 |
Kathmandu Sunday October 07, 2001 Ashwin 21, 2058.
|
One-sided CWC : Whim or necessity ?
By Chiranjibi Kafle
The latest induction of five loyals into the Central Working
Committee by NC president Girija Prasad Koirala has almost completed the long-awaited fill
up of the vacant seats in the party’s top executive body. However, criticism is
mounting against him for not respecting the dissenting groups in the party.
The September 25 induction of five new figures (viz, Ram
Krishna Tamrakar, Dil Bahadur Gharti, Sunil Bhandari, Farmulla Mansur and Purna Kumar
Sherma), fills 36 out of the 37 CWC berths. The last fill up, which was done in May, just
a few days before the unfortunate Narayanhity massacre of June 1, had also reflected
Koirala’s ‘unilateral’ choices. Blessed with CWC berths at that time were
Chakra Prasad Bastola, Dr Ram Sharan Mahat, Dr Ram Baran Yadav (all ministers in the
erstwhile Koirala cabinet), Lila Koirala, KB Gurung, Laxman Ghimire, Gopal Pahadi and
Binay Dhwaj Chand.
That Koirala had made such a move in order to consolidate his
loosening grip over the party, even as he was head of the government, was obvious and
understandable at the time. But that he did not think it necessary to give opponents in
the party any care, even as he had already lost his seat in Singha Durbar, indicates that
the NC ironman was more than merely disenchanted with the manoeuvring of those who managed
to dislodge him from the office of prime minister.
Notwithstanding the criticisms and arguments that there could
have been better choosing, Koirala in his capacity as party president has given ‘his
CWC’ the shape he wanted. And although he risks the possibility of being branded
self-righteous in matters of decision-making, there are some grounds on which one could
justify his move.
First and foremost, there can be no doubt that the Nepali
Congress has been rife with in-house dissidence for a long time now. Irrespective of
whichever camp is in power, attempts have been made to topple the government whenever
opportunity availed. This is in fact the most convincing of all arguments why people have
to question the so called "healthy parliamentary practice" often touted by most
Kangressi leaders. Never did Koirala receive genuine cooperation from dissidents in the
party in matters of running the government. And the trend dates back to right after the
first general elections (1991) following the restoration of democracy. And the same has
been the case with other prime ministers from the Nepali Congress. The fate of Bhattarai
and of Deuba in his earlier term as prime ministers is fresh in everyone’s memory.
Notably, with Kishunji’s unfortunate defeat in the 1991
election, there was none at the time to stake a reasonable claim vis-a-vis Koirala to the
post of prime minister. Yet, Koirala was made to suffer through sheer dissidence.
Subsequently, the party was defeated in the snap poll that followed barely three years
later. And even after emerging victorious in the 1999 polls, the NC hardly seems to have
achieved anything other than address the still unquenched thirst for revenge among its
members against each other. This is no exaggeration.
The next point is that the so-called dissidence within the
Nepali Congress is hardly ever based on any clearly defined intellectual agenda.
Democratic socialism, the dream of the late B P Koirala, liberal market-based economy,
rural development and a few other similar buzzwords are the party’s macro policies.
And its micro programmes are anything but spectacular, although it must be stated that the
recently announced land reform package had tried to crack some tough nuts. As such, the
utility of, or the rationale behind, the prevailing ‘dissidence’ (irrespective
of camps) can be best explained
by the dissidents themselves. But unfortunately, none seems to be aptly prepared for that.
Nevertheless, dissidence continues unabated in the party.
Koirala’s camp is the dissident in the present government, and Deuba’s camp the
dissident in the party. And there seems to be no truce between these two. Immediately
after Koirala announced the names of his deputies on the CWC, Prime Minister Deuba is
reportedly consulting seriously with his colleagues to expand the cabinet in a way that
might counter Koirala’s move to unilaterally sweep virtually all the CWC berths. In
case he does so, I think it would be wise for Koirala to cooperate with him, just as Deuba
would do well to cooperate with Koirala in party affairs. For, when a person is chosen to
undertake some responsibility, full fledged cooperation must be extended by all members of
a party (setting aside all minor differences) to help him carry out his responsibilities
in the way he would like.
After all, Koirala is the elected head of the party. So he
must be allowed to work as per his choice and, of course, within the given statutory
norms. In the same way, Deuba was elected by the party to be the head of the government.
So he must also receive full cooperation from the party to form this team and run
governance, and this also within the statutory norms and provisions.
Only such a culture can root out evils like unending
dissidence and lack of trust among members of the same family. And the tendency to
sideline others will gradually disappear for good.
This, however, would not deprive one of a fair opportunity to
canvass one’s own intra-party political agenda. And dissidence may also win a
programme-based victory in the long run. But voting for someone to lead, and yet defying
his leadership without even waiting to see the results he may bring about is surely no
trait of a democratic culture. So now that Koirala has ascertained a firm grip over the
party (and, mind you, it is a grip not over the entire party but only over the top
executive body), it would be wiser for all to wait and see whether his one-minded CWC
could really work effectively for the overall strength of the oldest party.
Other Stories
|
