What is Civilian Supremacy?
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
The Maoists are on war path now. The bone of contention is over the definition and interpretation of civilian supremacy. The Maoists have unveiled a series of protest programmes against the government to press for their demand of ‘civilian supremacy’. But it is not clear what exactly they mean by civilian supremacy.
According to the Maoists, the civilian supremacy is to respect the decision on the sacking of the then army chief Rookmangut Katwal taken by the Prachanda-led government. But the army chief issue has now been obsolete as the controversial general has already retired and another senior army officer has taken over the charge of the Nepal Army.
But the storm has not subsided as the Maoists have kept on raising this issue even more strongly these days. This is the issue that forced the Maoists to walk out of the government. Thus, it has become a matter of prestige for the Maoists and they want to make it a political issue among the people.
This issue came to the fore as the President stalled the decision of the Prachanda-led government on the sacking of the then army chief Rookmangut Katwal. Although the Prachanda-led government was technically in majority, Prachanda chose to resign preempting that the government would be in minority status because some coalition partners had already joined the bandwagon of opposition on the army chief issue. Prachanda’s resignation was a wise and politically honest decision as it was not politically appropriate and morally justifiable to try to remain in office even when the country’s executive chief’s decision was nullified by the ceremonial president.
The decision of sacking the army chief was taken when the government was well in majority. But the President had his own political compulsion and constitution obligation. The President did not act on his own volition but under compulsion as 18 political parties including the main opposition and also the allies of the coalition government, submitted a written request to intervene on the issue concerning the sacking of the army chief.
In a parliamentary system of governance, the executive chief has all authority. In Nepal’s case, the Prime Minister is the executive chief whereas the president is ceremonial. The duty and responsibility of the President are just to stamp the decision made by the government. But the unique situation arose on the issue of sacking the army chief as the 18 political parties including the coalition partners requested the President to act. The President was left with no alternative other than to defer the decision of the government. If there is any mistake on this issue, 18 political parties are responsible. If the decision of defer the government’s decision to sack the army chief was at all ‘unconstitutional’, the blame entirely goes to the 18 political parties and not to the President.
Then how the question of civilian supremacy arose? Civilian supremacy is the supremacy of the civilian government. Any government that is headed by someone other than the military administrator is civilian government. In the modern era, by civilian government everyone understands that it is a duly and democratically elected government. The government headed by non-elected executive head cannot be called a civilian government. In broad sense, Nepal has never been under military or non-civilian governments. But, as per the modern sense, the king’s rule was not a civilian government. It was a dictatorship that was given civilian face because the king always ruled with the backing and support from the military.
The real civilian government is possible only in genuine democracy in which people elect their representatives and their representatives rule the country. This only guarantees a civilian supremacy. In the case of Nepal, we had civilian government just for a brief period in 1960. The 1990 political change brought about an era of civilian government. But Nepal again fell into the trap of king’s dictatorship until the Jana Andolan II restored democracy and ultimately abolished monarchy.
If the adult-franchise based on multi-party system is the yardstick to form the civilian government, Prachanda is the first civilian prime minister after the Jana Andolan II. In the same token, Dr Ram Baran Yadav is the first civilian president, who was elected to this coveted position by the elected representatives of the people. Thus, the question of civilian supremacy does not arise in this connection.
So far as the issue of army chief is concerned, there are loopholes on either side. In the first place, Prime Minister took the decision when the coalition partners were opposed to it. That means the decision of sacking the army chief was not the decision of the majority government. Secondly, the president did not reverse this decision but asked to defer it temporarily. Thirdly, it was the decision taken by civilian authorities not by any military dictator. The very decision in itself is a proof of civilian supremacy.
