Misdirected Bill

The Bill to amend the Citizenship Act-1963 was passed by Parliament on the eve of the visit of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala to India. Earlier, the National Assembly had opposed this sixth amendment to the Citizenship Act, which had been introduced as a finance bill, and sent it back to the Lower House of Parliament. The reason it had rejected the Bill was that it contained a provision that has been interpreted as not safeguarding the national interest. But a week later, the Nepali Congress which has a majority in Parliament, pushed this piece of legislation through without any debate on the floor of Parliament. This gives room for suspicion that the NC passed the Bill with party interests in mind rather than the national interest. This finance bill was submitted in mid-January for His Majesty the King’s approval. What is the role of the monarch at a time when a political party forwards a bill that could affect the interest of the country? Does the monarch have a constitutional right to reject such a bill? What happens if the constitutional head rejects a bill that fails to safeguard the interests of the country? These are a few questions that remain unanswered.

Last summer, the ruling NC and opposition UML passed the controversial bill in Parliament without giving a second thought to its consequences. The NC neither stated clearly why the bill was necessary nor was it discussed and scrutinised in Parliament. What the NC did was re-table the Bill in the Lower House and send it for the royal seal. If the monarch approves the Bill, the government will make the country vulnerable to migrant citizenship seekers that could not only threaten the country’s sovereignty but may also prove fatal for national identity in the long term. The Bill clearly states that "any person can acquire citizenship on the basis of descent." This apart, "any person whose father is not a Nepali citizen can acquire the Nepali citizenship, if he or she speaks the language and has spent ten years in the country". However, the Citizenship Act -1963 underlines that "only a person whose father is a Nepali citizen can have the right to acquire citizenship". This is a serious departure that provides enough room for foreign nationals to acquire Nepali citizenship. The fear is that such a provision will also leave room for manipulation due to which the country will have to offer citizenship to foreign nationals.

The constitutional head has no doubt the right to consult with legal experts. The constitution explicitly underlines that the role of the monarch is not determined by any political party. Act 88 (5) of the 1990 constitution states that "the constitutional head has the right to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court, if the national interest is at stake". First and foremost, the ruling NC passed the Bill in favour of those who have migrated from Indian states. The country cannot afford to introduce such a law.

Checkered political development

By Nagendra Chhetri

There appears to be a danger of a pluralistic socio-political set up degenerating into a much bigger, more menacing pan leftist movement against democratic institutions and benevolent monarchy. The aim of the anti-democratic element is the total destruction of the present status quo, but they offer nothing to replace it with. Power and popularity sought by the democratic leadership has threatened the democracy that is struggling to get on its feet. It is high time the democratic leadership was able to create the unshakable conviction of the Nepalese nation in the political process by individual and collective example. In a democracy public policy is decided by the majority, subject to the rule of law instead of brute force.

Democracy means the division and separation of powers and establishing proper checks and balances. The division of the responsibilities of the central government among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The allocation of power among different branches of government such that each is protected from the infringement of the other. In the light of these principles let us see how political development has taken place in Nepal. The political development in the last fifty years in Nepal has brought tremendous awareness in areas that are pivotal to imparting political education to the citizens. But political education must be oriented towards understanding the international, regional and finally the national geopolitical situation of the country. Even in a world of the growing global village concept national interest comes first. Every country and its leaders may talk about world problems, international understanding and global mechanisms for peace and prosperity. But the first priority is always and every time given to national independence, integrity and welbeing of one's own country.

A political system is not an end in itself, it is just a means to achieve the greatest good of the country. It largely depends on how vast an impact can it makes on the quality of lifestyles of its people. Whether the vast majority of the people have been politically motivated to share the burden of nation-building by willingly joining hands and coming into the national mainstream should be the true measuring rod of political development. Is it not time to critically examine what has gone wrong with the political functioning of the country?

