Selection Vs Election
As internal democracy continues to elude it, the largest and oldest
democratic party of Nepal gets mired in a perennial internal squabble
BY A CORRESPONDENT
Having lost the confidence of more than half of the MPs of the House of
Representatives, Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai is now in danger of losing his
long-coveted job. After getting unanimously elected leader of the parliamentary
party he was elevated to the to highest executive office last year. Now the same MPs
want him to descend. The natural course for Mr. Bhattarai would, therefore, be to step
down, and let the MPs elect a new leader and prime minister.
 |
| Nepali
Congress high command : Plagued by dissenssion |
He has also the option of facing a vote and test his
strength in the parliamentary party. It would certainly have been a more democratic
exercise. But when Mr. Bhattarai has already lost moral force to resort to this option,
when willingly got elected without daring to face a vote nine months.
It is as simple as that. So, the no-confidence motion should not
have created ripples in the political circle, under normal circumstances.
But, ironically, nothing is ever normal in the Nepali Congress, as far as
democratic exercises are concerned. The party does carry the tag of a democratic
organisation, but democratic exercises within the party are seen a threat to the very
existence of the party.
This is the root cause behind the frequent internal squabbles plaguing the
party. The leaders have failed to realise that it is the perennial squabble
which will harm the future of the party in the long run, not democratic exercises,
howsoever bitter and painful it may be in the beginning.
And the blame for keeping the party in the present state of uncertainty
primarily goes to the two top leaders, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Girija Prasad Koirala.
The young generation leaders can not escape blame either for failing to bring the
septuagenarian leaders to the democratic exercises.
Mr. Bhattarai has cried foul over what he sees as a move to
unceremoniously oust him. He has reminded the dissenters of the contribution he made to
the democracy movement. Mr. Bhattarai sees the move to remove him by a no-trust motion
as a humiliation, which he claims he does not deserve given the
"sufferings" he underwent and the "sacrifices" he made for the cause
of democracy, during half a century long political career.
Few challenge the fact that Mr. Bhattarai has done a lot in the fight for
democracy, so has his long-time friend and foe, Girija Prasad Koirala.
But the point worth taking note is that neither of them have done much to
cement the foundation of democracy after it was laid ten years ago.
By keeping real powers within themselves and taking the MPs
and party cadres taken for granted, the two leaders never allowed true democracy function
within the party. Though the share of the blame goes to the younger generation leaders
also, but the two septuagenarian leaders must bear the larger responsibility for not
taking powers down to the village committees of the party.
Take, for instance, the case of the election of Mr. Bhattarai as
parliamentary party leader nine months ago. Mr. Koirala proposed Bhattarai as the future
leader even before the general election was
held. He kept his words and got his long-time friend elected to the
parliamentary party leader and prime minister.
It was all a two-menís affair. No one including the senior leaders of the
party were consulted, leave alone the question of putting the issue to a vote. If a vote
had taken place, perhaps Mr. Bhattarai would not have been elected, and the present crisis
not erupted. If indeed he had been elected by a majority, then he would have got moral
powers to face the vote now, instead of being trapped in a "humiliating"
situation.
Having boasted of such a glorious past, Mr. Bhattarai should have taken
Mr. Koiralaís proposal for his unanimous election last May as a "humiliation".
For, that move of Koirala made the only living foundermember of the Nepali
Congress, Bhattarai, look like a spine-less person, seeking to ride the ladder of
power on the back of lanky Koirala.
For his part, Koirala may have succeeded in outsmarting Bhattarai at that
time. But he did it only at the cost of long-term interest of the party. Koirala
should have allowed a contest and persuade Bhattarai to face it. That way,
democratic exercises would have got a boost.
Theoretically, Mr. Bhattarai was elected nine months ago, but practically
he was selected. And this is the root cause of the present crisis. As long as selection
gets preference over election in the Nepali Congress, crisis will never stop
shadowing it. |
