 |
||
|
||
COVER STORY |
|
||
|
||
COVER STORY |
NEPALI
CONGRESS Following the Nepali
Congress' decision to expel Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba from the party's
general membership for three years for recommending the dissolution of House of
Representatives, party president Girija Prasad Koirala and Deuba are locked in a battle
neither is destined to win. Although Deuba's expulsion cannot change the prime minister's
constitutional status, it could widen differences within the rank and file in the party.
The crisis has pushed the Nepali Congress to the brink of a major split. If the past is
any guide, however, the party may still be able to avert the worst-case scenario. By KESHAB POUDEL Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad
Koirala has built a 50-year career in politics on a firm foundation of pragmatism. But
that attribute was conspicuously absent from his response to the latest crisis bedevilling
the party. The party's disciplinary committee, dominated by Koirala loyalists, expelled
Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba from the party's general membership for three years on
Sunday, May 26, for recommending the dissolution of the lower house of parliament. Had
wisdom prevailed, Koirala would not have allowed the panel to take such a potentially
suicidal decision.
Despite the heated debate and
rancorous rhetoric that followed Deuba's expulsion, a strong political lobby within the
Nepali Congress is trying to bring the warring factions together. "I hope the present
imbroglio in the party will end within a week and the party will be united again,"
said former prime minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, the sole surviving founder member of
the Nepali Congress. "Our honorable party president Girija Prasad Koirala will act to
unite the party and bury all our differences." Other influential leaders are also working
to foster a spirit of reconciliation. "Girijababu must withdraw the action taken
against Prime Minister Deuba," said former deputy prime minister Ram Chandra Poudel,
a member of the powerful central committee. "If we continue with these rifts, the
party will have no future." Constitutional Status Deuba's expulsion does not change his
constitutional status as prime minister. He cannot be replaced until a new premier is
elected. At a time when the House of Representatives stands dissolved, Deuba's position
remains unchallenged. "Constitutionally, Prime Minister
Deuba's legitimacy cannot be challenged even after his expulsion from the party,"
said a constitutional lawyer. "He will remain prime minister until the new parliament
is constituted and new prime minister is chosen." Deuba criticized the disciplinary panel's
decision to expel him, saying the order was against the spirit of the party's
constitution. "I will take my case to the general convention to prove my
innocence," the prime minister told reporters at his official residence in Baluwatar
after the Nepali Congress formally announced his expulsion. "I don't think there is
any sense in the leadership. I am a committed Nepali Congress member and I cannot think of
working against democracy." Suicidal Decision Koirala is said to be under pressure not to
yield ground from, among others, party spokesman Arjun Narsingh KC, general secretary
Sushil Koirala, co-general secretary Govinda Raj Joshi, and daughter Sujata Koirala.
But what prompted Koirala to take a
decision that could prove suicidal to his party and democracy, especially at a time when a
newly united communist party is preparing to challenge the Nepali Congress' political
space? "I can't understand Koirala's calculations. How could such a firm nationalist
and democrat be pushed onto such a wrong track?" asked a political analyst. "The
Nepalese people are the ultimate losers from this unnecessary battle." History of Expulsions The Nepali Congress is no stranger to
expulsions. As an open and mass-based party, members vigorously trade charges and then
bury their differences almost as easily. In 1954, the Nepali Congress expelled then-prime
minister Matrika Prasad Koirala following his growing differences with B.P. Koirala. On
the issue of national reconciliation, B.P. Koirala was expelled from the party. Deuba is
the third senior leader to have been expelled from the party. Thanks to the wisdom of Bhattarai, G.P.
Koirala's expulsion from the party was averted in 1994 after he announced mid-term polls.
Nepali Congress spokesman Arjun Narsingh KC, a leading member of the anti-Deuba camp, was
expelled from the party following his decision to join Panchayat politics in 1980. KC
rejoined the Nepali Congress in 1991. Changed Mood The mood in the Nepali Congress is changing
very fast. On Friday, it appeared that the party had put its house in order. In a perfect
photo opportunity, Deuba, Koirala and Bhattarai were walking together at the airport as
Bhattarai returned from London where he underwent medical treatment. The joint public
appearance of Deuba and Koirala - who had spent the week making opposing statements on the
decision to order early elections - led many to believe that the Nepal Congress would put
an end to the infighting.
