NATIONAL10 (Spotlight Weelky)]

Constitution, Emergency & Parliament

By Dhruba H. Adhikary

Public attention to the parliament's session beginning Sunday ( Feb. 10) is likely to be focused on the 205-member House of Representatives which is the constitutionally-empowered chamber to deal with provisions relating to the decree of emergency issued under article 115. This House, by a two-thirds majority, can approve the emergency and keep it " in force for a period of six months from the date of issuance ". Assuming that all 205 members will be present at the voting after the debate, it can be presumed that a collective strength of about 135 legislators is adequate to ratify the emergency and extend its life by another three months. In other words, with a modest support from the Opposition parties the governing Nepali Congress can contiune to suspend civil rights and press freedom for an extended period of time.

It has been proved more than once that Congress leaders, including Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, can go to any take any step if that helps them to stay in power. They have little regard for the welfare of the people who voted them to the parliament. Even internal dissension within the Congress takes a back seat when there arises a chance to retain power for the benefit of its men and women.

Deuba is known more for his manipulative tactics than for his performance. Citing 'compulsion', he can do things other lesser mortals may be ashamed of doing. The list of misdeeds can be a long one , beginning from those that were seen during his first stint as prime minister ( 1995-96 ). Deuba, who then headed a 48-member cabinet, now leads a slightly smaller team of 41 ministers ! Besides, he has a herd of advisors picking up perks and privileges of ministers of state and assistant ministers. And it does not bother him at all if one of his advisors turns out to be a non-Nepali, possessing a citizenship certificate obtained through fraudulent methods. Public memory is short, but not too short to forget the occasion when several of Deuba's ministers, and members of parliament were flown to Bangkok so that he could defeat a no-confidence motion against him. Nobody knows how much of bribe money changed hands at that time, but it is a recorded fact that Deuba managed to accomplish his goal !

Lurking Danger

There is a lurking danger of Deuba resorting to same kind of manipulative methods this time around, and get the emergency rule extended. Experience derived so far, particularly at the time of endorsement of Mahakali treaty, has made it clear that the Opposition too is vulnerable to baits and pressures from all directions.

Neither Deuba nor anyone of his ministerial colleagues appear keen to take steps that would help shorten the emergency period. All they are doing presently is to pay lip-service to democracy and the democratic process. Some of them go to the extent of pretending to be someone who is concerned at the uncertainty of the independent status of the country itself. Mahesh Acharya's high-sounding statement in Biratnagar last Sunday is illustrative of this opportunistic trend.

That the administration led by Deuba is manipulative is also exemplified by the announcement to place Nepal under an emergency rule. A closer look at the communique issued by King Gyanendra's palace on the recommendation of Deuba on 26 November 2001 ( 11 Mangsir 2058 ) makes the matter clear. While the proclamation said the sovereignty, integrity and security of the kingdom was under threat, it did not give any reason---specific or otherwise---that prompted His Majesty's Government to get a nationwide state of emergency proclaimed. Article 115 has listed conditions for the declaration of emergency : war, external aggression, armed rebellion or extreme economic disarray. The November 26 proclamation should have cited 'armed rebellion' as the reason. It would have facilitated people's right to information. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

Litmus Test

A litmus test lay ahead for the parliament. If its members are willing to salvage whatever prestige the legislative wing has been able to retain, the parliament needs to foil Deuba's latest bid to cling to power, and further institutionalise bad governance. Hence, to prove their sincerity, the members of parliament should create conditions for Deuba to step down. In fact, he already lost his moral, if not political, right to remain in office on the day the talks with the Maoists broke down. On assuming premiership on 22 July 2001, Deuba had promised to resolve the Maoist problem through peaceful means. And Nepali Congress elected him its parliamentary leader with a hope that his efforts would build a base to end the six-year old insurgency.

Deuba has failed once again , because whatever measures his administration has been taking have not produced desired effects so far. Reports relating to actions on the ground indicate even the Royal Nepal Army is finding it difficult to bring about a noticeable change in the law and order situation, especially in the far-flung districts. Deuba needs to take the responsibility without delay.

Meanwhile, the ruling party should go for an early introspection of its deeds and misdeeds if it does not want to run the risk of being permanently seen as a party of power-mongers. The Congress leadership should concede their failure to assuage the public suspicions about their commitments towards democracy and socialism. They found slogan of globalisation a convenient tool to execute their policy of selling state-owned industries and factories at throw-away prices, often to non-Nepalis, have harmed Nepal's economy as well as its basis for independent status. If anything has had astronomical growth, it has been corruption. Corruption in every conceivable format and manifestations ! Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Girija Prasad Koirala, Sher Bahadur Deuba their lieutenants must share the blame for whatever has (not) happened in the years since the political change of 1990.

Nepali Congress can still reverse these repulsive trends if it chooses a new leader with proven ability and relatively clean image. But who could that Congressman or Congresswoman be ?

All the prime ministers (including Manmohan Adhikari) of intervening years made the executive wing of the state arbitrary and reckless. Legislature has been attracting criticisms for a number of actions and inactions : members violating dress and language codes passed by themselves ; submitting forged bills to draw money for medical treatment ; using the cover of a 'finance bill' to controversial draft laws such as the one on citizenship; squandering millions of rupees from the national exchequer for foreign study tours undertaken by members and presiding officers of either chamber.

Judiciary too has not escaped public onslaught. Some judges and and some of the judgments they delivered have been highly questionable, causing erosion of public faith in this otherwise sacrosanct institution. Growing intolerance of judiciary towards press scrutiny is also becoming a matter of serious public concern.

Press & Pressure

The press, often referred to as the fourth estate in a democratic set-up , is being subjected to other kinds of restrictions as well. Rules applied along with the declaration of emergency have currently left the press with a voice that is muted. This apart, wealthy publishers have tended to turn their newspapers/radio stations a profit-making enterprise. Some of the publishers of broadsheet dailies try to cash in from the inherent influence for a berth in the government or a contract for road construction. Allowing foreign investment---and influence---in print media has become another moot point. Can the freedom of expression the constitution has accorded to the Nepali citizens be usurped by non- and pseudo-Nepalis ? Growing tendency, in the meantime, among investors to convert serious and responsible press into a media churning out cheap entertainment is equally disheartening.

How can democracy flourish when institutions (executive, legislature, judiciary and the press) considered to be its pillars do not stand on firm foundation ? What happens when men and women trusted to run these institutions resort to foul play day in and day out ? As is obvious, it is not the fault of the play, it is the players who are to be blamed, and disciplined. And who can do this other than the umpire ? The constitution is clear about it. Article 27 says it is the King who has to " preserve and protect " the constitution of 1990 " keeping in view of the best interests and welfare of the people of Nepal."

The letter and spirit of the constitution is there for everyone to intepret.

Adhikary is the vice-president of Nepal Press Institute, and is a freelance writer for a number of foreign publications.