But the real question is about the political and constitutional legitimacy. In terms of popular legitimacy, Prachanda was more legitimate as a prime minister than his predecessor Girija Prasad Koirala and his successor Madhav Kumar Nepal. Prachanda was directly elected by the people from two constituencies. Girija Prasad Koirala did not contest the election but secure the seat of the Constituent Assembly through nomination by his party based on the proportional representation. The present Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal was rejected by the people from two constituencies and he was later nominated by the party in the Constituent Assembly. As the Nepali Congress under Koirala’s leadership and CPN-UML Madhav Nepal’s leadership performed poorly in the Constituent Assembly election, Koirala and Nepal are in a way losers. So far as the constitutional legitimacy is concerned, all three leaders are equally bona-fide as they are the members of the Constituent Assembly. Now, the focus should now been on the issue pertaining to who should lead the peace process—by those who have obtained better legitimacy or by those who were rejected by the people.
We can debate on the jurisdiction of the president and prime minister. Now parties can clearly include the provision regarding the authority of the president and the prime minister. But the ambiguity in language and words of the interim constitution has made this issue complicated. The Interim Constitution, on the one hand, makes it ceremonial while the same constitution has stated that the President is the Supreme commander-in-chief of the Nepal Army. When it comes to the decision on the Nepal Army, the Supreme Commander has the right to get to know it in advance.
So this present issue is not related to civilian supremacy. It is just an issue of power tussle. In the first place, the 18 political parties tried to drag the president into controversy. It is natural for the Maoists to be agitated because this is the issue that forced them to depart from the government. There are definitely mistakes on the part of the Maoists. The Maoists could have waited for another three months when the controversial army chief would have retired on normal circumstances. But they moved hastily which is the reason for this present crisis. But other parties are even more responsible for creating such controversy. Any legitimate government has the right to change the army chief at any time when the government is not satisfied with the performance. If the government’s move was unconstitutional or wrong, it could have been challenge dint he court and the court could have nullified the decision of the government. This would have been the better option. But 18 parties have compelled the president to take this move, which has been the bone of contention at present. It is now thus the responsibility of the 18 political parties to collectively defend the president.
Now precedent has been set that president can nullify the government’s decision. Such a precedent may be disastrous in future. Thus, the parties now have to settle this issue amicably and make sure that such a controversy may not arise again in future. For that they have to clearly demarcate, rights and duties of the president clearly without any ambiguity.
The Maoists are on war path now. The bone of contention is over the definition and interpretation of civilian supremacy. The Maoists have unveiled a series of protest programmes against the government to press for their demand of ‘civilian supremacy’. But it is not clear what exactly they mean by civilian supremacy.
According to the Maoists, the civilian supremacy is to respect the decision on the sacking of the then army chief Rookmangut Katwal taken by the Prachanda-led government. But the army chief issue has now been obsolete as the controversial general has already retired and another senior army officer has taken over the charge of the Nepal Army.
But the storm has not subsided as the Maoists have kept on raising this issue even more strongly these days. This is the issue that forced the Maoists to walk out of the government. Thus, it has become a matter of prestige for the Maoists and they want to make it a political issue among the people.
This issue came to the fore as the President stalled the decision of the Prachanda-led government on the sacking of the then army chief Rookmangut Katwal. Although the Prachanda-led government was technically in majority, Prachanda chose to resign preempting that the government would be in minority status because some coalition partners had already joined the bandwagon of opposition on the army chief issue. Prachanda’s resignation was a wise and politically honest decision as it was not politically appropriate and morally justifiable to try to remain in office even when the country’s executive chief’s decision was nullified by the ceremonial president.
The decision of sacking the army chief was taken when the government was well in majority. But the President had his own political compulsion and constitution obligation. The President did not act on his own volition but under compulsion as 18 political parties including the main opposition and also the allies of the coalition government, submitted a written request to intervene on the issue concerning the sacking of the army chief.
In a parliamentary system of governance, the executive chief has all authority. In Nepal’s case, the Prime Minister is the executive chief whereas the president is ceremonial. The duty and responsibility of the President are just to stamp the decision made by the government. But the unique situation arose on the issue of sacking the army chief as the 18 political parties including the coalition partners requested the President to act. The President was left with no alternative other than to defer the decision of the government. If there is any mistake on this issue, 18 political parties are responsible. If the decision of defer the government’s decision to sack the army chief was at all ‘unconstitutional’, the blame entirely goes to the 18 political parties and not to the President.