But the fiery statements of general
secretary Sushil Koirala, Joshi and KC published in the following morning's papers
suggested otherwise. Former prime minister Koirala, who had recently pledged to extend his
full cooperation to Deuba, blasted the prime minister's decision to go for fresh elections
without consulting the party. The Koirala camp was evidently hoping that
Bhattarai would ask Deuba why his government had rejected the party's directive to
withdraw the motion on extending the emergency. Upon his arrival from London, Bhattarai
urged Koirala not to take make hasty decision against Deuba. An hour-long meeting between
Bhattarai and Koirala at the former's residence in Bhainsepati was inconclusive. Meanwhile, Deuba submitted an explanation
to the party on why he had recommended the dissolution of the House of Representatives.
Asserting that his move was constitutionally correct, Deuba recalled that Koirala had made
a similar recommendation in 1994. Moderate voices are counseling conciliation
in the larger interest of the party. "The party president needs to take his steps
very carefully. If we push Prime Minister Deuba into a corner, it might cause greater harm
to the party," Poudel told Koirala. The Nepali Congress supremo was said to be
against any kind of action that might split the party. But hard-liners in his camp, such
as Joshi, KC and Sushil Koirala, were in favor of punishing Deuba in order to enforce
discipline. Some analysts maintain that the
disciplinary action against Deuba is part of Koirala's plan to bring his daughter Sujata
into politics. How the party president could contemplate an auspicious political beginning
for his daughter when the party is in such crisis remains unclear. Others see Koirala, long known for his
strong anti-Maoist stance, making efforts to strike an alliance with the rebels in the
forthcoming elections. Koirala can spring up surprises when they are least expected. In
1991, he had joined hand with all radical left parties, including the main opposition UML.
The Koirala-Deuba stand-off might have been ignored as an internal matter of the party if
it had not cast such a long shadow on the military-led operations against the Maoists. Preparations for Elections Although the UML and other opposition
parties have accepted Deuba's election duel, the ruling party had not decided until
Tuesday how it would face the polls. Koirala and Bhattarai had been holding meetings
almost every day since Bhattarai's return from London. Koirala, who was said to be infuriated with
Deuba during the first couple of days, is believed to have realized the need to uphold the
larger interest of the party. "Koirala is a fire-brand leader, who speaks his mind
first and then weighs the impact of his words," said a political analyst who has been
closely following the former prime minister. "I don't think Girijababu will take any
hasty decision to split the party." Experience has shown that the
septuagenarian Koirala is an adept negotiator. B.P. Koirala hailed his youngest brother's
gift for compromise in his memoirs "Atma Britanta", citing how he held a series
of talks with late King Mahendra on securing B.P.'s release from prison. "Girjababu
cannot be misled for a long time, as he has the ability to realize the gravity of the
situation," said another analyst. "He has in the past pulled the party from the
brink of a split." As soon as news of the dissolution of the
House of Representatives broke out early last week, it appeared as if the Nepali Congress
had already split. The party sought an explanation from Deuba within three days and
suspended him from the primary membership of the party. Koirala issued a statement urging
all ministers to resign from the Deuba cabinet. The resignation of three ministers - Dr.
Ram Sharan Mahat, Amod Prasad Upadhyaya and Rajendra Kharel - added fuel to the
controversy. Many expected Deuba's ministers to abandon him. But the prime minister won
the backing of 33 ministers, who urged the party president to withdraw Deuba's suspension.
