National 12 (Spotlight Weekly)

Closed Minds

The argument that the country cannot hold elections under the emergency is hollow

By KESHAB POUDEL

If recent statements made by some constitutional lawyers and politicians against holding parliamentary elections under the state of emergency were to be used to gauge the health of democracy in Nepal, then the country has to go a long way toward democratizing itself.

As most of the intellectuals and politicians make up their minds under the influence of certain political leaders, they are prone to biases. However, when they hardly bother to check whether their comments stand the test of reason or precedent, the debate becomes purposeless.

Deuba and opposition leader : Compromise

Some lawyers preparing to plead the case against Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba's decision to dissolve the House of Representatives maintain that fresh polls cannot be held under the state of emergency. They hold the view that it would be better to extend the life of parliament for a sixth year, if the state of emergency needed to be to prolonged.

Experience and practice, however, suggest otherwise. Nepal's two South Asian neighbors have set precedents that elections can be held under the circumstances resulting from national crises. In India, general elections were held in 1964 just after the Sino-Indian war and during the emergency in 1977.

Sri Lanka, which has been gripped by civil war for the last 18 years, has conducted many local and national elections successfully. "Had the argument of Nepal's constitutional lawyers and politicians been followed by Sri Lanka, they would have been selecting their government," said a constitutional lawyer.

Other lawyers argue that the state of emergency is no more than a special constitutional circumstance and does not necessarily means a politically abnormal situation. Imposition of the emergency and the holding of elections are completely different things. Elections need to be held periodically to allow people to elect their representatives.

Over the last five years, Nepal has conducted two elections in a politically abnormal situation. Despite the all-party consensus, the conditions ahead of the local elections in 1997 and the parliamentary polls in 1999 were hardly ideal.

Regardless of reason and constitutional precedents, Nepalese intellectuals and lawyers are so divided on party lines that their mind is firmly indoctrinated by ideology and ideals. "Once the mind is held captive under certain influences, it requires long practice to change it," said an analyst.

It is clear that there is no constitutional hindrance in holding elections at this juncture. The state of emergency is a constitutional provision imposed to protect the state, where as an election is a medium to run the state.

Nepal has an abnormal political situation for the last six years, which seems likely to continue for some more time. The constitution has endowed the state with special authority to bring the abnormal situation under control.

"Elections cannot be held under the state of emergency. If the emergency is prolonged, parliament can extend its term for a sixth year," said senior advocate Mukunda Regmi, who is fighting a court case challenging the dissolution of the House of Representatives.

Article 115 (6) of the constitution allows the National Assembly to exercise the powers given to the House of Representatives in respect of a proclamation of a state of emergency during the dissolution of the House of Representatives.

Political leaders have many compulsions within their parties to raise populist slogans. But it is strange to hear such biased arguments from a class that is expected to think rationally. Why cannot the elections be held under the emergency? Moreover, if the insurgency were to continue for another two years, what solution would the intellectuals have then? Certainly not extending the House of Representatives' tenure for a seventh year?