Back to the future

DAULAT JHA

Barely a year after the historic CA elections, the first elected government of the nascent Republic of Nepal toppled and has been replaced by a new one. The accusations and counter-accusations, the virtual and near-splits in political parties, moral posturing, the alleged buying of parliamentarians, the talk of foreign intervention – all these are uncannily familiar to the post-1990 political environment, which many believe to be one of the most important reasons for people’s disillusionment with the multi-party democracy of the time, and the cause of its demise.

To any observer of Nepali politics, the resignation of the cabinet hardly came as a surprise. Looking back at the circumstances immediately following the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections, the stage had already been set. It took almost four months for the-then incumbent prime minister to make way for the new one. The coalition that made it possible for the Maoists to head the government, under the leadership of PM Dahal was, at best, a hodge-podge one driven more by short-term strategic interest and with serious fissures within the coalition. Furthermore, both the partners of the coalition, the CPN-UML and the Madhesi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF) themselves had two almost equally divided camps within them. The longevity of the Maoist-led government was thus going to be determined by two critical dynamics – one among the coalition partners and the other within the individual parties of the coalition.

The give-and-take politics, that is the hallmark of any parliamentary system where no outright majority exists but particularly the defining feature of Nepali parliamentary politics, began immediately. Factions realigned themselves during the election of the president and the vice-president, where ethnicity played a crucial role. Ironically, a staunch critic of the Madhes movement was elected as the first Madhesi president, and a controversial judge as the first vice-president, also of Madhesi origin. Both roles had no historical precedents, but while the vice-president courted controversy, the president performed admirably well. That, however, was until the Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) controversy.

Most cry foul at the Maoists. But it appears both the UML leadership as well as the MJF had first agreed to seek clarification and if necessary sack the CoAS for feuding with an elected government.

What were the circumstances that led to the controversy, ultimately leading to the resignation of the government? Who were at fault? Who violated constitutional norms and who upheld them? These are questions that have bitterly divided the political parties and the civil society alike. Suddenly, we have become a nation of lawyers, each with our own suitable interpretations of the constitution and the workings of Nepali politics to match our world-views. One thing we can all agree on, though – the elected body, which acts both as a Constituent Assembly given the task of drafting the new constitution and as a Legislative body, has so far failed to achieve anything substantial.

Most cry foul at the Maoists. They should not have taken a unilateral decision. This is fine and good but it appears both the UML leadership (the chairperson, the general secretary and the cabinet-representative) as well as the MJF had first agreed to seek clarification and if necessary sack the CoAS for feuding with the elected government and most particularly disobeying the Defense Ministry. This had been evident in various forms (with both sides at fault depending on the incidents and interpretations) – in the reintegration controversy, the recruitment controversy, the retirement of the eight generals controversy, and the National games controversy.

The current controversy erupted when, led by the Nepali Congress, the faction within the UML that were staunch critics of the Maoists decided to go for the kill. Both the UML and MJF had managed to strengthen their parties following their general conventions despite serious disagreements and appearing to be on the verge of splitting up, perhaps driven by the sole imperative of keeping their parties intact. This was only how it looked on the surface though – the differences had been far from sorted out.

The MJF, for their part, played the good coalition partner putting forth two alternative proposals to resolve the crisis and create consensus, and not boycotting the cabinet meeting. They argued that either a committee formed within the cabinet or a high-level committee consisting of all major parties in the parliament be formed to study and report on the clarifications provided by the CoAS, the recommendations of which should be made the basis of any further action against the CoAS. It appears that all other coalition partners agreed except the Maoists, the reasons for which remain unclear. Was it because the Maoists were frustrated with their performance in the government and feared disillusionment among the public, preferring to play the opposition? Was it to placate their indoctrinated foot soldiers who were starting to get restless seeing no real achievement on the ground and finding their leadership too reconciliatory?

Whatever the reasons, the fact on the ground remains that the prime minster and his cabinet resigned. The UML led coalition has formed the new government, with most of the parties signing on. The constitution-making process has been stalled. And there has been no change in the lives of ordinary people; if anything, things have gotten worse. The new government has many major tasks, most important of them being to expedite the constitution drafting process. It is the successful completion of this task that will bring an end to this transitional period and complete the peace process. The Maoists should cooperate, as they have promised, to achieve this end.

Many cases are pending in the Supreme Court, and leaders should wait for the due processes to be followed. A functional democracy is only possible if the check-and-balance mechanisms put in place between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary is maintained. It is shameful for the president’s office to say that the judiciary has no jurisdiction on the issue of the president issuing an order to the CoAS to continue his work despite being sacked by the elected government, arguing that this was a political issue and not a constitutional one. The constitution in itself is a political document, and there ought to be no mechanisms to bypass it; and it is the Supreme Court that has the vested right to interpret the constitution.

As trite as it sounds, the need of the hour is a politics of consensus, if only for a year more by when we are stipulated to draft the new constitution. Soon after that, we will have another general elections, where the democratic will of the people shall be expressed (provided we correct the flaws that were so apparent in the CA elections). Marginalizing the Maoists will have serious consequences to the peace process. Thus, it is the onus of the new government to reach out to the Maoists and keep them engaged in the peace process.

Published on myrepublica 2009-05-24