Bhattarai's calculated remarks at Tribhuvan International Airport also indicated that
moves were afoot to restore normalcy to the party. The early mood of fighting to finish is
gradually fading. Like in other sectors, politically and
administratively Nepal is highly underdeveloped. For theperformance of governmental
functions, the country does not have well-established, clearly definedand generally
respected institutions. People lack a deep understanding of the roles they are expected to
play. Elections Possible Had the Nepali Congress not intervened in
the executive's authority to seek the extension of the state of emergency, the government
would not have had to go for fresh elections. However, some members of the ruling party
say there is little possibility of holding elections at this crucial juncture. If
situation was so bad, why did the party order the prime minister not to extend the state
of emergency? Those who claim elections cannot be held
have no substantial arguments. The demand of Koirala and main opposition leader Madhav
Kumar Nepal to withdraw the state of emergency indicated that the situation was gradually
moving toward normalcy. If Koirala and Nepal expected further violence and instability,
they would have agreed to the extension. Or did Koirala and Nepal have inside information
on the Maoists' plans? The government, however, is confident of
holding the elections on schedule. "If all political parties cooperate with the
government, no one can block the elections," said Minister of Information and Culture
Jaya Prakash Prasad Gupta, who is also the spokesman of the cabinet. "Nobody should
have any doubts, as the prime minister has expressed his commitment to hold the elections
on schedule." It is the duty of the Election Commission
to conduct free and fair polls. The commission has said it can conduct the polls on the
date set by King Gyanendra. "We can hold the elections on time," said Chief
Election Commissioner Achyut Narayan Rajbhandari. Skeptics cite the government's decision to
put off this year's local elections on the ground that it could not ensure proper
security. However, the situation may be brought under control by the time parliamentary
elections are held. A similar controversy between the party and
government surfaced between 1991 and 1994 during G.P. Koirala's premiership. The prime
minister recommended the dissolution of the House of Representatives in 1994 after the
party put too much pressure on the government's day-to-day work. Although the Nepali
Congress contested the elections unitedly, party supremo Ganesh Man Singh quit the
organization. Deuba's government was trapped in a similar
position. As the prime minister is bound by oath to uphold the constitution, he has a
greater responsibility to the country than to the party. Although he is elected on the
party's ticket, he is the chief executive of the state. During the UML's nine-month government in
1994-95, the party held sway over Prime Minister Man Mohan Adhikary's council of
ministers. But the UML was adhering to communist practice, where the party is regarded as
superior to the executive. In democratic countries, the prime minister is the head of the
executive and is accountable to the people. His actions and functions are directly
responsible to the people. The party does not have clear demarcation over the role of
political parties and the institution of executive. The dispute in the Nepali Congress stems
from a clear lack of understanding about the precise roles of the executive and the party.
Although Koirala, who served as prime minister for almost eight years between 1991 and
2001, knows this reality, those close to him say he can be very easily misled. Deuba may have realized that an extension
of the emergency was required to quell the Maoist violence at a time when the security
forces were making significant battlefield gains. The party's imposition of its opinion
evidently tied the prime minister's hands. How, then, can Deuba be called a
"regressive" leader when he dissolved the house in order to seek a fresh mandate
from the people? Unlike the past, the UML has, for all
practical purposes, endorsed the elections. Until the time of going to the press, it was
unlikely that a divided Nepali Congress would face a united communist opposition in the
November 13 elections. The climate of reconciliation in the Nepali
Congress was conditioned by the intensifying communist agitation. A similar unification of
the communists had led rebellious Nepali Congress members to bury their differences. The
differences in Congress ranks today are usually like what they were before, and they
always cool down after a few days of agitation. "There are many factors that could
work to prevent a split in the Nepali Congress. Be they regional, international or
internal powers, nobody wants to see a split in the Nepali Congress," said a
political analyst. "These forces may be activated to help Congress leaders bury the
differences." The personal interest of Nepali Congress
members is another cohesive factor. "All of them know the importance of unity to
winning the next election. A divided Nepali Congress will benefit the UML," the
analyst said. Maoist violence Many suspect that it would be impossible to
conduct the poll at a time when there is virtual anarchy resulting from the Maoist
violence. Other believe the announcement of the elections would give a chance to the
Maoists to join mainstream politics. UML leaders have expressed their readiness
to mediate between the government and the rebels. This is also an indication of the
possibility of ending this phase of violence by bringing the Maoists into the mainstream. "The elections will give an
