Breach Of Colaition Culture
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
It’s been more than 15 months since the election was held and Constituent Assembly formed. It has also been more than 13 months since the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held that abolished monarchy and formally declared Nepal a democratic republic. But not much significant work has been accomplished during the period of over one year.
What were accomplished during the last one year? If we are to list, they are: formation of Constituent Assembly through mixed election system, abolition of monarchy and declaration of Nepal as a democratic republic, election of president and vice president, election of prime minister and formation of Prachanda-led coalition government, presentation of budget and frequent foreign trip by the prime minister and ministers, pulling down one government and formation of second coalition government.
No significant achievement was made during the nine month period of the Maoist-led government except some routine affairs. However, the Maoists boast to have made some significant achievements. The Maoists have dubbed the decision of sacking the army chief three months prior to his scheduled retirement time as the bold step towards ensuring civilian supremacy. However, this is the move that brought down the Maoist led government and paved the way for formation of the Madhav Nepal-led coalition government.
The decision to sack the army chief was made in haste without doing proper homework and without assessing its pros and cons. In principle, the government has every right to pension off the army chief if the government feels it necessary for the larger interest of the country. But there are procedures and tradition which must be followed before taking any decision on issues of such vital importance.
Moreover, the government was a coalition of different parties. Prior to taking such an important decision, the Prime Minister should have duly and adequately consulted with at least all coalition partners and taken them into confidence. But, it was a failure on the part of the prime minister. Prachanda has often said that he had consulted with the leadership of other parties including the CPN-UML and Madhesi Janadhikar Forum on this issue. According to the Maoist source, all parties except Rajendra Mahato-led Nepal Sadbhavana Party had given their consent to the proposal of sacking the army chief but UML and MJF later backed out after the decision as was taken. However, CPN-UML has flatly denied it.
Whatever the allegations and counter allegations, it was the failure of the Maoists not to take the coalition partners into confidence. In a coalition, decisions have to be made on vital national issues on the basis of consensus. Extensive discussion has to be made to create consensus. But the coalition partners never took this spirit into consideration. It was not the Maoists alone but all political parties and members in the coalition acted as though they had one-party government. The common minimum programme and high-level mechanism that was created to run the coalition government was dumped in the dust bin. In the failure of the Prachanda-led government, it was not the Maoists alone but all parties in the government are responsible.
This shows that we have not been able to learn the coalition culture, despite its practice for more than three years after the success of the Jana Andolan II. Even prior to the Jana Andolan II, there had been some coalition governments. But they failed miserably giving rise to height of instability and chaos in the country. After the success of Jana Andolan II, an all-party coalition government was formed under the leadership of Girija Prasad Koirala. The job of this interim coalition government was clearly specified in the interim constitution that was to hold the election to the constituent assembly and hand over power to the elected government. Despite some hitches, this coalition government was successful in its job. It successfully conducted the election to the constituent assembly and handed over power to the elected government.
But the later years were not enthusiastic for coalition culture. Although coalition government was formed, parties hardly demonstrated and applied the coalition culture in practice. The mandate of the people expressed through the election of the constituent assembly was loud and clear. The mandate was for a coalition, consensus and compromise. As the people gave the largest number of seats to the Maoists, it was people’s mandate for the Maoists to lead the coalition. But it was not understood clearly by the parties. But the spirit of coalition was breached right after the election results which came to the fore during the election of the president. All political parties had their own claim for the post of the president. The Maoists claim was valid as it was the largest party in the constituent assembly. What was not valid on the part of the Maoists is to claim both the president and the Prime Minister. Nepali Congress is the second largest party in the constituent assembly and its claim for the president was definitely valid as it proposed the executive prime minister to the largest party and the ceremonial president to the second largest party. The CPN-UML is the third largest party and it also claimed in the post of president. In one stage, it reached a tacit agreement with the Maoists for the support of its presidential candidate, which later could not materialize due to Maoists’ deceit. Being the third largest party, it had not been politically appropriate for the CPN-UML to claim the presidency. This crisis of trust breached the spirit of consensus and election was held for the president and vice president in which the Maoists turned out to be the loser, despite emerging winner in the election. The Congress got the president, MJF the vice president and the CPN-UML the Chairman (speaker) of the Constituent Assembly.
The Maoists are responsible for this crisis of trust and breach of consensus politics. But other parties, too, do not escape from this responsibility. Following the debacle in the election for the president and vice president, the Maoists were so frustrated and angered that they even announced not to try to form the government as well. However, they buried the hatchet and entered into an accord with other parties to lead the coalition government. But the Nepali Congress kept itself away from the Prachanda-led coalition government. Since the Nepali Congress had already got what it had demanded, it was a mistake on the part of the Nepali Congress to sit in opposition. This was once again a betrayal to people’s mandate and their wish for coalition and consensus. Moreover, the interim constitution has envisaged the coalition and consensus because there is no provision of treasury and opposition benches in the statute.
Instead of coalition, cooperation and consensus, the politics of deceit has once again crept into the Nepali politics. All major political parties had in one point or the other betrayed the other political parties. During the election for the president, the Maoists breached the consensus culture and tried to deceive other parties. The Nepali Congress followed the politics of deceit during the election for prime minister, formation of the government and later. CPN-UML and MJF followed it in the wake of the army chief issue and walked out of the government.
This politics of deceit may have benefited the political parties and leaders, it has definitely harmed the country, democracy and peace process. Since the country is passing through a critical moment, parties must shun the politics of benefit and work in true spirit of coalition for the larger interest of the country and the people. We must learn the lesson from successful experiences of coalition politics and culture in other countries including our immediate negihbours.