In the last fifty years Nepal exercised mainly two political systems: one multiparty political system and the other partyless Panchayat system. The directive principles and policies of state are almost the same except the stated policy of declaring Nepal "a zone of peace" in the partyless constitution. Well! It is open for every right minded and proud Nepalese to judge which achieved what and how much to make every Nepalese stand upright and proclaim himself/herself a Nepalese. Political development must be judged within the limitations of the tangible results it has delivered to uproot poverty, disease, deprivation, and illiteracy from the country. Economic development is the bedrock on which political development stands and is sustained. For the economic development of a country like Nepal there are two principal possibilities: one human resource development and the other natural resource development. For human resource development a deep look into the national education system is needed. Our new generation must first be made aware of the geographical limitations and the possibilities of productive capacity of the land. Small scale agro based industries, regional and village based cottage industries, poultry farming, pig farming, animal husbandry, sheep farming etc, must be the basic curriculum in teaching institutions.

When we talk about natural resources, water is the only resource which is in abundance but needs a sound and sustainable policy to be harnessed. It needs to have a coherent national policy whoever comes to power. Priorities must be given to detail survey, infrastructure, surface communications, industries, educational institutions and agriculture. Too much of politics in the educational institutions has marred the standard of education thereby corrupting the very foundations of the education system. Nepal probably is the only country where every political party has various student wings in schools, campuses and universities. No other democratic country worth the name have such systems. It has done no good for the development of democratic institutions in Nepal.

Following the restoration of multiparty system in 1990 Nepal has become a victim of unstable political institutions, weak and unbalanced financial policies and dithering and changing domestic and foreign policies. It seems the political parties were not ready to handle the democratic challenges and opportunities in Nepal. The political leadership got drunk with the unlimited power provided by the constitution. The uninitiated political leadership, it seems, has become messy, disappointing and even shocking. Have they tasted power before they could handle it? Basically democracy means give and take; political leaders in particular have to trade, change, retreat, bend, compromise, as they advance from principles to the practical, from the ideal to the possible. How many leaders have been able to meet these basic criteria? So far they have proven to be manipulative, unprincipled and of double standards. Democracy needs time to mature, it needs patience to develop into a culture, but the false promises and empty dreams raised unexpected hopes in the people resulting in mass frustration with the system. This has even armed some disgruntled elements against the establishment itself.

Democracy has proved to be expensive. It has not been able to deal with the rising problems of national dynamics. People expected a change for the better but the changes turned out to be much worse. People expected a qualitative flavour, a spice, a texture, a mood and an atmosphere, a trust in the new leadership and their commitment to the voters. But what have they got? Nepal today suffers from social instabilities caused by unchecked population pressure, resource depletion, ethnic tension, religious disputes, political rivalries and ever rising poverty. The unbridgeable gap between the haves and have nots has given rise to an explosive insurgency problem that is seriously challenging the very fabric of democratic institutions. Instead of searching and reaching national consensus on this menacing problem, the political leadership is found engaged in serving its own petty personal or political interest at the cost of national interest.

If political development during the Panchayat era had given rise to a dictatorial concept the multiparty era has developed into an open forum for Nepal closure/Kathmandu closure, damaging and destroying public properties in the name of exercising democratic rights. How much damage and destruction have been caused by the closure of traffic, shops, hotels, travel agencies and the industrial complexes in the last ten years is an untold story. The real casualties are national prestige and democratic institutions and the system itself has presented a lacklustre image in the international community. It has projected so far only a lopsided view of the system for the vast majority of the people.

Basically, why political development in Nepal remains so bleak is because of weak, aimless, and quarrelsome leadership without definite aims and objectives for the overall development of the nation. Democracy means the right to express any legitimate ideological views within the parameters of the constitution. The governing principle is the rule of law. Here in Nepal there are too many rules for the weak and poor. For the high and mighty there exist no rule. For them the rules exist only on piece of paper. But none has the right to go beyond the constitutional provision and threaten national integrity. Such elements must be dealt with accordingly.

