National 1 (Spotlight Weekly)

Contradictions And Confusion

Barely a week after defending the prerogative of the prime minister, CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal challenges it in another way. What does his party really want?

By KESHAB POUDEL

CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal has again demonstrated the transience of his stand on key constitutional and political matters. Nepal, who defended the prime ministerial system until last week, has changed tack and demanded the formation of an all-party government to hold the elections.

What comes out clear in the statement is Nepal's reluctance to face elections without being able to exploit the state's resources. Until political leaders exhibit a clear understanding of the democratic process and the role of institutions, contradictions and confusion would continue to dominate the political arena.

Koirala (left) and Nepal : Similar stand

Nepal's call for an all-party government carries its own share of controversy. Who will be the members of such a government? To whom will it be accountable? Will it consist of all 114 parties registered at the Election Commission? What will be the modalities of formation and operation?

Nepal's politicians and intelligentsia have always ignored the centrality of the political process and institutions in a vibrant democracy. Former prime minister and Nepali Congress leader Girija Prasad Koirala and Nepal have adopted opposite stands on the dissolution of the lower house, but they are generating similar confusion regarding the prime minister and serving similar interests.

Nepal has defended the prime minister's right to dissolve parliament, but has challenged the very essence of prime ministerial prerogative by demanding an all-party government to hold the elections. Koirala, for his part, expelled Prime Minister Deuba from the party for dissolving the lower house. However, Koirala and Nepal are striking at the heart of the prime ministerial system.

"The prime minister has the right to dissolve parliament and seek a fresh mandate whenever he wants. Constitutionally, dissolution is the prerogative of the prime minister," Nepal said last week (See SPOTLIGHT Aug. 2). Knowingly or unknowingly, Nepal has in another statement challenged the authority of the prime minister by calling for an all-party election government.

The central feature of the prime ministerial system Nepal has adopted does not envisage an all-party government or a neutral caretaker government to hold elections. How could the young and energetic leader of a party seeking to establish itself as the democratic alternative to the Nepali Congress have missed this reality.

Moreover, the UML's own past fails to grant full assurances of free and fair elections under an all-party government. Despite being a partner of the coalition government that held the general elections of 1999, the UML cried foul once the results were out. The party stalled the proceedings of the House of Representatives for four days until the formation of a high-level commission to probe irregularities committed by Congress ministers during the elections.

"One thing is certain, that the Nepali Congress massively misused the government machinery particularly the police to rig the elections. According to our reports, Nepali Congress rigged the elections in more than three dozens constituencies," Nepal had said in an interview with this magazine (SPOTLIGHT, May 28-June 3 1999).

Koirala and Nepal are not the only leaders whose public comments ignore the institutional process. In the absence of full faith in these institutions, no political system can hope to stabilize.

"Political leaders must realize that the institution of prime minister is not made for any certain individual, but is created for all Nepalese. If UML leader Nepal becomes prime minister, he also would need authority independent from outside interventions," said a political analyst.

Nepalese politicians and intellectuals have hardly tried to stabilize the political system and institutions. While they throw around the example of the world's most populous democracy, they have hardly learnt from the democratic practices followed by India over the last five decades on the question of the prime ministerial system. Indian political leaders do not have any confusion on the Westminster-style political system and the prerogatives of the prime minister. If the experience of the last 12 years is any guide, leadership in Nepal is determined by personal likes and dislikes regardless of the party or individual at the helm.

In the five decades since independence, all Indian institutions like the judiciary, legislature, executive and political parties have struck strong roots because of the political class' adherence to the democratic process.

Whether under a minority prime minister like Chandra Shekhar or Charan Singh or a majority prime minister like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi or P.V. Narasimha Rao, no opposition leader ever challenged the recommendation to dissolve parliament or called for an all-party government to hold the elections.

Once the prime minister recommends the dissolution and president dissolves the house, no court has intervened. Political parties never question the legitimacy of the prime minister or the Election Commission. Because of the political consensus behind the prime ministerial system, the coalition government of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, which is backed by 22 parties, has been able to provide a stable government.

India has had 10 prime ministers in the last 55 years, whereas Nepal has produced six prime ministers and 11 governments in just 12 years. Other South Asian countries, including Bangladesh and Pakistan, too, are yet to establish a political system with a clear perception on prime ministerial rights.

As long political leaders devalue the core concept of Westminster model of government and institutions fail to work as per the constitution, the country would continue to be ruled by chaos and uncertainty.

No matter who wins the elections and who forms the government, politicians would have to pass through the instability that has gripped the country for the last 12 years. Nepal, who claims his party would form the next government, should be careful not to demand something unconstitutional that could eventually boomerang on him.