The demand of the opposition is hundred percent 'unconstitutional'

-Subhash Pokharel, NC activist, Kathmandu

He is young and highly energetic. He secured his Masters degree in Chemistry and later also obtained Bachelor in Law in the mid 90s from Tribhuvan University. He served as Lecturer at the T.U for four years or so. Later he served at the Nepali Congress Central Office as Secretary for three years. It was during this time that he came closer to the top hats of the NC party.

Subhash Pokharel originally hails from the Terai plains and is at the moment the General manager of government owned Himal Cement Factory.

Pokharel is a prolific writer and the topics include contemporary national and international events. At times his critical articles create troubles for the top leadership.

Besides this, Mr. Pokharel also heads one NGO called "Nepal Forum for Human Rights and Development" which has in the past conducted several seminars.

Last week, we met this young and dynamic intellectual at a social gathering and approached for an exclusive tête-à-tête to which he readily agreed-Below the results-Chief editor

TGQ1: Mr. Pokharel ! As a very responsible and sensible citizen of this nation, how you assess the present stalemate in the Nepalese parliament. Who is to be primarily blamed for all the unfortunate activities happening there? Your comments please!

Pokharel: As you Mr. Upadhyaya have mentioned in your question, the event in the parliament is really an unfortunate one. I agree to what you have said. However, the parliamentarians and the political parties are considered to be the patrons of the multi-party parliamentary system. So it is their responsibility to run the country honoring the spirit of the constitution and the rules and the regulations of the parliament itself. In addition to this, the lawmakers should uphold the wishes and the aspirations of their voters who sent them to power. And they did so thinking that their men in the parliament would work in favor of their voters. In order to safeguard the rights of the citizens, first the parliament should run smoothly and do business. However, the fact is that the parliament has not been allowed to do business and has been disrupted for quite long time.

I'm really concerned with the kind of stalemate in which Nepalese parliament is in at the moment. If the parliament is not allowed to do business, how the parliament can work in favor of the people? Unless the opposition allows the parliament to function no business could be accomplished for the benefit of the common men. Most importantly, if the Prime Minister resigns under the threat of the opposition of the sort what we have been witnessing today, it would definitely set a dangerous precedent and no Prime Minister in this country would be safe and will have to be at the mercy of the opposition.

Normally a government in power commits mistakes. The mistakes could be small or even a bigger one. For the opposition they can forward any issues and blow it out of proportion should they wish to do so. I don't know whether the Prime Minister is involved in the Lauda affair or not, however, what is for sure is that the path the opposition has chosen this round is hundred percent unconstitutional. In addition to that it is impractical as well.

The opposition must allow the Premier to speak as he is also the leader of the house. Let dialogues prevail in the house, which would definitely ease the situation. This will also facilitate the institutionalization of a healthy culture in the house to which we lack very badly.

The demand of the opposition thus, in my view, is unconstitutional. You could guess now who is to be primarily blamed.

TGQ2: You say that the opposition demand is unconstitutional. The opposition says it possesses the right to demand such resignation in a democratic order. How you defend yourself now?

Mr. Pokharel: Yes the opposition has a right to ask for the Prime Minister's resignation in a system like ours. But there are processes for forwarding such demands. First, the opposition should come out with clear proofs against the Prime Minister, which also enables the common men to understand the existing realities. Then come the constitutional processes for such ouster of the premier. Most importantly, the Prime Minister has time and again hinted the opposition to abide by the constitutional processes for his ouster. Yet more significantly, if the premier is really involved in the Lauda affair then it would be really difficult for his own parliamentarians to defend their own party leader who is also the Prime Minister. But this is not the case with the NC parliamentary party. Not a single NC lawmaker has so far charged their leader. Equally true is the fact that if the NC lawmakers understand that their Prime Minister is involved in such an affair, perhaps they would not and could not come to support a charged Prime Minister.

If the opposition is sure of the charges made against Koirala, they could convince the rest of the lawmakers in the opposition camp and could also convince the NC lawmakers and initiate proceeding for such an ouster either through the parliament or from the NC parliamentary party. What ever they will do should be in accordance of the spirit of the constitution now in force. In essence what I mean to say is that the constitutional processes must be adhered but not the otherwise.

TGQ3: Some say that Krishna Prasad Bhattarai is playing double. He is seen siding with the opposition demands and some times he exhibits his total loyalty for his old colleague Prime Minister Koirala. What is your own impression in this regard?

Mr. Pokharel: Let me tell you that K.P.Bhattarai is also a human being and possesses the same weaknesses and drawbacks what a normal man has. This notwithstanding, K.P.Bhattarai is a personality who is really concerned with the strengthening and the consolidation of the democratic system in Nepal. He is undoubtedly a great leader of the country. So when you say that he appears some times siding with Koirala it could be the same concern mentioned above and that being that if Koirala is forced to resign as per the demands of the opposition would set a very bad precedent in Nepal's democratic system. This concern, in my opinion, brings him closer to Koirala. Conversely, when he apparently sides with the opposition, the reason could be his humiliating ouster from chair some one year back by the present day Prime Minister. It could be a silent protest against Koirala.

Be that as it may, Bhattarai is such a leader whose credentials can't be questioned. So whatever you say about him, I remain assured that Bhattarai will never support unconstitutional means for the ouster of an elected Prime Minister-be it through the street agitation or disrupting the parliament.

TGQ4: The RPP says that it would not accompany the entire opposition including the UML to the streets for the resignation of the Prime Minister. However, the RPP continues to disrupt the parliament. The party of the former panchas opines that such street agitation will mar the spirit of the system and would also weaken the new order. What say you?

Mr. Pokharel: Your question in itself is sufficient to tell your readers as to how the Nepali democracy is functioning today. The RPP which is definitely carrying the legacy of the former autocratic panchas who mercilessly ruled the nation for all along thirty years or so and practically smashed all the basic norms and the values of a democratic order now dare to teach us the basics of democracy. What could be most unfortunate than this? The renegades of the recent past have now come of age to lecture us on democracy and its functioning. Perhaps this explains every thing.

TGQ5: The stalemate in the parliament apparently will continue for quite some time now. The people have become restless and seek the "mild intervention" of the king to bring back normalcy in the nation. Will it be advisable to the constitutional monarch to act as wished by the people or should he leave the whole nation at the mercy of the Almighty!

Mr. Pokharel: It is a fact that the forefathers of the present King unified this nation long time back. It is also a fact that the King has been accepted as a "force" even in the constitution promulgated after the 1990 popular movement. But King-the constitutional monarch who has exhibited his total commitment to the present position as enshrined in the constitution-should not be invited to bring about a solution to the present impasse in the parliament. In my opinion, the two responsible parties-the congress and the communists- who facilitated the ushering in of the present democratic order in the country possess the ability to devise a solution to the present imbroglio themselves. There is no question of inviting the constitutional monarch and other forces in an issue that could be easily sorted out by the two concerned should they wish to arrive at an amicable solution.

Headline | National | Editorial | 2nd Impression | International | Past |