National 4 (Spotlight Weekly)

'Criticize Ranabhat The Man, But Don't Denigrate The Status Of The Speaker'

- TARANATH RANABHAT

TARANATH RANABHAT, Speaker of the House of Representatives, is also a member of the Nepali Congress central committee. Following his decision not to attend the meeting of former members of the house called by five major political parties, Ranabhat has been accused of 'betrayal'. Speaker Ranabhat, who is the only elected representative the country has today, spoke to KESHAB POUDEL about his constitutional role and the present political situation. Excerpts:

How do you see the present political scenario?

The present political situation is very fluid, and nobody can predict where it will go. The country has been passing through a very critical phase. The state of the economy, cultural and social conditions are also not in good shape. Our actions are directed toward proving that we are incapable of running the country. The relations among the various political parties that believe in the constitutional process are not good.

Why did you put your whole political career at stake to reject your party leader's directive to chair the meeting of members of dissolved House of Representatives?

I have sacrificed my individual interest in front of the existing constitution, political process and democratic values. I took the decision consulting eminent constitutional lawyers and political leaders. As the head of House of Representatives, I have certain constitutional obligations and responsibilities. As an individual, Taranath Ranabhat is just a political activist of the Nepali Congress. As the speaker, I have a major constitutional role. I am neither appointed by the King nor by political parties. I am elected by the members of the House of Representatives and I have clear-cut constitutional role and duties. As the speaker, I am a member of the Constitutional Council, which appoints members of the constitutional bodies. Had I chaired the meeting of dissolved members of House of Representatives and had I resigned from the speakership, the constitution would have received a setback. As an individual, I can tolerate any political trouble, but I cannot push the constitutional process into trouble, a process achieved through an historical people's movement of 1990. This constitution is accepted by all forces, including King and political parties. I have put my political career on trial after recognizing the responsibility of my constitutional role. I can sacrifice my political career to protect democracy and the constitution. I can revive my political career. Even if I fail to do so, I will be proud to have saved the constitution, multiparty democracy and country. I have already said that history and the people will judge my judgment.

But most Nepali Congress workers and sympathizers see your decision as part of your lust for power, money and influence. Being a member of the party, you were under obligation to have followed its decision. How do you look at it?

We have been exploiting state facilities since 1990. In my case, I got that opportunity just after my election as speaker. Of course, I did not have to go to prison for the last 12 years. I got all these opportunities for just four years. As soon as election date is announced, I will again have to give up all these facilities to live my normal life in Pokhara. I am proud that I don't have Pajero or house here. I have to go to my ancestral house after completion my tenure. Being a lawyer, I have to go to legal profession once I don't find any political post. We are the members of this society. You can see how I live and how my colleagues are living. My life is as open as a book and I don't have to hesitate to show what I own. This is an accusation levelled by those who have exploited all kinds of state benefits for personal gain. They are the people driven vested interest. Had they known the political repercussion, they would not have interpreted the constitution as they wished. Can you imagine a state without a legislature? I know the constitution is defunct, but it is still there. Without the legislature, the country would not imagine the constitution. In absence of legislature, it will pave the way to withdraw the constitution. I don't want to see that happening. If elections could have been held in November, I would have lost all my benefits. Then, I too would have been free to comment on who secure what benefits. I would have gone on the road and explained who were living in the big buildings in Kathmandu and who were live in the villages. I am not here to secure benefits. I will have to go back to my village to live in a normal life. The benefits and facilities are not given to Taranath Ranabhat as an individual, but as the speaker. Every speaker can enjoy this privilege. This statements are bias.

Why, then, are your colleagues speaking against you, even to the point of threatening not to permit you to go to your village?

