Reforms In Parliament
A Continuous Process

By Ram Bahadur K.C.

THE notion of reform of parliament is very wide ranging and embraces various different measures and purposes. Furthermore, the reasons for caring such reforms are multifarious and the process of reform, one after another, is continuous.

Reforms

The magnitude and number of reforms differ from country to country and from stage to stage. Reforms are generally initiated by the parliament, by the government and sometimes through civil society and international agency. Reforms come from the parliament or some of its members when it is a question of increasing the efficiency of the parliament, adopting and simplifying rules and procedures of conducting House business, strengthening the structure and organisation of parliament, improving the status and position of the members and staff of the parliament, etc.

Since the restoration of the multi-party democracy in 1990, the trend of comments and criticisms directed against parliament and law makers is undesirably rising. The media, the intellectuals and the common people are saying that it has yet to have political stability, provide stable and efficient government, resolve national issue, maintain peace and security, etc. Furthermore, the leaders and political parties are very motivated for political power and social prestige without caring for the socio-economic well being of the people and country. Some ministers and lawmakers have even been charged of corruption, immoral activities and irresponsible behaviour. Such adverse impacts have been demonstratively trickled down to the bureaucrats, political cadres and social workers. Socio-economic maladies have apparently risen their ugly heads in the form of social injustice, crimes, illegal trafficking, unemployment, inflation, poverty and economic stagnation. The charges as listed above may not be all true, but they are not wholly exaggerated too.

Sometimes, it is also commented that Nepal has democracy without democratic values and culture. The System is democratic, while the politicians and leaders have yet to show their democratic credentials in terms of ethics, morality, values and cultures that are compatible with the democratic system. They are neither responsible or disciplined, nor rule-abiding or dedicated. Good mentality and attitude counts much in the democratic system. That is the whole value and essence of democracy. The castle of Democracy without democratic values and culture is like a castle built on sands which could collapse at any time.

Hence, reforms are the demand of time. Reforms, decided or planned in the various countries, concern different parliamentary spheres. However, most of the countries clearly consider certain matters important for parliamentary work.

For example, the committee system. It has frequently been the focal point of efforts towards reform and many countries are carrying out reforms of the committee system. Committee system is regarded a very viable mechanism for carrying out different parliamentary functions in a detailed and extensive way which is, in general, not possible for the whole House both in respect of precision, accuracy and coverage. Committee system, being an integral part of parliamentary system, various reforms are carried on in different countries either in respect of increasing their members, or in respect of making them permanent or extending the jurisdiction of operation or increasing their facilities and operational efficiency. In this regard, a lot needs to be done in the context of Nepal which has so far remained in pledge alone.

The other most important aspect of reform could be in respect to strengthening the system of politics of reasoning and dialogue. With the restoration of democracy the politics of banda, hartal and jam seems old fashioned, biased and superfluous. The politics of reasoning and dialogue needs very good relationship, mutual understanding and confidence-building between the ruling and the opposition parties. The ruling party and the government should have utmost tolerance and understanding to listen to all the reasonable criticisms and demands of the opposition and try to fulfill them sincerely. The opposition should offer very convincing and constructive counsel, present practical and people-oriented policies and programmes and persuade their cadres for collective responsibility. What is lacking today is mutual understanding and confidence. No system of polity and governance can succeed if the attitude of the government is suspicious about the motives of the opposition and the latter always depicting the government and its activities in the negative light. This is what we have bitterly experienced in the post democratic decade, resulting in confusion and frustration among the people.

Many parliaments have attempted to improve the working conditions in the parliaments and of individual parliamentarians by extending infrastructure facilities. These comprise technical installations such as computerisation, date processing and electronic voting system. Increased support of human resources, independent status of parliament services, improved financial status, new parliamentary buildings, chambers and committee rooms, secretarial services, better library and research facilities are other examples. The process and progress, in case of Nepal, has been very slow and sluggish.

As far as reforms are concerned, the aprliamentary rervices do not have power as such to initiate reform, and their task is generally limited to preparation and to the support of committees or parliamentary groups responsible for such reforms. In the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, the personnel employed in the two chambers can put forward proposals to the committees concerned and they are often consulted when reforms are going to be introduced. In Switzerland, the parliamentary services have collaborated closely in respect to bringing about reforms. Similarly, the services of the two Australian Houses can take initiatives in respect of reforms, particularly in the administrative area.

The tasks of parliamentary reforms can be made easy and effective where the parliamentary services themselves are independent and competent. Parliament reforms and parliamentary services being directive and supportive of each other, parliamentary reforms cannot go alone and become sustainable without parliamentary services being made independent, competent and attractive. There is a great lacuna in this respect in case of Nepal. Even a single piece of legislation for independent parliamentary services has not been enacted so far and has remained a day-dream for a decade.

