National 3 (Spotlight Weekly)

Culture Of Discontent

Each elected premier who has sought a fresh mandate from the people has been criticised as a dictator. What has happened to our democratic process?

By KESHAB POUDEL

In the 12 years since the restoration of parliamentary democracy, the name hovering most closely over the Nepalese sky is Jang Bahadur's. Although all of the elected Prime ministers Girija Prasad Koirala, Man Mohan Adhikary, Surya Bahadur Thapa and Sher Bahadur Deuba have been equated with the 19th-century autocrat by their rivals.

Whenever a democratically elected prime minister has tried to assert his authority, he has been relegated to the stature of Jang Bahadur Rana, Nepal's pre-eminent symbol of ruthless dictatorship. Western-educated scholars and locally trained experts alike have exhibited a clear tendency to measure individuals in terms of the authority they are perceived to be aspiring for.

Koirala (left) and Nepal : Changing tones

In all the cases filed at the Supreme Court challenging the prime minister's dissolution of the House of Representatives, lawyers pleading on behalf of the petitioners have portrayed the defendant's action as prelude to the accumulation of authoritarian powers. The distinction that Jang Bahadur established family rule in 1846 following an infamous bloody coup, popularly known as the "Kot Massacre", hardly merits serious discussion.

This misplaced analogy unnerves many. "How can a prime minister who appeals to the people's court be called a dictator?" asked a political analyst. "If our recent prime ministers were like Jang Bahadur, they would have remained unchallenged and unaccountable. But these leaders are elected by the people through periodic elections and have to be prepared to accept the verdict of the voters," he added.

One of the rules of parliamentary democracy is that under royal prerogative the prime minister can ask the monarch to dissolve parliament and call a general election at any time, without the need to consult either the cabinet or colleagues. The threat of a general election at any time is a useful weapon in disciplining the party. The ability to choose the date of a general election, possibly responding to public opinion, is a useful tool for a prime minister looking for party advantage.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990, too, has given the prime minister the right to recommend dissolve parliament and seek a fresh mandate from the people. The constitution also specifies that His Majesty the King, while dissolving the House of Representatives on the recommendation of the prime minister, shall designate a date to hold an election within six months for a new House.

Modern democratic conviction firmly believes that the people are the source of power and they have the right to choose their own representatives. The prime minister exercises his powers through constitutional provisions. If Jang Bahadur's authority came from the sword, today's prime minister draws legitimacy from popular support. But according to the interpretation of some Nepalese scholars, a prime minister that seeks to assert his authority, by definition, has an authoritarian bent that must be resisted with full strength.

PM Deuba : Exercising constitutional authority

Experts describe such behavior as a cultural phenomenon, rather than an outcome of rational thinking. "Local cultures have a strong influence over individual conviction. There is a clear sign of diffusion of modern and traditional conviction," said anthropologist Dr. Rishi Keshab Raj Regmi. "It will take time to evolve modern conviction among individuals," he added.

Elections are the soul of democracy. It is through this mechanism that the popularity of the leader can be judged. In the Westminster model of government, political parties accept the dissolution of the House of Representatives and fresh elections as an opportunity to test their popularity. Interestingly, in Nepal, no prime minister has exercised his power to go to people on his own. Only one instance of dissolution managed to remain above controversy, when all parties in parliament approved new elections in 1999.

Although facing elections is difficult for politicians, political parties pack their bags and go to the people's court once it is decided in the western world. Even in India, long cited as the model of democracy in the developing world, political parties accept snap polls or early polls as a political challenge that must be faced in the fullness of the spirit of liberalism.

But some constitutional experts in Nepal argue that the prime minister's prerogative is not unconditional. "The prime minister cannot call elections without the consent of his political party. If the prime minister is allowed to dissolve the House in haste, it will invite a new Jang Bahadur," thundered Daman Nath Dhungana, former speaker of House of Representatives and a member of the panel that drafted the constitution, pleading in the court as amicus curie. "The right to dissolve the house for fresh elections has to pass through many mandatory constitutional steps," he said.

Agrees senior advocate Mukunda Regmi, a member of the upper house representing the ruling Nepali Congress. "The constitution put conditionalities in the case of power of dissolution. Such limitations are placed to stop haphazard exercise of authority by any one to become Jang Bahadur," said Regmi, pleading on behalf of the petitioners in the court.

Opponents of dissolution in the three previous cases debated in the apex court used the same kind of rhetoric that is being deployed against Prime Minister Deuba. Jang Bahadur comes in handy because of the contempt his name evokes in the country. History is often meshed with mythology to cast the prime minister in poor light. "The court must check the prime minister's stick. The court must stand as a Nava Durga (goddess) to kill Mahisasur (evil)," said advocate Devendra Nepali.

This rush to judgment often baffles those unfamiliar with the intrigue and intricacies of Nepalese politics. "We don't understand the arguments [being made in the Supreme Court] against fresh elections," said a western diplomat on condition of anonymity. "In our system, nobody opposes elections. The people have the final say over their representatives," he added.

In the words of Ivor Jennings, eminent constitutional authority on parliamentary democracy: "Prime ministers in parliamentary democracy are dictator who at short intervals have to beg the people for votes freely cast and are the servants of the people, not a master."

Prime ministers have more power than dictators, but the source of their power are the people. Prime ministers have to go to people to secure the mandate. Although he was compared to Jang Bahadur, Koirala's Nepali Congress was reduced to the second largest party in the elections of 1994. "Had Koirala been a dictator, he would not have had to secure votes or get a fresh mandate," said the political analyst.

The entire debate appears to be a clear case of cultural disconnect between the Westminster and traditional Nepalese systems of governance. Almost everyone in the opposition feels that a prime minister dissolves parliament out of a burning quest to become an authoritarian ruler.

English EM Forster in his book "Two Cheers of democracy"collection of beautifully describes two vital traits of democracy: tolerance and patience. If the arguments currently being floated around in political and legal circles are any indication, patience and tolerance are in short supply in Nepal. As long as this heavily distorted conviction persists among influential people, every democratically elected prime minister will have to live under the shadow of Jang Bahadur.