I don't think our leaders are unaware about the constitutional compulsions. How can we believe our leaders do not know the constitutional implications, since they were in power in the past under this constitution. Our leaders have access to all senior constitutional experts and legal experts. I don't want to say anything about those who are projecting themselves as being ignorant on the constitutional matter. What do they get by weakening the position of the speaker of the House of Representatives. They can criticize Taranath Ranabhat as a person, but they cannot denigrate the status of the speaker. This is why I am putting my personal political career in stake. I joined the struggle against the Panchayat as a member of the Nepali Congress party. No one needs any certificate from anyone to be Congress, since all Congress members are democrats. All political leaders know what the constitutional status is. Instead of exploiting my status to secure constitutional benefits, the party is pressing me to take an unconstitutional way. If our leaders really want revolution, they must declare that they will not abide by the constitution. How can they protect the constitution pressing to take unconstitutional decision from their own members? In case of revolution, there is no means of constitutional reform. Being a member of Constitutional Council, I have role to play in the nomination of the CIAA commissioners, commissioners at the Elections Commission. Our leader Girija Prasad Koirala has filed a case in the apex court declaring the CIAA actions as political vendetta and unconstitutional. In my absence in the council, who will benefit from the new appointee? Will Congress get any benefit? I have to play a role in promoting the cause of democracy. I can plead the cause of democracy in Nepal as the speaker of the House of† Representatives. I have to admit that we have been unable to deliver good governance in the last 12 years. We are lacking behind in building institutions to check rampant corruption. We have been unable to make any difference. Instead of focusing on the national agenda, we are interested in petty issues.

Five political parties are demanding the revival of the House of Representatives which was dissolved a year ago. The dissolution order has been endorsed by the apex court. How do you see the possibility of revival of the legislature?

I am fully confident that there are ways to revive the House of Representatives. I agree that the court endorsed the dissolution with a condition that the elections would be held within six months. When the elections could not be held within the period, the house has to be revived. My argument is that the court can revive the legislature after hearings on review of its decisions. Instead of exercising Article 127 to revive the house through the King, it is constitutionally more democratic to revive the house through the decisions of the court. Political forces may secure immediate benefits by reviving the House through the King, but it will set a bad precedent in the future. If court starts hearing of two petitions filed to review its decision and house is revived under it, the power will not
concentrate on Article 127. If we promote King to exercise the Article 127 to dismiss the government and to revive the house, why do we need other articles in the constitution? If we put unlimited authority in Article 127, the constitution will be automatically defunct. The move to exercise enormous power through Article 127 will benefit neither the king nor the political parties. Only the Supreme Court has the right to interpret the constitution since its decisions are equivalent to the constitution and law. The interpretation of the constitution will be part of the constitution. I went to the court defending the right to revive the house. I went against my own constitutional body. I went to court. Our political parties have never found time to press the case in court.

If the new prime minister recommends the King to revive the House, don't you think power will be vested in the prime minister?

I will be the happiest person if King Gyanendra revives the house, but I am against setting such a precedent. I have not consulted anyone on this† matter. So I am not in a position to say whether it has any constitutional validity or not. I firmly said that Supreme Court has the power to revive the house through revision of its decisions. I am reading such opinions from former chief justice Bisownath Upadhyaya, senior advocate and eminent constitutional lawyer Ganesh Raj Sharma,† Motikaji Sthaphit and others on possibility to revive the house through the recommendation of the prime minister under Article 127. My concern is that judiciary should be given the right to interpret the constitution. My request is to follow the judiciary.

With the revival of house, the business of making and breaking governments will go to the House of Representatives. That means the constitutional monarch will again rise above politics. Don't you think this will be the best option to end the political stalemate?

