Bicameralism

Independence & Complementarity

By Ram Bahadur K.C.

IN Nepal, the Parliament consists of His Majesty and two Houses, namely the House of Representatives and the National Assembly. His Majesty is an integral part of our Parliament as also prevalent in some other democratic countries with constitutional monarchy: Except when His Majesty graces the Parliament for addressing a joint sitting, the other sittings of either House only commence when the Royal Mace is placed on the Royal Throne within the meeting Hall. Hence the popular saying ‘the King in Parliament.’ Ours is a bicameral system as in more than sixty countries of the world.

Extreme View

Sometimes we come across an extreme view while defending one system against the other. Once John Stuart Mill wrote: a majority in a single assembly easily becomes despotic and overweening, if released from the necessity of considering whether its acts will be concurred in by another constituted authority. In contrast to the above remark, the Abbe Sieyes said "if a second chamber dissents from the first it is mischievous; if it agrees with it, it superfluous."

The general points in favor of bicameral legislature are: relieving the pressure of work of the Lower House; reviewing the work and providing brake on hasty legislation; securing the services of men and women other than those elected; representing interests not otherwise represented in the Lower House, etc. The arguments against unicameral legislature are: The second chamber being conservative, obstructs progressive measures, makes delay in legislation and becomes additional burden to the Treasury, etc.

The Reform in the House of Lords, sharply reducing the number of Lords is going on; sharp criticisms on the power and functioning of the Upper House is being heard in other countries also and is regarded as tailor-made or less important chamber in the Parliament. In Nepal itself, some politicians and theoreticians without correctly thinking the role and importance of the House, are making suggestions to make it a House of Communities and Ethnic groups, etc. In the backdrop of the foregoings there has recently been organised a historical meeting of the Senators of the world on March 14, 2000 in Paris which related a desire to celebrate with appropriate solemnty, given the significant resurgence in bicameralism amongst contemporary Parliaments. The Meet made an encouraging observation that while some 45 countries had a two-chamber legislature in the early 1970, today the number has risen to 76. Moreover, a dozen nations are either considering the creation of a senate or have already taken such a decision and are in the process of establishing an Upper House (Senate or Second Chamber). The Meet very broadly and importantly listed the causes of the current resurgence in bicameralism in respect of facilitating decentralization policies, a process of democratization or of a consolidation of the rule of law, a process of re-appropriation of the parliamentary system, a modern means of ensuring the separation of powers, a guarantor of efficiency in ehancing the legislative process and a means to materialise the contemporary political philosophy of representing a man in his entirety.

Our legislature is a bicameral system. The Lower House consists of 205 members, directly elected on the basis of adult franchise, representing the people of 205 constituencies and serving the term of office for five years. The National Assembly is a permanent House, consisting of sixty members who have the tenure of office for six years, one-third of them retiring every two years. Ten members are nominated by His Majesty from amongst persons of high reputation who have rendered prominent service in various fields of national life, thirty-five elected by the Hosue of Representatives and fifteen members elected from the Development Regions.

By constitutional provisions both Houses are independent. Either House can frame rules for conducting its business, maintaining order during its meeting and regulating the constitution, functions and procedures of the commitee of any other matter of the Hosue. There shall be full freedom of speech in both Houses and no member shall be arrested, detained or prosecuted in any court for anything said or vote cast in the House. His Majesty may address either House or a joint sitting of both the Houses. His Majesty may send messages to either or both the Houses.

A bill may be introduced in either House of Parliament provided that a finance shall be introduced in the House of Representatives. The ratification of, accession to, acceptance of or approval of treaties or agreements of major importance such as peace and friendship, defense, boundary issue and natural resources, are done by the majority of the two-third of the members present at a joint sitting, while others are done by the House of Representatives. Vote of confidence and no-confidence motion for and against the government and extraordinary session of Parliament are conducted in the House of Representatives only.

Interdependent and complementary roles of the two Houses are more important than merely being independent and neutral to make parliamentary exercise a success. Co-ordination and understanding between the two Houses is a must. There should be no comment and criticism on this point. Sometimes there arise some difficulties in this respect. For reasons of faulty definition and different interpretation of financial bill the National Assembly has no business and house sitting is few and far between. Since most bills are designated as finance bill, the Lower House has congestion of business whereas the Upper House has vacancies in respect of legislation and the members of the Upper House are even voicing against being deprived of the legislative rights.

The reports on delegated legislation as passed by the National Assembly and transmitted to the other House have still to be considered and ratified by the other House which means the lapses and errors as identified in the reports have to be corrected and implemented accordingly, otherwise faulty rules and by laws remain as they are.

Very often Motions, Calling Attentions, Resolutions and other House business are repetitive. If the duplications could be avoided, new issues of national importance could be taken and resolved. Human rights violation, corruptions, food scarcity, epidemic, insurgency, drug and girls trafficking, citizenship issues, etc. can be taken simultaneously in the same vein and spirit. Hue and cry, protests and boycotts, disturbance of House sitting could be avoided provided there are mutual consultations and complementarities.