Then how the question of civilian supremacy arose? Civilian supremacy is the supremacy of the civilian government. Any government that is headed by someone other than the military administrator is civilian government. In the modern era, by civilian government everyone understands that it is a duly and democratically elected government. The government headed by non-elected executive head cannot be called a civilian government. In broad sense, Nepal has never been under military or non-civilian governments. But, as per the modern sense, the king’s rule was not a civilian government. It was a dictatorship that was given civilian face because the king always ruled with the backing and support from the military.
The real civilian government is possible only in genuine democracy in which people elect their representatives and their representatives rule the country. This only guarantees a civilian supremacy. In the case of Nepal, we had civilian government just for a brief period in 1960. The 1990 political change brought about an era of civilian government. But Nepal again fell into the trap of king’s dictatorship until the Jana Andolan II restored democracy and ultimately abolished monarchy.
If the adult-franchise based on multi-party system is the yardstick to form the civilian government, Prachanda is the first civilian prime minister after the Jana Andolan II. In the same token, Dr Ram Baran Yadav is the first civilian president, who was elected to this coveted position by the elected representatives of the people. Thus, the question of civilian supremacy does not arise in this connection.
So far as the issue of army chief is concerned, there are loopholes on either side. In the first place, Prime Minister took the decision when the coalition partners were opposed to it. That means the decision of sacking the army chief was not the decision of the majority government. Secondly, the president did not reverse this decision but asked to defer it temporarily. Thirdly, it was the decision taken by civilian authorities not by any military dictator. The very decision in itself is a proof of civilian supremacy.
But the real question is about the political and constitutional legitimacy. In terms of popular legitimacy, Prachanda was more legitimate as a prime minister than his predecessor Girija Prasad Koirala and his successor Madhav Kumar Nepal. Prachanda was directly elected by the people from two constituencies. Girija Prasad Koirala did not contest the election but secure the seat of the Constituent Assembly through nomination by his party based on the proportional representation. The present Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal was rejected by the people from two constituencies and he was later nominated by the party in the Constituent Assembly. As the Nepali Congress under Koirala’s leadership and CPN-UML Madhav Nepal’s leadership performed poorly in the Constituent Assembly election, Koirala and Nepal are in a way losers. So far as the constitutional legitimacy is concerned, all three leaders are equally bona-fide as they are the members of the Constituent Assembly. Now, the focus should now been on the issue pertaining to who should lead the peace process—by those who have obtained better legitimacy or by those who were rejected by the people.
We can debate on the jurisdiction of the president and prime minister. Now parties can clearly include the provision regarding the authority of the president and the prime minister. But the ambiguity in language and words of the interim constitution has made this issue complicated. The Interim Constitution, on the one hand, makes it ceremonial while the same constitution has stated that the President is the Supreme commander-in-chief of the Nepal Army. When it comes to the decision on the Nepal Army, the Supreme Commander has the right to get to know it in advance.
So this present issue is not related to civilian supremacy. It is just an issue of power tussle. In the first place, the 18 political parties tried to drag the president into controversy. It is natural for the Maoists to be agitated because this is the issue that forced them to depart from the government. There are definitely mistakes on the part of the Maoists. The Maoists could have waited for another three months when the controversial army chief would have retired on normal circumstances. But they moved hastily which is the reason for this present crisis. But other parties are even more responsible for creating such controversy. Any legitimate government has the right to change the army chief at any time when the government is not satisfied with the performance. If the government’s move was unconstitutional or wrong, it could have been challenge dint he court and the court could have nullified the decision of the government. This would have been the better option. But 18 parties have compelled the president to take this move, which has been the bone of contention at present. It is now thus the responsibility of the 18 political parties to collectively defend the president.
Now precedent has been set that president can nullify the government’s decision. Such a precedent may be disastrous in future. Thus, the parties now have to settle this issue amicably and make sure that such a controversy may not arise again in future. For that they have to clearly demarcate, rights and duties of the president clearly without any ambiguity.
Comments
Post a Comment