If we evaluate the seven-month performance of the Chand government keeping an unbiased view, it shows that an unaccountable government cannot be effective as elected government. I agree that the role of making and unmaking the government is the duty of the parliament. On the internal and external fronts, the government has totally failed. By agreeing to accept the term to provide Nepalese citizenship certificate to Bhutanese, the government committed a blunder. In case of confining the role of Royal Nepalese Army into five-kilometer perimeter, the Chand government has made another blunder. How can you shrink the role of the army which is there to safeguard Nepal's national interest. I don't see any rationale behind limiting the role of Royal Nepalese Army. Had there been an elected government, it would not have done such anti-national decisions. Only achievement it has made is cease-fire with the Maoist. No ministry can take such decisions. If we provide the citizenship under the basis of living certain days in hotel, what will be the future of the country. Our challenge right now is to provide lasting peace through negotiations with Maoist. We also need to think about the possibility of providing political stability in the country. We have been unable to provide good governance and to protect human rights. We have to survive on foreign aid. We must guarantee to our foreign friends that their money will be sent to the people. Political parties must have to consider what they want. When they question my integrity and personal matter, I have to open my mouth to defend the cause.

Is there any possibility of holding elections soon?

You can hold general elections and local elections within a certain period of time. Lokendra Bahadur Chand also could have held the elections, but he made an effort to remain in power. The elections should be held in various phases. Had the elections been held, the country would have had elected representatives and a functional constitution. For the last one year, the country is without elected representatives. Our commitment is toward the people. Our constitution also says the people are the sources of power and sovereignty. I don't think anything is achievable without the elected representatives in place. Without the active participation of the people, nothing can be achieved.

How do you see the possibility of unification in your party?

We made every effort until last minute to prevent the split. On Asadh 5, 2059 when then prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba hinted the possibility of splitting the party, we held a meeting at the residence of Chakra Bastola to find an amicable solution. We drafted a statement of Deuba where he agreed to apologize for his mistakes. We showed that statement to Girijababu, who personally agreed to pardon Deuba. But Girijababu had asked us to stay a few more hours. When he discussed the letter with his own close coterie, he changed his mind. Girijababu agreed to pardon Sher Bahadur in exchange for such a statement, and that's why Sher Bahadur was ready to sign the statement. Girijababu came with different message in the evening. When we invited Girijababu to Chakra Banstola's house on the same evening, he said that his colleagues did not agree on that and he could not prevent the split of the party. Every party workers like to know those elements that pressed Koirala not to compromise and forgive Deuba? After splitting party, whose interest those element wanted to fulfill? I will raise these questions in
nation-wide campaign. What type of democracy do they want in the party? Who were those elements? If they were genuine Congress workers, they would not have pushed them at the brink. I don't think they are Congress workers. Ram Chandra Poudel openly revealed in front of Girijababu his decision to led the Deuba Congress. Girijababu asked me to convince Ram Chandra Poudel. There were 12 colleagues in front of. We have to spend another 30 years to build Congress leaders like Ram Chandra Poudel and Deuba. I don't know whether Ram Chandra's decision not to join Deuba was inspired by me or his own but we stopped Poudel from leaving the party. Questioning their commitment to democracy through the instigation of hench-men was unfortunate.

Do you think two Congress groups will unite soon?

We all have committed mistakes. We must realize and apologize for those mistakes. Our aim is to strengthen democracy. So we must promote unity of the party. Thank God, we have a leader with a† high stature like Girijababu. We have another leader, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, but he is inactive. Girijababu has national and international stature. If Girijababu does not make any arrangements for collective leadership in the party, our future is bleak after his retirement. He must bring collective leadership. Being a brother of B.P. Koirala, Girijababu too has a responsibility to unite the party. Everyone knows the role of Surya Prasad Upadhyaya but B.P. Koirala always kept him in his position. He handed over the reins of the party to Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Ganesh Man Singh and Girija Prasad Koirala. The Nepali Congress cannot be run under single leadership.

How can you protect Congress's liberal credentials when your party is joining hands with extreme leftist groups?

Our party has a long history of following constitutional monarchy and multiparty democracy. If our party wants to change its ideological stand, it must call a general council meeting and endorse the new line. If the party accepts the republican line, I won't hesitate to speak. People are very aware about democracy. Many people were killed simply for having been Congress and Communist workers or sympathisers. People cannot speak but they know who is doing what. Instead of talking about genuine issues, including seeking justice for those killed by Maoists, the leaders are showing apathy toward them.