 |
|
| Kathmandu, Tuesday June 10, 2003 Jestha 27, 2060. |
|
National Assembly
Leaders of five political parties have been
going through ‘mock’ exercise of parliament session during the past two weeks in
order to press their demand for the revival of the dissolved House of Representatives.
Only last week, they held the mock session of the National Assembly on the main road
outside Singha Durbar. Such symbolism at a time when there is uncertainty over the highest
institution of people’s representation cannot be called unusual. At the same time,
such mock exercises can neither be a regular phenomenon of protest.
However, the government needs to take such
exercises with the seriousness it deserves. Because of the prevailing political condition
and absence of the House of Representatives for more than a year, promulgation and
re-promulgation of ordinances has been a routine affair of the state. The constitutional
provision that the intersession period of parliament should not exceed six months has been
violated, and the previous Lokendra Bahadur Chand government appeared little sympathetic
towards the political parties’ demand that the session of the National Assembly be
called.
With the Upper House remaining dysfunctional and
the date for election to the Lower House still unclear, the legislative business are being
conducted solely through ordinance, a practice that is expected to be exercised sparingly
by the Executive. The Chand government actually never bothered to respond to the demand
for calling the session of the Upper House and involved representatives of the people and
political parties in affairs of the state. The fallout of this attitude of the government
was serious and in a way contributed to fuelling the fire of protest launched by the five
political parties.
While the government needs to hold serious
consultation with the political parties, including Maoists, in order to create an
atmosphere for the next general elections (or even election to the constituent assembly as
demanded by the Maoists), it cannot completely discard the National Assembly. The
executive, especially the Prime Minister, needs to consult the chairman of the Upper House
and explore the possibilities of summoning the session. Obviously, the role of the House
of Representatives and the National Assembly are different under the constitution, but
they supplement each other in the process of legislation. But the constitution is also
explicitly clear that the Upper House will continue to function even in the absence of the
elected House. Then why was the Upper House kept in total ‘disuse’ all along
after the dissolution of the House of Representatives?
The new government should at least try to give
an impression that it is serious about reviving parliamentary and constitutional process
in running the state. It should also seek the legal opinion of the Attorney General as
well as parliament secretariat to explore the possibility of holding the session of the
Upper House, which makes it possible for the members to air their views at the people’s
forum, and not on the street. |
