight than the general reasoning against every such law.

Are the Maoists and the government serious about these issues? Are they ready to guarentee peace? Peace, in fact, is the greatest human right and also the greatest emblem of prosperity.

At this juncture, even the main opposition party CPN-UML is vehemently demanding the amendment to the Constitution. Thus, time has come to assess the Constitution and its practice over the decade, especially in the perspective of the growing violence which was supposed not to have arisen as the constitution itself provides ways to protest and even procure good governance in a peaceful manner.

To get to the point, constitutionalism as such can be divided into two parts, viz legal constitutionalism and political constitutionalism. Legal constitutionalism means to guarantee the Rule of Law according to the manner and matter stipulated in the laws or the constitution itself, and especially through the court process. Political constitutionalism is the process whereby the Rule of Law is guaranteed through the political process such as impeachment, the vigilance of the media, transperancy and accountability. Thus, the former has more to do with law and constitution, while the latter concerns public opinion and the pragmatic perspective of the philosophy of the constitution. Or, to be more precise, journalism covers a great chunk of political constitutionalism.

After the restoration of democracy, journalism turned out to be one of the most thriving sectors, and the people holding press ID cards are, in fact, the ones who have been enjoying freedom the most. The press has contributed a lot to the consolidation of democracy, though professionalism in journalism is still lacking.

Legal constitutionalism and political constitutionalism are indispensable to each other. The former is blind in the absence of the latter, while the latter becomes dumb without the former.

Over the decade, legal constitutionalism, as practiced in Nepal, has been lacking not because of any inadequacy in the Constitution but because of bad workmen blaming their tools. The electorate do exercise their right to vote but the elected ones are lagging behind in maintaining the Rule of Law. The administration of justice regarding criminal justice is chaotic and rather cruel and inhuman on the part of the government. It is also frustrated by the attempts of the police to arrest detainees within the periphery of the courts.

To conclude, constitutionalism in Nepal is now at stake. The nation has got a good constitution to worship but unfortunately less human rights to enjoy, because of the grim fact of deteriorating "law and order". People are exasperated when security becomes more and more expensive. May Lord Pashupati Nath save us all-Nepalis.

These chatter-boxes !

By Babu Lal Bhandari

It might take anybody by surprise and sound very unusual some place else. Foreign countries and their democracies are a different thing, but you can't say this with Nepalese democracy which will be only ten years come Chaitra, and is still believed to be a delicate child, constantly ailing.

Here, our concern is with the sentence the government has lately passed on FM radio, though I must excuse myself for my inability to quote it verbatim right now. There is not any dearth of people who, making a mountain of a mole hill, may find an excuse to explain this move, some with their nasal twang, as something which will surely defeat the norms and principles of democracy. These are just criticism for criticism’s sake.

The government, for its part, has a legitimate political reason. Only after it had come up with the most fertile decision taken with so much presence of mind, did I discover that the government is not altogether stupid about everything and neither is it impotent, as we often tend to think.

I’m pretty sure that these chatter boxes always feed people with this or that nonsense stuff which the government tries to prevent reaching their ears and are, of course, a nuisance at times. I don’t think the government had ever asked them to open studios and, for that matter, can’t be under any obligation to set them foot-loose and not cut the likes of them to size. Moreover, what good is news of a political nature to our commoners or country folks who are much engrossed in field work, never knowing and not even wanting to know what, where and why.

Worse, FM keeps people informed and, thereby, gives rise to inimical or even hostile public opinion against the government, that is to say, against democracy itself. The thing that’s always gnawing at the bowels of officials is the future of democracy which only consolidates by way of secrecy. That being so, it has to see to it that the highway to Ramrajya is not anywhere blocked in the slightest. Though frankly speaking the emergence of FM as the most popular media was rendering "The Radio Nepal " a disastrous flop.

Now, the heavy scissors of censorship will not leave them in a position to break news and the sole authority of ‘The Radio Nepal ‘( or the voice of democracy) will be firmly established again. In view of how good state radio has been at the job, people can, as ever, count on its truthfulness.

