Opposition Politics
Dissecting Demand For PM’s Resignation

By Prakash Rimal

So, it looks clear and the rule is this: You have to resign, that is, if you are not the Head of the UML Government. That’s what the "some of the newspapers bring to you every morning.

The main opposition Communist Party of Nepal, Unified Marxist-Leninist (CPN, UML) has launched a campaign aimed at forcing Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala out of the office over the latter’s alleged involvement in the controversial Lauda Air deal.

The Standing Committee of the CPN, UML last week decided to initiate talks with other political parties to pressure the Prime Minister to resign. The party has appointed a four member committee with Bharat Mohan Adhikari heading the mission to pave the way for Koirala’s ouster. The other members include Jhalanath Khanal, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee Subhash Nembang and another lawmaker Ishwar Pokharel.

The main opposition party’s concerns for a cleaner and a corruption free government should be taken positively to the extent they are not politically motivated. But are UML’s current initiatives for the functional unity with other opposition parties principled?

How far will the other actors will walk hand in hand with UML, which looks focussed on setting the stage for the local elections, which are hardly two years away? Let’s look them in turn. If history is any reference, it is very difficult to see the UML’s current initiatives are principled.

The mid-term election of 1994 produced a severely fragmented parliament, establishing CPN, UML as the largest party. Nepali Congress, which ruled for three and a half years, was relegated to the second position followed by Rastriya Prajatantra Party, who not only increased their strengths by five folds, but also won crucial 20 seats (without which no coalition government would be possible).

Barely nine months in power, the opposition parties grouped together to unseat the first elected communist government headed by Manmohan Adhikari. Before that happened the cracks in the then ruling party had already started to surface and things had started going wrong to upset the power equations in the party. As a result, the then Local Development Minister Chandra Prakash Mainali was sacked unceremoniously by those who were controlling the de facto powers of the party as well as the government.

As news reports would have us to believe then, Mainali was "relieved" from his post for his involvement in some sugar deal, a charge that has not been proved yet. Mainali, in turn, claimed that he had done the deal under the instruction from Madhav Kumar Nepal, the General Secretary of the Party, who was serving as the Deputy Prime Minister. Nepal, it was said, was the principal mover behind Mainali’s ouster that time. By virtue of the position he holds in his party and in Parliament, he is again the principal force behind ongoing attempts to unseat Koirala. Nepal himself, however, yet to clarify his position — whether he had (mis)exercised the party authority to make Mainali sign the deal through his nose or not.

Different Rules

What is more intriguing is why did not CPN, UML sack, or at least call for, the resignation of Adhikari? Or, why did not the opposition parties then pressure Akhikari to resign under moral grounds and Nepal to step down because he had been implicated in the corruption by the Minister himself? Similarly, why did not the party force, or at least ask, Nepal to resign because he was the de facto chief of the party as well as the government. Why did not Nepal at least think loudly of resigning from deputy premiership, particularly since Mainali had dragged him in the controversy and since his integrity had been questioned publicly? Most importantly, where should the buck stop?

Has Tourism Minister Tarini Dutta Chataut, who resigned last week, been found guilty by the court as of yet? Should responsible institutions like the main opposition parties give the verdict themselves? Even in the case that the Minister in question is found "corrupt," should the Prime Minister resign himself? How many Prime Ministers have resigned in the history because their cabinet colleagues were involved in corruption?

Did Japan’s Prime Minister resign when his Finance Minister was found involved in embezzlement? Did the then Indian Prime Minister call it quits when a couple of his ministers were found with jute sacks that were full of money? Did our own Prime Minister resign over Mainali’s involvement in corruption?

It’s quite funny telling others to do something you would never practice. Adhikari continued to head the government, while Koirala now needs to resign "under moral" ground even after the resignations of the Tourism Minister and the removal of the RNAC boss over the controversial deal involving Lauda Air. Or, is it that you have to resign if you are not a UML man? Where should the buck stop? Our political parties need to think seriously.

Expediency

It’s just the expediency that has brought UML closer to the otherwise rival political players such as Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), Nepal Sadbhavana Party and other smaller Communist factions and independent lawmakers to help UML materialise their prestige agenda. The UML only intends to make political gains from the move if at all it succeeds. And, if it fails it will turn its guns against the "reactionaries and the subservients of the ruling party."

The main opposition party should not only be obsessed with changing the Head of the Government, but it’s concerns for better administration should always be praised.

The government and the opposition parties are elected in a democracy. That means both ruling and the opposition parties need to play a responsible role and act with restraint. UML occasionally tends to misread its role, which is not only to run from pillars to the post to change the government.

Temporary Teachers: Waiting For Uncertain Future

By Netra Subedi

SOME 83,000 candidates of schoolteachers who had passed the written examinations had been waiting for the interview for last four years. The regional level commission formed in all five Development Regions to appoint the teachers under the Ministry of Education resumed the postponed interview of the secondary level teachers.

The government had advertised for 14,000 teachers some five years ago. But despite the Public Service Commission’s guideline that only 20 per cent additional applicants above the advertised figure can be called for the interview, the then government declared 83,000 candidates, all securing 35 or more marks, eligible for the interview. The education regulation has stated 35 as the pass mark. The result, therefore, smelled political as well as other interests. Out of 31,339 candidates for the secondary and lower secondary level 7,314 candidates were interviewed about four years ago. But with the then dramatic change in the Singha Durbar the interview process was abruptly postponed making many hopeless.

And this time too when the notice to resume the interview was published, Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) questioned the process. However, later CIAA allowed the concerned Commission to take the interview but not to publish the results. As such 83,000 persons are not sure whether the results will be published or not.

The controversy regarding the fairness of the examination has always been there since the publication of the results of the written examinations.

Then, the RPP-UML coalition government formed the "Teachers Selection Investigation Commission" under the chairmanship of the former Supreme Court Justice Maheshraj Bhakta Mathema on 12th Bhadra, 2054. This commission was supposed to investigate all the irregularities regarding the results of the written examinations and report it to the government within 45 days. But the government never made the report public. It is reported that the Mathema report pointed out the violation of many regulations regarding the selection procedure. The Commission noticed innumerable irregularities while scrutinizing the answer paper through random sampling. Some irregularities like lack of homogeneity while marking the answer sheets, illogical additional marks, uncoded answer papers and answer papers without examiners’ signature were stated in the report. Later the Commission reportedly recommended re-examination through the establishment of National Education Service Commission.

The case became more complicated after the Bhattarai government decided to give permanent status to all those temporary teachers who had been serving for at least one year. The Supreme Court issued an order to proceed according to the law.

The government constituted Teachers Service Commission under the Chairmanship of Bishwonath Bhattarai last year. The government passed the regulation of the Commission on 24th Kartik, 2057 keeping in view the importance of the activities of the Commission. Similarly, the course for the teachers has been made public. The interview for Lower secondary and secondary level teachers is now taking place in all the five Regional Education Directorates. It is estimated that these interviews will be over by the end of Magh and the district level Commission will reportedly start the interview for the primary teachers in all the district education offices from early Falgun.

The Teachers Service Commission (TSC) seems to be hurrying to publish the final results. But the public and media doubt whether the result will be publishedat all. They doubt that the results will remain unpublished and ineffective making all teachers working on temporary basis and the fresh candidates disappointed and undecided. There may be some degree of truth in this public opinion. It seems the final results may remain unpublished in case CIAA declares the written examination invalid. The investigation over the results of written examination itself put a big question mark over the fate of the interview result.