If Nepal sincerely wishes to become a real advocate of democratic norms and values and set democratic examples in the international community it has to mend its habit and set certain standard. The first thing is to set out national aims and objectives and define national vital interests. National consensus on these issues must be reached. To protect the national interest and achieve the aims, agendas for domestic and foreign policy must be fixed and periodically re-examined. Any policy, planning or proposal of a higher order must have the five principles of what to do? why to do? who is going to do? where and when to do? how much and how to do it? This will certainly define the rights, responsibility and accountability of each institution and individual so that right checks and balances are maintained in all areas. Political development will have achieved nothing unless the economic development takes root and right, responsibility and accountability go hand in hand.

Shepherdless sheep and more

By Rishi Ram Paudyal

Bandhs and Chakkajams have been cheap ways of showing objections and demanding things for the last few years. As a matter of fact they have almost lost their significance.

There is a Nepali saying, ‘If you consume too much, even honey will taste bitter’. Though the saying has its origin in Nepal, it bears universal truth. Nothing of too much is good for anything.

Bandhs and Chakkajams would be effective measures to put pressure on the government or on the concerned authorities if they are carried out in timely fashion, on specific days, for particular purposes, with support from the public.

How annoying it is even just to hear a call for Chakkajams or Bandhs for uncertain times ! And how much more unbearable it is to have to go through such times !!

There is Chakkajam. You want to go to work but there is no means of affordable transportation. Being perplexed you stand at the bus stop watching a few rich people riding in cars or taxis or on motor bikes but no buses or tempos are seen to carry you. It’s almost late for the office but you are still there standing, quite confused and worried, because you know you are going to lose the salary of the day.

And there are regular bandhs on which days you remain indoors or walk in the street like a careless and jobless man. And what more there are many people who have to remain hungry if they don’t earn their bread every day.

But who cares to understand the problems and plight of the public? No one seems to. No, no, there is nobody. As they say the late supreme leader Ganeshman Singh had once said, "the public are like sheep’, so have we been goaded and treated. For no reason we have been made to suffer and for no reason we have been made to fear.

As a matter of fact, we are living a life worse than sheep do, for a flock of sheep has a shepherd good enough to take them to a green pasture to graze and to give them security but we lack it. To tell the truth, we are like sheep without shepherd and without any green pastures to graze and without any place to hide in times of dangers. We bleat our problems but we only hear the enchos of our own bleating. There is no one to listen to our cry. There is not a shepherd to show concern for us. So we are submissive because we are helpless. So we are in constant worry of our life because our life is still very dear to us. But alas ! There is not a single shepherd who bothers to understand us and help us.

Don’t be surprised, then, why there are so many, so frequent and so long bandhs and chakkajams. They are simply the crop of so called Nepalese democracy in which system publicly elected rulers are blind to the public themselves.

Let’s, we public, wait and see. If we don’t lose our patience soon, we will be amazed to see other wonders of democracy apart from annoying bandhs and chakkajams.

Boao forum for Asia

By Binod P Bista

Though an under current signalling an urgent need for a viable economic institution, that fully cared for the well being of the Asian region as a whole, could be felt by those deeply involved in Asian affairs, it took the East Asian financial crisis itself to convince those leaders on the fringes that Asian people will settle for nothing less than an Asian Economic Forum. The crisis became an eye opener to those countries which had opted for independent and direct dealings with countries outside of the region without giving due regard to the need to promote dialogue, enhance coordination and foster closer cooperation among the countries of the entire region. It was clear that healthy and steady economic development of the region required some sort of a forum that not only played a catalytic role to promote investment, expand trade and exchange technological know-how in the region, but also safeguarded regional economic security through continuous and close monitoring of the activities in the region and globally.