We've got to admit that FM might be at pains to pay their reporting staff and others. It is in our democratic government’s caring nature to relieve them of this burden, taking the responsibility upon itself and making liberalism, one of its pronounced policies, a reality. Ironically, given their resources, there can be no news more authentic than that supplied by the government controlled media and the police. Simply put, the government objection to news does not apply to what we call folk songs, film songs, religious programs and all other sorts which they can run as much or as often as they want. It passes all comprehension why they couldn’t be content to be just means of entertainment. I have a feeling that they’d rather be thankful it was not any decree banning them, one and all, without exception. God forbid !

Who is there to question or challenge a democratic government’s activities and prove them undemocratic ? A little bird once whispered to me that this is the secret of all our rulers. If they have a propensity to drag matters out any further, let them do what they will, at their own risk.Yet, the government is none of a girl whose single misstep may accurse her whole future. But why poke fingers and intrude where I have no business and land me into unwanted trouble ! So why don’t you also come up like me with your ready thumbs-up sign?

US welcomes more women into politics

By Neeta Maskey

Election 2000 was a significant event for women politicians in the United States.

It was an election women politicians contested at all government levels. It resulted in record numbers of women in the US Senate and House of Representatives. It also brought in an all-time high number of women to serve as state govenors. As women make up 52 percent of the US population, this increase, however, is not enough to fully represent them in US politics.

Every woman candiate for the Senate in 2000 was victorious in the general election. There are now 13 women serving in the Senate. This includes Hillary Clinton, who made history by becoming the first First Lady to win a seat in the Senate. Clinton is also the first woman senator from the state of New York. Jean Carnahan filled in the senate seat won posthumously by her husband from the state of Missouri.

Mel Carnahan, a two-term Missouri governor, died in a plane crash while campaigning for a US Senate seat representing Missouri just weeks before the election. It was too late to replace his name on the ballot, and Mrs Carnahan, who has never held public office before, agreed to serve in his place when he won the election. This is not the first time in American history that a woman was appointed to fill the term of her late husband. In 1931, Hattie Wyatt Caraway was appointed to fill the term of her deceased husband, Thaddeus H Caraway.

Likewise, a record number of women will serve in the US House of Representatives. All 52 female incumbents, who ran for re-election, won. In addition, the House will have 7 new congresswomen, and 2 more women who will serve as non-voting delegates.

The gubernational races also resulted in an increase in the number of women governors to 6, including the first woman governor of Puerto Rico, which is a US territory. However, it appears that the number of women in state legislatures dropped slightly from 1,670 to 1,656, that is , 22.3 percent of the total.

The presidential race was mired with controversies and delays. It was one of the most bitter and hard fought elections ever, and the US Supreme Court intervned to decide the winner. One important hand in deciding the outcome was that of Katherine Harris, Secretary of State of Florida. Harris stopped the recount of votes in Florida, where many voters claimed the voting process was confusing and that they voted for the wrong candidate. The Democratic Party, which lost many votes because of this and eventually lost the presidential election, accused Harris, a Republican, of being partisan.

Harris denied any wrongdoing, partisanship, or abuse of discretion in her decision to certify George W Bush as the winner in her state. "Before God, before the people of the state of Florida who elected me, I know that I followed the law," Harris said in an interview on national television. She said that Bush won the election through the votes of the peope and the way the republic is set up." But she said that had a full recount of the whole state been completed, she’d still have no idea who would have won.

The newly elected Bush nominated 6 women and 16 men to form his government. Some nominations, however, have come under fire. Linda Chavez, nominated for the post of Secretary of Labor, had to withdraw following allegations that she housed and financially helped an illegal immigrant from Guatemala in the early 90s. Elaine Chou, former Peace Corps director and Deputy Secretary of Transportation, replaced Chavez as Labour Secretary-designate.

Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior-nominee, came under fire for her views on free-market solutions over environmental regulations. Many regard Norton, Colorado’s first female attorney general, who led a pro-development organisation that included opponents of the Endangered Species Act and other envronmental legislation, as being unfit for the job of Secretary of the Interior. Norton also backs the new administration’s decision to open up parts of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling for which she has been heavily criticized by environmentalists.

People in the environmental community also say that Christine Todd Whitman, who was appointed to head the Environmental Protection Agency, is not the right person for that job. They argue that she is not really a passionate advocate for the environment. Governor of New Jersey, the nation’s most densely-populated and polluted state, Whitman became the butt of jokes about the environment and pollution. But her defenders say the state’s environmental problems have presented policy challenges that would make the New Jersey governor a good candidate to head the EPA.