It’s been more than 15 months since the election was held and Constituent Assembly formed. It has also been more than 13 months since the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held that abolished monarchy and formally declared Nepal a democratic republic. But not much significant work has been accomplished during the period of over one year.
What were accomplished during the last one year? If we are to list, they are: formation of Constituent Assembly through mixed election system, abolition of monarchy and declaration of Nepal as a democratic republic, election of president and vice president, election of prime minister and formation of Prachanda-led coalition government, presentation of budget and frequent foreign trip by the prime minister and ministers, pulling down one government and formation of second coalition government.
No significant achievement was made during the nine month period of the Maoist-led government except some routine affairs. However, the Maoists boast to have made some significant achievements. The Maoists have dubbed the decision of sacking the army chief three months prior to his scheduled retirement time as the bold step towards ensuring civilian supremacy. However, this is the move that brought down the Maoist led government and paved the way for formation of the Madhav Nepal-led coalition government.
The decision to sack the army chief was made in haste without doing proper homework and without assessing its pros and cons. In principle, the government has every right to pension off the army chief if the government feels it necessary for the larger interest of the country. But there are procedures and tradition which must be followed before taking any decision on issues of such vital importance.
Moreover, the government was a coalition of different parties. Prior to taking such an important decision, the Prime Minister should have duly and adequately consulted with at least all coalition partners and taken them into confidence. But, it was a failure on the part of the prime minister. Prachanda has often said that he had consulted with the leadership of other parties including the CPN-UML and Madhesi Janadhikar Forum on this issue. According to the Maoist source, all parties except Rajendra Mahato-led Nepal Sadbhavana Party had given their consent to the proposal of sacking the army chief but UML and MJF later backed out after the decision as was taken. However, CPN-UML has flatly denied it.
Whatever the allegations and counter allegations, it was the failure of the Maoists not to take the coalition partners into confidence. In a coalition, decisions have to be made on vital national issues on the basis of consensus. Extensive discussion has to be made to create consensus. But the coalition partners never took this spirit into consideration. It was not the Maoists alone but all political parties and members in the coalition acted as though they had one-party government. The common minimum programme and high-level mechanism that was created to run the coalition government was dumped in the dust bin. In the failure of the Prachanda-led government, it was not the Maoists alone but all parties in the government are responsible.
This shows that we have not been able to learn the coalition culture, despite its practice for more than three years after the success of the Jana Andolan II. Even prior to the Jana Andolan II, there had been some coalition governments. But they failed miserably giving rise to height of instability and chaos in the country. After the success of Jana Andolan II, an all-party coalition government was formed under the leadership of Girija Prasad Koirala. The job of this interim coalition government was clearly specified in the interim constitution that was to hold the election to the constituent assembly and hand over power to the elected government. Despite some hitches, this coalition government was successful in its job. It successfully conducted the election to the constituent assembly and handed over power to the elected government.
But the later years were not enthusiastic for coalition culture. Although coalition government was formed, parties hardly demonstrated and applied the coalition culture in practice. The mandate of the people expressed through the election of the constituent assembly was loud and clear. The mandate was for a coalition, consensus and compromise. As the people gave the largest number of seats to the Maoists, it was people’s mandate for the Maoists to lead the coalition. But it was not understood clearly by the parties. But the spirit of coalition was breached right after the election results which came to the fore during the election of the president. All political parties had their own claim for the post of the president. The Maoists claim was valid as it was the largest party in the constituent assembly. What was not valid on the part of the Maoists is to claim both the president and the Prime Minister. Nepali Congress is the second largest party in the constituent assembly and its claim for the president was definitely valid as it proposed the executive prime minister to the largest party and the ceremonial president to the second largest party. The CPN-UML is the third largest party and it also claimed in the post of president. In one stage, it reached a tacit agreement with the Maoists for the support of its presidential candidate, which later could not materialize due to Maoists’ deceit. Being the third largest party, it had not been politically appropriate for the CPN-UML to claim the presidency. This crisis of trust breached the spirit of consensus and election was held for the president and vice president in which the Maoists turned out to be the loser, despite emerging winner in the election. The Congress got the president, MJF the vice president and the CPN-UML the Chairman (speaker) of the Constituent Assembly.
The Maoists are responsible for this crisis of trust and breach of consensus politics. But other parties, too, do not escape from this responsibility. Following the debacle in the election for the president and vice president, the Maoists were so frustrated and angered that they even announced not to try to form the government as well. However, they buried the hatchet and entered into an accord with other parties to lead the coalition government. But the Nepali Congress kept itself away from the Prachanda-led coalition government. Since the Nepali Congress had already got what it had demanded, it was a mistake on the part of the Nepali Congress to sit in opposition. This was once again a betrayal to people’s mandate and their wish for coalition and consensus. Moreover, the interim constitution has envisaged the coalition and consensus because there is no provision of treasury and opposition benches in the statute.
Instead of coalition, cooperation and consensus, the politics of deceit has once again crept into the Nepali politics. All major political parties had in one point or the other betrayed the other political parties. During the election for the president, the Maoists breached the consensus culture and tried to deceive other parties. The Nepali Congress followed the politics of deceit during the election for prime minister, formation of the government and later. CPN-UML and MJF followed it in the wake of the army chief issue and walked out of the government.
This politics of deceit may have benefited the political parties and leaders, it has definitely harmed the country, democracy and peace process. Since the country is passing through a critical moment, parties must shun the politics of benefit and work in true spirit of coalition for the larger interest of the country and the people. We must learn the lesson from successful experiences of coalition politics and culture in other countries including our immediate negihbours.
Comments
Post a Comment