Unparliamentary exercises in parliamentary system
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Debates and discourses on the possible course of Nepal’s politics are being held more outside Parliament than inside. This is why Nepal is faced with its worst political deadlock in modern history. The parliament is the supreme body of people’s elected representatives, and they should be the ultimate arbitrator of the country’s problems and politics. But the reality is something else as the parties and leaders take decisions on national issues inside some dark room outside Parliament and get their decisions endorsed by the House as a formality and for legitimacy.
Rubber stamp
In a way, the parliament has become a rubber stamp of the leaders - most of whom were either rejected by the people during the election or did not contest the polls for fear of being defeated.
Nothing can be a bigger irony than this. The elected representatives of the people sit idle for not having anything to do in the House whereas a handful of leaders decide on issues outside Parliament. This is a big insult to the people and their representatives. Those who were rejected by the people rule the political roost in contemporary Nepal.
Also look at the composition of the cabinet. Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, who was rejected by the people from two constituencies - Kathmandu and Rautahat - in the Constituent Assembly election held two-and-a-half years ago, leads the government. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Sujata Koirala and Minister for Defence Vidya Bhandari were also defeated in the election. But they are the ones who talk the loudest about democratic norms and values.
There are 600 members in the parliament who are qualified and have won the trust of the people. In the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML also, there are qualified, elected lawmakers who would make better candidates in the cabinet. Instead of handpicking someone who has been rejected by the people, it would have been better if elected representatives had been chosen for the cabinet posts. This would have won better confidence of the people while doing justice to the people’s verdict and democratic values.
The practice of handpicking someone outside the parliament as ministers is not a healthy practice and will only erode the trust of the people in the political system and in the leaders, and will ultimately weaken the parliamentary system.
More ironical is the mismatch between the rhetoric and practice of the leaders and the parties. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are the ones that champion parliamentary system of democracy. Even when the UCPN-Maoist pushed for a presidential system, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML pressed hard for the parliamentary system. But their action has weakened the value of the parliamentary system as choosing someone from outside the parliament for a cabinet post is not in accordance with the parliamentary system.
The parliament is seen as an obstacle by the political parties in taking arbitrary decisions. When the parties and government find it difficult to get something endorsed by the parliament, the government immediately prorogues the House session and announces ordinances. There have been several instances in the past where the government either prorogued the session of Parliament or dissolved the House when the government failed to get something endorsed by the House. This incident was repeated in the present parliament when the process of presenting the budget was disrupted by the Maoist lawmakers. The government rushed to end the House session and brought the budget through an ordinance.
Vandalism in the House is also not appropriate parliamentary behaviour, which must be condemned. But more objectionable is the decision to end the House session as a retaliatory measure, which the present government did.
Since the parliament is the supreme body of the people’s representatives, all issues must be debated and solutions sought in Parliament. Any attempt to avoid the parliament is not parliamentary behaviour. There are several issues pending in the House which must be sorted out through debate and discussion among the people’s representatives in Parliament, for which a parliamentary session should have been summoned earlier. But there have been attempts by the government and some parties to skip Parliament and run the country through ordinances, which is a conspiracy against democracy and the parliamentary system.
Now the session of Parliament has been summoned. The House has been summoned upon the written request by lawmakers belonging to the UCPN-Maoist and some fringe parties. This exercise is being played for the first time after Nepal entered the peace process and the interim constitution was promulgated. The summoning of the special session has irked some parties, including the ruling CPN-UML. The prime minister has expressed his displeasure in public over the summoning of the special session by the president without prior consultation with the head of the government.
Under normal circumstances, the president summons the House session upon request by the prime minister. But this is not a normal situation, and the president did not feel it necessary to consult the government to summon the special session. Since a fourth of the lawmakers made a written request, the president is constitutionally obliged to summon the session. This is a constitutional obligation which the president must respect.