The rest of the women in the new administration are: Karen Hughes nominated for the post of White house Counselor, Secretary of Agriculture-designate Ann Veneman, and Condoleezza Rice who will be the US President’s national security and foreign policy advisor. An expert on the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Rice says she switched her college major from music to politics after attending a lecture by Professor Josef Korbel on Stalin and Russian politics. Professor Korbel was the father of none other than Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

As the new leadership forms its cabinet, members of the old administration have left office. Two prominent figures of the Clinton Administration who will be missed are Albright herself and Janet Reno. Women of great credentials and experience, Albright and Reno made an impressive mark in American politics. Albright was the first woman ever to become US Secretary of State, and Reno became the first woman and longest serving Attorney General of the United States.

Madeleine Albright says her biggest achievement was bringing democracy toYugoslavia. Her relentless efforts to bring peace to the Balkans, and the Middle East will go down in history not just as a personal achievement but also as a political achievement for any woman in the world. Appearing on the Oprah Winfrey talk show just a few days before she left office, she asked the American people to get interested and involved in US foreign policy issues that affect the entire world.

One particular issue that Madeleine Albright says she will continue to push is the fight against injustices committed against women on the grounds of religious, cultural and social practices. She said her mission was and still is to spread awarenesss to all that injustices against women are criminal, and therefore, cannot be excused as being cultural, religious and social in origin. During her term as Secretary of State, she headed a campaign to crack down on global trafficking of women as sex slaves, which has become a lucrative international business, and has threatened the world with human rights abuses and the spread od HIV/AIDS.

Janet Reno, who received both harsh criticism and high praise for her work as Attorney General, had the last laugh when she surprised the nation on her last day of work by appearing on a late night comedy show. Reno, who was ridiculed by late night comedians more for her physical looks than for her actions as Attorney General, fondly departed from the American public by performing a farewell dance.

One familiar face that will remain in the spotlight of American politics is that of Hillary Clinton. She is the first First Lady to win a seat in the Senate, and there is speculation that she might even run for the US presidency in the near future.

Hillary Clinton changed the role of the First Lady of the United States. A talented lawyer, a successful fund-raiser, a dynamic speaker and a person of high intellect with the skills of an astute politican, Hillary became a first lady who directly got involved in policy-making decisions on important issues like health care reform. From the start, Hillary became the most hated and at the same time, most admired woman in America. She angered the conventional public when she said she was not the type to "sit at home and bake cookies." She started using her married name only after her all too self-important, ambitious, career-woman image was blamed for her husbands’s failure to get re-elected as Arkansas governor. Her involvement in a scandal concerning the Whitewater land deal tarnished her negative public image even more. But the steely poise with which she handled the sex scandals involving her husband and the presidential impeachment trial that followed helped her win back the American people’s admiration for her as First Lady.

In contrast, the new First Lady herself admits that she is a traditional woman. In her interview with noted journalist Barbara Walters, Laura Welch Bush said that she is first a devoted wife and a devoted mother, and she decided to stay home to raise her twin daughters. She said that she worked as a teacher and a librarian, which are traditionally regarded as jobs for women. But she is by no means a setback to the ideals and aspirations of modern women. She said she intends to continue with the education forum she started as the First Lady of Texas, and encourage younger generations to take up teaching as a profession.

Only time will tell if Mrs Bush will be in the spotlight as much as former First Lady Clinton. Mrs Bush unintentionally walked into a political minefield when she said in a television interview that the nation’s predominent law on abortion should not be overturned . But she quickly added that agrees with her pro-life husband on the need to empahsize measures that reduce the need for abortion, including abstinence education for young people.

When Mrs Bush was asked how she, as First Lady, could help her husband do his job of uniting the nation, she said she hasn’t really thought about it. But her husband George W Bush, the new President of the United States, belives "America will fall in love will Laura." He said, "She will be a force to be reckoned with."

Barbara Walters, who interviewed the newly elected First Couple just hours before the Presidential Inauguration, said," I’ve interviewed seven presidents, starting with Nixon, I’m still waiting to interview the first woman President of the United States.