opportunity to the Maoists to join the mainstream of politics. The government has to take
necessary steps to start peace talks with the Maoist," said Jhalnath Khanal, a
politburo member of the UML, who led a party study into the origins and growth of the
insurgency. Despite the Maoist leadership's
predilection for continuing violence, they, too, may be weighing their options. "The
elections provide the best opportunity for Maoist leadership to end their campaign of
violence. Other communist leaders are pressing the Maoists to join mainstream
politics," said an analyst. "The Maoist leadership must announce a
unilateral cease-fire and show a willingness to join mainstream politics, so that other
communist forces can compel the government to initiate negotiations," said Narayan
Man Bijukchhe, president of Nepal Workers and Peasants Party. Deuba's Trouble After completing successful visits to the
United States and Britain, Deuba arrived home to confront new political trouble. The
Koirala camp had prepared a no-confidence motion and were planning to introduce it in the
parliamentary party. Deuba felt Koirala was using a host of other means to harass him. Although Koirala and Deuba have been
fighting for the party's leadership for some time, they seem to be representing other
factions this time. The rapid and unexpected turn of events within the past few weeks can
be attributed to this extraneous influence. Following his arrival home, Deuba had to
confront his party and the opposition on extending the state of emergency. When the party
ran out of ways of humiliating him, Deuba was finally asked to withdraw the extension
proposal from parliament. Deuba, who has not been able to get the
party to officially endorse the fresh polls, knows that unity would brighten the Nepali
Congress' prospects. It is also in Deuba's interest to see that differences are resolved
before the central working committee, because his rivals are strong there. At the least, the committee could pass a
resolution, which could embarrass Deuba. Koirala supporters also dominate the party's
parliamentary board, which grants election tickets. On the other hand, Koirala supporters
are apprehensive of Deuba's hold on the administration. They fear he might use that
influence to sabotage their elections prospects. Kathmandu-based diplomats, too, have been
warning of the costs of chronic political bickering. "Infighting in the Nepali
Congress would only exacerbate the country's political instability," said a western
diplomat on condition of anonymity. "And political instability would be bad for the
Nepalese people." Such pleas for conciliation have buoyed the
hopes of so-called "middle roaders" in the Nepali Congress like Poudel. Although
Koirala has made no public comment on the nature of the action that should be taken
against the prime minister, his lieutenants have been making every effort to push Deuba
into a corner. "The question is of trust. The party president says one thing, but his
followers give completely different signals," said Minister Gupta. "Their
attacks on us through various media speak of their real intentions." If a divided Nepali Congress goes to the
polls, the main beneficiaries would be the united communists. If political forces within
and outside the Nepali Congress consider the communists their best allies, no one might be
able to prevent a split in the Congress. In the end, the future of Deuba and the Nepali
Congress would depend on where these forces throw their weight. DEUBA'S DECISION Prime Minister Sher Bahadur
Deuba did what the chief executive had to do to uphold the right of the elected
authority By KESHAB POUDEL A few hours after Prime Minister Sher
Bahadur Deuba made a submission to King Gyanendra to dissolve the House of Representatives
and call fresh elections on November 13, the palace came out with a formal statement. The
11 PM news bulletin of Radio Nepal on Wednesday, May 22 carried the formal
announcement that Nepal's third House of Representatives since the restoration of
multiparty democracy in 1991 had ceased to exist.
In every democracy, when
unconstitutional non-elected bodies challenge the right of the elected authority, it is
the obligation of the prime minister to go back to people for a fresh mandate. Deuba did
what his predecessor, Girija Prasad Koirala, had done in 1994. Although he is elected on a
party ticket, the prime minister has wider constitutional obligations that he is under
oath to uphold. The prime minister is constitutionally
responsible for finalizing decisions and formulating policies. When Deuba considered
extending the state of emergency for six months to facilitate the security operations
against the Maoist rebels, the ruling Nepali Congress central committee ordered him to
withdraw the extension motion from parliament. In the midst of this clash between his
responsibilities to the party and to the country, Deuba had no alternative to going back
to the people. "I have decided to exercise my
constitutional authority and call fresh elections following my party's rejection of my
proposal to extend the state of emergency. I had proposed the extension in order to boost
the morale of the security forces, who have achieved tremendous successes in curbing the
Maoist insurgency," Deuba said in a televised address to nation a day after
dissolving the lower house. "An election is called to resolve
conflicts, to determine succession and to register legitimacy," said a constitutional
lawyer. "Deuba's decision to seek a fresh mandate is constitutionally correct." When Deuba's authority to extend the state
of emergency came under scrutiny from the party, it was his constitutional duty to
determine how the people viewed the decision. Had he accepted the directive of the party,
