NATIONAL 4 - (Spotlight Weekly)

'Fascination with status quo behind political crisis'

— MADHAV KUMAR NEPAL

CPN-UML general secretary MADHAV KUMAR NEPAL is one of the youngest leaders of Nepalese politics. Nepal, 46, recently proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990. He spoke to KESHAB POUDEL on his proposals at his official residence. Excerpts:

You have started a debate on amending the constitution. How did your proposals originate?

The incidents of the past few years have forced us to seriously think about the overall situation of the country. In our effort to find a solution to the nation's political crisis, we realized that there was a need to amend the constitution.

Instead of giving an economic vision to the country, what prompted you to propose amending the constitution, which is just a decade old?

The National Planning Commission has developed many policy documents for the overall development of the economy. INGOs and NGOs also have prepared bundles of documents. This is not a question of documents but one of proper mechanism. The problem in the country is this fascination with the status quo. Individualist and narrow attitudes, a hegemonistic culture and dictatorial style of leadership are at the root of the country's crisis.

The Nepali Congress, which represents the status quo, embodies this negative approach. First of all, we need a radical change in our thinking and perception. The prevailing thinking today is to win the elections at any cost. We want to change that perception. Those who win elections on the basis of such an attitude are blocking the country's progress. Such elements are promoting a highly selfish brand of politics. Furthermore, they are imposing their hegemonistic thinking on the rest of the country.

I think impartial and fair elections are the only way to improve our circumstances. If we can control the malpractices that have become associated with elections, then we can check many other bad practices. This is why we are making efforts to curb election fraud. We don't have the patience for a gradual change in behavior. How long we wait for such change? We want to develop the entire system instead of merely changing behavior. Our aim is to stop political anarchy and irregularities. We want to protect democracy and the rights of the people. If we accept the mandate of the people, we must build a system that help us progress. The CPN-UML wants to prove its commitment to such a system by taking part in its creation.

If we are able to form a neutral national government to hold the elections, we can ensure a free and fair democratic exercise. We can form such a government from among the parties represented in parliament. Equal participation of all parties represented in parliament would help establish true neutrality in the government. We can also set some specific provisions to ensure fairness and impartiality, such as barring an incumbent minister from contesting the elections. Moreover, if the majority party gets the prime minister's, second-largest party should get the home administration portfolio. We can divide other powerful and influential ministries among us.

What are the criteria for the formation of a neutral government?

We have brought up the concept and it needs wider discussion among all the political parties.

Before the last elections, you had invited leaders of other parties to join the government, but they refused. If other parties reject such a proposal again, how would you be able to justify your claim?

We have no answer for those who do not want to be a part of an election government. If some parties say they will boycott the elections, we cannot force them to participate. All political parties can participate in the elections because the door of democracy is open to all. However, joining the government is not enough, a party has to set certain norms and system.

Don't you have a clear conceptual framework about an election government?

We don't want to impose our own concrete ideas on others. Our intention is just to throw the general idea for wider debate. We want constructive discussions on issues that could help improve our political system.

The CPN-UML is a socialist party based on the ideals of secularism. But your proposals sound like you want to give privileges to people based on language, ethnicity and caste.

Our demand is just to give equal respect to all ethnic groups, languages and castes. We want to stop politicization of such issues by injecting a feeling among those castes that they are not being discriminated against by the state. Our aim is also to bring all groups into the national mainstream.

The Nepal Sadbhavana Party is demanding similar rights for the people of the Terai region and ethnic groups of the hills. How different are your proposals?

The Nepal Sadbhavana Party may have its own outlook on these issues. We want to maintain the unitary structure of the country. What we want is a policy of true decentralization and local government. We want powerful, capable and strong local bodies through local autonomy. We can change the face of local bodies through decentralization of authority from the center. The common people should be given greater power to make their own decisions.

Do you think the country is in this situation because of constitutional problems or because of economic factors?

You need to have a certain constitutional system in place to change the political culture. We cannot develop political culture just by raising our voices. The process needs to be guided by a certain mechanism. If the constitution is alright, economic development can be achieved easily.

The experience in our neighborhood -- India, Pakistan and Bangladesh -- has shown that a neutral government alone cannot change the political culture. In India, the system is running without major hindrances although the party in power holds the elections. If the case of Bangladesh and Pakistan, where neutral governments conduct the elections, the credibility of the exercise is always under question. How can you justify your demand?

We have to understand our own situation. Every country has its own history and system.

Do you mean economic development can be achieved by amending the constitution?

Economic development cannot be achieved without changing the behavior and pattern of political leaders because they are the main players. We can achieve economic development only when the party in power works honestly. I think we need to clear the political mess in order to achieve economic development. Corruption is obstructing our development and economic activities. Every politician want to make money for the elections. If the election process itself is clean, corruption will automatically be reduced.

There can be no dynamism and vision in political leaders who are satisfied with the status quo. Agriculture cannot be developed without encouraging farmers. Absent landlordism and the problems of land ownership still continue. We need revolutionary changes in all these sectors. If we maintain the status quo, we cannot achieve our target. Because of an ad-hocism mentality, we are unable to introduce radical reforms. Whether it is garbage collection or Vikram tempo, we sort out problems on the basis of ad-hocism.

Don't you think the introduction of new acts would be sufficient to improve the situation? Do we really need to amend the constitution?

We do have many acts but they have been unable to curb the irregularities in elections. We need total change in the constitution to open the way to reforms.

At a time when political forces are so weak, is it wise to pin your entire hope in amending the constitution?

Why not? If the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML wish, they have the numbers needed to amend the constitution. Our unity will help ward off any ghosts or spirits that try to come to haunt us from the past. them. Everybody can put forth their demands and voice their opinions, but we have to decide on what we need to change. We must open the way for freshness in the constitution. It is up to us to accept good things and discard the bad ones.

There are many opinions on constitution. Some say it is a bunch of garbage and others call it a bundle of paper. Still others say it embodies ideas imposed by foreign powers. In a democracy, we cannot silence our critics.

The United Kingdom, considered the mother of parliamentary democracy, is being run perfectly without a written constitution. Why do Nepalese politicians see faults in their own basic law?

Although Britain does not have a written constitution, it has a strong democratic tradition and proper laws to bind the political system. The British people have fought a long fight to establish their current political system. In the United States, laws bind every detail of the process.

In our case, the constitution does not clarify the role of the local bodies that are vital to grass-roots democracy. As a result, we find it difficult to empower local bodies. We don't say that the constitution is a panacea. But we want to change the system through which honest people can be elected to run the country efficiently. If we allow malpractices in the election process to continue, we cannot change our politics. The decade since the promulgation of the present constitution has shown that we need to redefine the relations between different constitutional bodies and to make them more effective. We want to start a meaningful debate on amending the constitution.

How many articles do you want to amend?

We are pressing for two issues -- the formation of an election government and keeping the current delineation of constituencies intact for some period. There are other political, economic, social and cultural issues, including decentralization and corruption, that we need to tackle. We want fundamental reforms in the constitution. We don't want to continue the status quo.

There are differences of opinion in your party on this matter?

Such baseless reports are floated by our rivals. There is a consensus in the party on amending the constitution.