It is inevitable that the march of globalization of economies and trade taken up in the last century is bound to pick up more speed creating with it a new class of countries and peoples that make use of this great economic revolution. The preparations have long started, especially in Europe and America in the forms of European economic integration and North American Free Trade Agreement. Building up of a country’s economic strength through purposeful regional integration seems to be the order of the day in order to successfully participate in the globalization process. Although almost all Asian countries have been participating in sub-regional organizations such as ASEAN, SAARC and some have even joined international organizations such as APEC, it was perceived that there still was an unmet need of a forum of the people, by the people and for the people of Asia.

Process starts: Former leaders of some Asian countries proposed in Manila, the capital of the Philippines, in September 1998 that an Asian Forum, similar to the World Economic Forum (Davos) be established. They further recommended that the secretariat of the Forum be based in Boao, Hainan Province of the People’s Republic of China. The Hainan provincial government gladly accepted this suggestion of the venue as Boao was being developed into an eco-friendly travel destination along with requisite facilities planned for conventions, exhibitions and other industrial and trade related information data bank.

The process received the vital support from state leaders of China, who reaffirmed their commitment to provide full support and cooperation for the establishment of the proposed Asian Forum. While a Chinese private builder, namely Hainan Boao Investment Holdings Ltd, came forward to building the necessary infrastructure and facilities for the Forum in Boao, a temporary secretariat, set up for the purpose of planning and management of the activities of the Forum, went along with its organizational aspect including examining of the financial viability. It was decided to hold the Preparatory Committee Meeting during the first quarter of 2001, and convene the first meeting of the Forum in 2002. Invitations were sent out to former leaders, renowned Asian scholars, experts and diplomats with extensive experience in international organizations, academic/ management/financial experts, and other eminent personalities of Asian countries to come together in this grand endeavour mounted for bringing in a lasting peace and sustained prosperity to the Asian region.

Outlook of the Forum: All along the preparation phase, the promoters and the organizers of the Forum were engaged in carving out an Asian economic forum that would fulfil the following objectives: I) to establish an Asian Forum with a view to generate and propagate ideas for productive economic, business and cultural integration of the Asian economies with each other and with the global economy and society; ii) to mobilize support for these ideas; iii) to provide support for their implementation through human resource development, technological exchange, and international public education. Boao Forum for Asia would be a venue for dialogues, interactions and exchanges of views for former political figures, business leaders, academics and scholars, famous entrepreneurs as well as celebrities of other circles in Asia. The Forum would be set up as a non-governmental and non-profit making international conference body. The financial support for the Forum’s daily operations is to come from registration and membership fees to be charged to enterprises that are expected to attend the annual meetings of the Forum. Economic and social development issues in Asia would guide the discussions in the Forum.

Shaping up: The Experts’ Group Meeting for the establishment of the Boao Forum for Asia, held on 18-19 November of 2000, was attended by experts, scholars, representatives of former leaders and diplomats of twenty-three countries from Asia, including Nepal, and Australia. The meeting deliberated on various issues, including proposed structure of the Forum, Forum Secretariat, intellectual support for the Forum, and a draft agenda for the Preparatory Committee Meeting.

Founding of the Forum: After consultations with the promoters and the former leaders, it has been proposed that Boao Forum for Asia should come into existence on 27 February of 2001. The importance of this Forum cannot be overstated as Boao Forum would eventually become the premier Forum with strong Asian perspectives promoting socio-economic goals of Asian countries through greater integration. In addition to bringing in greater understanding between business leaders and Asian governments for deepening of trade, investment and technology partnerships, creating Asian business synergies for comprehensive and sustainable economic progress, the Forum will also promote region-wide strategic alliances to seize trade, industry and investment opportunities emerging from globalization. The Forum is also planned to be equipped with expertise to provide early warning signals to Asian business communities on the impact of global trade and investment liberalization measures, and serve as a clearing-house for promoting joint ventures between business communities operating in Asia.

(Former Prime Minister Kirti Nidhi Bista represented Nepal as a member of the Preparatory Committee Meeting at the founding of the Boao Forum for Asia)