Even the procedural rules relating to some common areas such as code of conduct, maintaining democratic values and culture (use of national dress in the House, order and use of parliamentary words in speeches, no floor crossing, no reading of papers and magazines during House proceedings, etc.) are not found uniformly implemented. These indicate lack of coordination and understanding and could be a subject of comment and criticism in the public and media. As such, what is democratic value and culture, what is rule-binding and what is constitutional spirit should be strictly observed by both the Houses equally and without any prejudice.

Ideal Form

In a newly set-up multiparty democratic system in Nepal, policy making, passing Bills and resolving pertinent issues have to be achieved with the two Houses trusting each other and working unitedly and in a complementary manner. Competition for prestige sake is usually harmful. The Upper House should look upon the Lower House as true representative of people and assist it in resolving pertinent issues. And likewise, the later should look upon the Upper House as a coordinator, watchdog and a politically neutral and integral part of the legislature. It can hardly be imagined that a truly elected House can resume a despotic nature and design ill conceived polices and enact hasty bills, nor the Upper House which may often review the Bills of other House and offer useful suggestions and tend to provide a necessary brake should ever be considered as obstructive and superfluous. Because the long experience of the methods of Parliamentary governments in the democratic world has proved that bicameral system can be an ideal form of Parliament in policy making and legislation, provided their work become complementary, thereby reinforcing and co-ordinating with each other.

The General Elections Of 1959

By Guna Dev Bhattarai

THE fall of K.I. Singh’s ministry was evident as K.I Singh had made himself controversial by making irrational statements off and on. His such activities led the leaders of other parties to be united at least in one respect. That is to say they were against the continuation of Singh’s ministry. So much so some members of his party also were against his high-handedness pertaining to his home and foreign policy. The King after realising the gravity of the situation did not like to keep K.I. Singh in power any longer.

The dismissal of K. I. Singh’s ministry gave relief to many parties while others feared the direct rule of the King would endanger democracy itself. Suspicion compounded with unrest became the order of the day. The King being painfully conscious of the events that occurred in the country for some time decided to hold another political conference at the Narayanhiti Durbar. The upshot of the conference was that the general elections would be held from February 18, 1959. Further the King decided to form an Advisory Assembly, a new Election Commission and a council of Ministers to work as a care-taker government Suburna Shum Shere was the head of the Council of Ministers of the said care-taker government.

The Constitution of 1959 was to a large extent, accepted by all parties. Barring some articles it was a full fledged democratic constitution. The King was given emergency powers to suspend or abrogate, both in times of peace or war, part or whole of the constitution (Articles 55 and 56). All political parties began to focus their attention to win the confidence of the voters.

The Election Commission gave recognition to eleven political parties. All major parties had more or less the same manifesto and programmes. That is to say they were in favour of a fully democratic government under the aegis of the King, with various reformatory measures pertaining to land and industry. Besides, all of them were determined to adapt non-aligned foreign policy and courting diplomatic relations with the big powers as far as possible. Religious tolerance was to be adhered to at any cost.

The Nepali Congress Party was well organised and financially sound because of the presence of a section of wealthy Ranas in the party. Last but not the least the people wanted a strong party which, they believed, could bring about sweeping changes in all spheres of life cherished by them for a long time. The Congress party having some charismatic personalities like Bishweshwor Prasad Koirala, Ganeshman Singh and Suburna Shum Shere in particular were the centre of attraction for the majority of the voters.

Our of 109 seats the Nepali Congress bagged 74 seats, the Gorkha Parished 19, the Samyukta Prajatantrik Party 5, the Nepal Communist Party 4, the Praja Parishad of Tanka Prasad Acharya 2, the Praja Parishad of Bhadrakali Misra 1 and Indepdendents 4. The Nepal Terai Congress, the Rastriya Congress and Prajatantrik Mahasabha could not bag even a single seat.

On May 4, 1959 the Council of Ministers headed by Suburna Shum Shere tendered its resignation to the King. Bishweshwor Prasad Koirala and Subarna Shum Shere were unanimously elected leader and deputy leader respectively. For some days there was full as to the formation of a ministry. Perhaps King Mahendra wanted to have Suburna Shum Shere as the now Prime Minister but as the Nepali Congress Party had already elected Bishweshwor the leader of the party the former had no alternative but to invite B.P. Koirala to lead the Cabinet.

Bishweshwor Prasad Koirala became Prime Minister after the general election, of 1959. The government headed by B.P. Koirala was expected to be stable by the majority of the people, and above all the Nepali Congress Party had overwhelming majority in the Lower House (Pratinidhi Sabha). Out of 18 members of the Upper House (The Mahasabha) there were 13 members of the Nepali Congress Party, three from the Gorkha Parishad and one each from the Communist party and Sanyukta Prajatantra Party. Krishna Prasad Bhattarai was made the Speaker of the Pratinidhi Sabha. After the new constitution come into force the King inaugurated the joint session of the two Houses, on July 29, 1959. The King had assured the Koirala government his full support for its success. Thus that particular day marked an epoch in the history of parliamentary democracy in Nepal.