Consultation with the government is necessary while summoning the regular session of the House. While making submission for summoning the special session, the objectives and agenda of such a session need to be clearly specified in advance. In the request, the lawmakers have specifically stated that it is to facilitate the procedure for the formation of a new government.
Although the objective of the special session is to facilitate the formation of a new government, it is not yet certain whether the session will achieve its objective. It gives one the impression that the parties are now eager to form a government, for which they may change their previous stances. But their agenda and views are different, which are guided more by partisan interests.
The Nepali Congress has objected to the summoning of the special session and demanded a regular session instead to decide the issue of electing the next prime minister as the candidacy of its leader Ram Chandra Poudel is still pending. The Congress wants to revive this process and get its candidate declared elected as prime minister since Poudel is the sole candidate. However, the other parties are of the view that since the earlier session was prorogued, the whole process of the prime ministerial election has also been cancelled automatically. According to them, a new process has to be started to elect the prime minister.
The objection of the Nepali Congress can be understood as the special session cannot take up issue discussed in the regular session. The legality of Poudel’s candidacy would, therefore, be in question. The CPN-UML is divided over this issue as a section is against the special session. This faction in the CPN-UML is in the mood of supporting the Nepali Congress candidate. However, the other faction is against Poudel’s candidacy and wants to begin anew the election of the prime minister.
Yet another faction in the CPN-UML, which is very small, wants to prolong the present crisis and lengthen the life of the caretaker government. Prime Minister Madhav Nepal is also not comfortable with the special session as it may break the present deadlock, which would mark the end of the days of the caretaker cabinet headed by him.
Change stance
Whatever the logic and positions of the parties, the session has been summoned. The special session should not be wasting time in electing the next prime minister. The parties should seek a solution in the House through open debate and discussion on the basis of parliamentary and democratic procedures. The House should by no means be made hostage to the indecision and petty interests of the parties and a few leaders. If need be, the parties must change their earlier policies to end the protracted political deadlock. This is what is expected from the special session by all.
Debates and discourses on the possible course of Nepal’s politics are being held more outside Parliament than inside. This is why Nepal is faced with its worst political deadlock in modern history. The parliament is the supreme body of people’s elected representatives, and they should be the ultimate arbitrator of the country’s problems and politics. But the reality is something else as the parties and leaders take decisions on national issues inside some dark room outside Parliament and get their decisions endorsed by the House as a formality and for legitimacy.
Rubber stamp
In a way, the parliament has become a rubber stamp of the leaders - most of whom were either rejected by the people during the election or did not contest the polls for fear of being defeated.
Nothing can be a bigger irony than this. The elected representatives of the people sit idle for not having anything to do in the House whereas a handful of leaders decide on issues outside Parliament. This is a big insult to the people and their representatives. Those who were rejected by the people rule the political roost in contemporary Nepal.
Also look at the composition of the cabinet. Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal, who was rejected by the people from two constituencies - Kathmandu and Rautahat - in the Constituent Assembly election held two-and-a-half years ago, leads the government. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Sujata Koirala and Minister for Defence Vidya Bhandari were also defeated in the election. But they are the ones who talk the loudest about democratic norms and values.
There are 600 members in the parliament who are qualified and have won the trust of the people. In the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML also, there are qualified, elected lawmakers who would make better candidates in the cabinet. Instead of handpicking someone who has been rejected by the people, it would have been better if elected representatives had been chosen for the cabinet posts. This would have won better confidence of the people while doing justice to the people’s verdict and democratic values.
The practice of handpicking someone outside the parliament as ministers is not a healthy practice and will only erode the trust of the people in the political system and in the leaders, and will ultimately weaken the parliamentary system.
More ironical is the mismatch between the rhetoric and practice of the leaders and the parties. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are the ones that champion parliamentary system of democracy. Even when the UCPN-Maoist pushed for a presidential system, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML pressed hard for the parliamentary system. But their action has weakened the value of the parliamentary system as choosing someone from outside the parliament for a cabinet post is not in accordance with the parliamentary system.
