No-Trust Motion
Some Unanswered Questions

By Prakash Rimal

NEPALI Congress lawmakers have reaffirmed their trust on Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala with the majority (69 out of 113) voting against the no-trust motion. Former Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai’s protégé Sher Bahadur Deuba, who moved the no-trust motion against his "political guru," boycotted the voting because it was "open", and not "secret" as demanded by the dissidents.

Debate

Has the voting, whose procedures have been seriously questioned by the dissidents, solved the crisis in the ruling party or has it just put it off? This is a tricky question and this can not be answered in "Yeah" or "Nay." The answer should essentially be based on one’s personal opinion. No matter which side of the fence one stands while giving his or her opinion over the "unacceptable" voting procedures, whoever speaks the mind is likely to be termed bias, if not condemned to death! The views expressed here are most likely to be considered "subjective," too.

There were 56 signatures when the no-trust motion was moved, but the number began to dwindle within less than 24 hours. The Lawmakers who had "signed" the motion issued statements saying that they had been duped or tricked into signing. Some of them have alleged that the signatures were done months ago and were meant to pressure Govinda Raj Joshi to resign as the Home Minister after the virtual siege of Dunai by Maoists in October last year. The dissidents said the signatories withdrew because of "fear" when the Parliamentary Party decided to go for open voting. Fear of What?

The Fear Theory does not seem to hold much water, clearly because the MPs had openly gone against the Prime Minister. It is ludicrous to argue that the lawmakers who had rallied behind the move to marshal the Prime Minister out of office and who had expressed their intent in black and white would be afraid of voting! Does not that undermine the integrity of our elected representatives? Is that a public admission that our parliamentarians are double-faced? Besides, what are to be said of the charges by some Congressmen that their signatures had been misused? What does the counter-charge against the party leadership by Deuba? What does the 13 votes, which Koirala received against the motion, signify?

Voting

Should the voting have been secret, as the dissidents demanded? Or, should it have been open, as decided before the no-trust motion against Bhattarai was to come up for voting? If Bhattarai had not announced his resignation in a nationally televised address to the House in March last year, what would have been the pattern of voting? Parliamentary Party Secretary Benup Raj Prasai has refuted the charges that his decision to go for open voting was to maneuver the results in the Prime Minister’s favour. He has said he was for open voting because that was the agreed pattern, a point the dissidents have not challenged. If there could be open voting in March last year, why not this year?

Conspicuous Absences

With Deuba walked out 40 others, while Bhattarai just did not show up because of the differences. Dr Ram Sharan Mahat, who seconded the motion, and Rajendra Kharel stayed neutral – neither they participated in the voting, nor did they follow Deuba and the rest. Does their neutrality indicate anything? Likewise, does Bhattarai’s absence tell anything? Why was not Bhattarai, who had thrown his weight behind Deuba, just not seen around the venue? Was he "advised" not to be present at the time of voting because of his "unpredictability" or was there any other thing?

Nepali Congress leaders believe they are democratic and Deuba is heading the protests against Koirala "to save the party from slavery." In democracy, one has the right to disagree, but is it democratic to condemn something that is not in one’s favour? Should not the dissidents have participated in the voting and accepted the result, whatsoever as their visionary leader BP Koirala did during the referendum two decades ago? The democrats "lost" in the referendum; and, can any one guess, what could have happened if BP had not agreed to participate in the referendum or if he had not accepted "the results"? Most importantly, should the advocates of democracy refuse to take part in voting? Does it make sense appealing to the people to line up for voting during the General Election, when the leaders themselves reject it other times?

Impending Danger

The differences over how the voting should have actually been conducted will continue to divide NC rank and file, much in the same way former Chief Justice Biswanath Upadhaya’s August 28 verdict reinstating the House of Representatives did in 1995. The Communist Party of Nepal (UML), which was in power then , still holds that as a black verdict.

To avoid that kind of division the Congress Parliamentary Party should try to reach a compromise on what precisely should have been the pattern of voting. Ideally, it’s good if the two sides can figure out without the necessity for any external intervention. If that does not help, they should perhaps get in touch with other democracies that have gone through similar phases. This however should not mean that we should always borrow others’ garments.

The next important thing the ruling party needs to discuss is how many times a year should the Prime Minister – Koirala or anyone – testify to his own party that he has the majority? Will this kind of a practice that keeps the government shaky help democracy?