Deuba would have set a very bad precedent in parliamentary governance. "This is not a
party system of government but a prime ministerial system, where he can exercise almost
all executive authority. Article 35(2) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal clearly
points to this reality," the lawyer said. In democracies like Britain and India, no
political party interferes with the constitutional authority of the prime minister. When
someone tries to encroach upon the powers of the elected authority, the head of such an
authority moves swiftly to protect his constitutional obligations. During his previous tenure as prime
minister five years ago, Deuba chose to resign after he lost a vote of confidence in the
lower house. Instead of punishing the two MPs whose absence triggered the fall of his
government, Deuba quit. He also rejected Koirala's advice to go for fresh elections. So
what prompted the prime minister to recommend the dissolution of the house this time? Deuba was said to have made up his mind
after he felt humiliated by members of the rival camp during a meeting of the party's
central working committee. At a meeting of the parliamentary party later in the day, the
prime minister provided no hint that he would recommend dissolution of the house. "I found out that the house had been
dissolved from Nepal Television's news bulletin the following morning," Minister of
Education and Sports Amod Upadhyaya told reporters. He joined Minister of Finance Dr. Ram
Sharan Mahat and Minister of Women, Children and Social Welfare Rajendra Kharel in
resigning from the council of ministers, citing disagreements over the prime minister's
decision to dissolve the lower house. At a press conference announcing their decision to
quit, the three ministers criticized Deuba for not consulting them. According to former British prime minister
Sir Anthony Eden, a prime minister is still nominally primus inter pares, but in fact his
authority is stronger than that. The right to choose his colleagues, to ask for a
dissolution of parliament and, if he is a conservative, to appoint the chairman of the
party organization, add up to a formidable total of power. Changes in the status of the prime minister
in the course of British history led some to believe that parliamentary government turned
into cabinet government, which has now become prime ministerial government. In practice,
the prime minister cannot take decisions by inviting a limited number of ministers. "We feel compelled to resign on moral
grounds because we were not consulted by Mr. Deuba before he took such a major
decision," said Dr. Mahat, a prominent leader of the ruling Nepali Congress.
"The prime minister flouted the practice of collective responsibility of the
cabinet," he said. A prime minister is the keystone of the
cabinet arch. "Although in cabinet all its members stand on an equal voice, and, on
the rare occasions when a division is taken, are counted on the fraternal principles of
one man, one vote, yet the head of the cabinet is primus inter pares, and occupies a
position which so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional and peculiar authority,"
said Lord Morley in "The Life of Walpole". Suspense had gripped the nation on May 22
after the Nepali Congress central committee directed the prime minister to withdraw the
motion to extend the emergency from parliament. Citing the moral imperatives that arose
from the directive, Deuba recommended the dissolution of the house to protect the
prerogative of the executive. The decision set the precedent that a prime
minister can dissolve the house if he feels that his authority and constitutional
obligations are under threat. The Supreme Court's last three decisions clearly point out
the authority of prime minister to dissolve the house provided he does not face any
hindrance. Deuba's position is clear, as he was heading a majority government and did not
face a no-confidence motion or a call for a special session of parliament. The development, quite naturally, caught
the opposition and a section of the ruling party off-guard.And now, in a fit of political
defeat, they have begun to defend the indefensible. They argue that early polls were
unwarranted, as there were other constitutional avenues that remained unexplored to
resolve the crisis. "Deuba should be expelled from the
party," said Arjun Narsingh KC, spokesman of the Nepali Congress. "Deuba's
decision has only encouraged rightist forces in the party and will weaken the democratic
system." The assertion of a party claiming to be synonymous with democracy that
elections would weaken democracy carried a perceptible ring of irony.Regardless of what
his party colleagues said, Deuba's decision was constitutionally and politically correct.
It is now up to the people to make the final judgment. Deuba's challenge is to work toward
holding the elections on schedule by bringing all political parties together. Constitutional Provision Except otherwise expressly provided as to
be exercised exclusively by His Majesty at the discretion or on the recommendation of any
institution or official, the powers of His Majesty under this constitution shall be
exercised upon the recommendation, advice and consent of the council of ministers. Such
recommendation, advice and consent shall be submitted through the Prime Minister. -Article
35(2) His Majesty may dissolve the House of
Representatives on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. His Majesty shall, when so
dissolving the House of Representatives, specify a date, to be within six months, for new
elections to the House of Representatives.-Article 53(4). |
Send your feedback to the
editor: spotligh@mos.com.np |