Continuity

To conclude, parliamentary reforms is not a one time job. It is an on-going process and multi-dimensional. Democracy needs reform and continuity. Most importantly, we need to developed democratic values and culture. We can learn all these from other democratically developed countries. This initiative and continuity alone can help strengthen our democratic set-up and bring all-round development of the country.

Bhutanese Refugee Problem

By Jagadish B. Mathema

Despite ninth round of joint talks at the ministerial level between Nepal and Bhutan, the one-decade long Bhutanese refugee problem has remained unsolved. Prior to the departure of the Foreign Minister Chakra Prasad Bastola in last May to Thimpu to take part in the ninth ministerial talk, it was believed in the diplomatic and political circles that the refugee problem would be solved for good.

Annoying

Bhutanese refugee problem has been an annoying problem for Nepal. It started in 1989 with a few Bhutanese entering into Nepal from the eastern part of Nepal. Now the population of Bhutanese refugees have crossed 100,000 and most of the refugees are living in different refugee centres in Jhapa.

These Bhutanese refugees are the citizens of Bhutan of Nepalese origin, who have been living in Bhutan since many generations. The history of these Bhutanese refugees of Nepalese origin is quite old. When Bhutanese started to demand democratic changes in Bhutan, the rulers of Bhutan got frightened and hatched a conspiracy to expel them from Bhutan. The rulers of Bhutan, who were brought up in narrow ethnicism felt their despotic rule threatened. The demand for a change was a bitter pill to swallow for the tyrannical rulers. They got nervous to see the increase in population belonging to Bhutanese of Nepalese origin in the southern part of Bhutan. Therefore, in 1980, Bhutan introduced a comprehensive change in the laws related to citizenship aimed at removing completely other ethnic Bhutanese except the Dukpa. Various measures were initiated to deprive citizenship of Bhutanese of Nepalese origin. Subsequently, citizenship criteria were categorised in seven categories.

In order to expel Bhutanese of Nepalese origin from Bhutan, havoc was unleased in places, where majority of the Bhutanese of Nepalese origin had settled.

They were tormented physically as well as mentally. As they could not tolerate the tyranny, they revolted. The rulers became more tyrannical and demonstrated added cruelty and perpetrated atrocities towards the Bhutanese of Nepalese origin. To save their lives, these Bhutanese of Nepalese origin fled to the villages of adjoining country India as refugees leaving behind their houses, lands and the property.

India was reluctant to welcome these Bhutanese refugees. They were thus pushed into Nepalese territory, even transporting them by trucks. The Bhutanese refugees did not come directly from Bhutan to Nepal, as there is no boundary between Nepal and Bhutan. Therefore these Bhutanese refugees first entered India and then later came to Nepal. Under such circumstances, India should take the responsibility equally as Bhutan to solve the Bhutanese refugee problem for good.

So far nine rounds of ministerial meetings have already been held, but the only concrete gain from so many meetings is the only agreement to verify the status of the refugees into four categories. They are: bonafied Bhutanese citizens, Bhutanese who have emigrated, Bhutanese who have committed crimes and non-Bhutanese citizens.

Nepal, being a poor and developing country, has felt a tremendous pressure and difficulty to manage shelter food and clothing for the Bhutanese refugees, which has swelled to more than 100,000. This demographic explosion has created other social as well as economic problems for Nepal. Nepal is now feeling a tremendous strain on its economy, social structure and environment because of the presence of a huge number of Bhutanese refugees.

The visits made by Ms. Sadako Ogata, UN High Commissioner for Refugees as well as the European parliamentary delegation, led by Mr Thomas Mann prove that efforts are being made to solve the Bhutanese refugee problem with the help of international bodies.

As per reports concerning the Nepal visit by the European parliamentary the European parliamentary delegation proposed sharing the refugees- one third by Bhutan and the remaining to be shared by Nepal and India.

In his article, published in The Kathmandu Post (dated May 18 2000) entitled "Bhutanese Imbroglio, Loosening Up", former Foreign Minister Dr. Ram Saran Mahat says "Some representatives of the international community had indicated to this author their willingness to support a resettlement programme for refugee population in Nepal much in the same manner they would do it in Bhutan just in case Bhutan does not accept all refugees back. My reaction was an outright "NO". When the country is too poor to properly feed, clothe and educate its own people and the man-land ratio is already one of the worst, how can we accept people from other countries.?"

There is no denying the fact that it would be much better if the Bhutanese refugee’s problem is solved bilaterally. But the general belief among the people and some intellectuals is that without the cooperation and involvement of India, Bhutanese refugee problem could be expedited to it speedy resolution.

Hope

Although Bhutan is member of SAARC, India looks after matters related to external affairs and defense. Therefore, there is a strong feeling in Nepal that Indian help could be helpful in arriving at a solution of this Bhutanese problem. This opinion was placed before the Indian delegation, led by Mr. Brajesh Mishra, Principal Secretary to Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Bajpayee, who recently visited Nepal.