The parliament is seen as an obstacle by the political parties in taking arbitrary decisions. When the parties and government find it difficult to get something endorsed by the parliament, the government immediately prorogues the House session and announces ordinances. There have been several instances in the past where the government either prorogued the session of Parliament or dissolved the House when the government failed to get something endorsed by the House. This incident was repeated in the present parliament when the process of presenting the budget was disrupted by the Maoist lawmakers. The government rushed to end the House session and brought the budget through an ordinance.
Vandalism in the House is also not appropriate parliamentary behaviour, which must be condemned. But more objectionable is the decision to end the House session as a retaliatory measure, which the present government did.
Since the parliament is the supreme body of the people’s representatives, all issues must be debated and solutions sought in Parliament. Any attempt to avoid the parliament is not parliamentary behaviour. There are several issues pending in the House which must be sorted out through debate and discussion among the people’s representatives in Parliament, for which a parliamentary session should have been summoned earlier. But there have been attempts by the government and some parties to skip Parliament and run the country through ordinances, which is a conspiracy against democracy and the parliamentary system.
Now the session of Parliament has been summoned. The House has been summoned upon the written request by lawmakers belonging to the UCPN-Maoist and some fringe parties. This exercise is being played for the first time after Nepal entered the peace process and the interim constitution was promulgated. The summoning of the special session has irked some parties, including the ruling CPN-UML. The prime minister has expressed his displeasure in public over the summoning of the special session by the president without prior consultation with the head of the government.
Under normal circumstances, the president summons the House session upon request by the prime minister. But this is not a normal situation, and the president did not feel it necessary to consult the government to summon the special session. Since a fourth of the lawmakers made a written request, the president is constitutionally obliged to summon the session. This is a constitutional obligation which the president must respect.
Consultation with the government is necessary while summoning the regular session of the House. While making submission for summoning the special session, the objectives and agenda of such a session need to be clearly specified in advance. In the request, the lawmakers have specifically stated that it is to facilitate the procedure for the formation of a new government.
Although the objective of the special session is to facilitate the formation of a new government, it is not yet certain whether the session will achieve its objective. It gives one the impression that the parties are now eager to form a government, for which they may change their previous stances. But their agenda and views are different, which are guided more by partisan interests.
The Nepali Congress has objected to the summoning of the special session and demanded a regular session instead to decide the issue of electing the next prime minister as the candidacy of its leader Ram Chandra Poudel is still pending. The Congress wants to revive this process and get its candidate declared elected as prime minister since Poudel is the sole candidate. However, the other parties are of the view that since the earlier session was prorogued, the whole process of the prime ministerial election has also been cancelled automatically. According to them, a new process has to be started to elect the prime minister.
The objection of the Nepali Congress can be understood as the special session cannot take up issue discussed in the regular session. The legality of Poudel’s candidacy would, therefore, be in question. The CPN-UML is divided over this issue as a section is against the special session. This faction in the CPN-UML is in the mood of supporting the Nepali Congress candidate. However, the other faction is against Poudel’s candidacy and wants to begin anew the election of the prime minister.
Yet another faction in the CPN-UML, which is very small, wants to prolong the present crisis and lengthen the life of the caretaker government. Prime Minister Madhav Nepal is also not comfortable with the special session as it may break the present deadlock, which would mark the end of the days of the caretaker cabinet headed by him.
Change stance
Whatever the logic and positions of the parties, the session has been summoned. The special session should not be wasting time in electing the next prime minister. The parties should seek a solution in the House through open debate and discussion on the basis of parliamentary and democratic procedures. The House should by no means be made hostage to the indecision and petty interests of the parties and a few leaders. If need be, the parties must change their earlier policies to end the protracted political deadlock. This is what is expected from the special session by all.
Comments
Post a Comment