Parties, Power And Political Culture

Yuba Nath Lamsal
Nepal has seen many political experiments since the 1990 political change when the country saw the restoration of multi-party democracy. Especially in the last five years since the peace process began, we’ve seen different types of coalitions and equations being tested. They have included a Congress-led all-party government, Maoist-led majority government and the UML-led majority government.
Of all the governments, the one that was headed by Girija Prasad Koirala was the strongest and most broad-based. The parties in Parliament had either joined this government or extended their cooperation from outside. It is for this reason that this proved to be the longest serving coalition government after the peace process began. It also successfully completed the jobs it was entrusted with - promulgation of the interim constitution and holding the election to the Constituent Assembly.
Short-lived governments
However, all the governments that were formed after the Constituent Assembly election have been short-lived. The first government after the Constituent Assembly election was headed by Maoist Chairman Prachanda, which barely survived nine months. This coalition government comprising the Maoists, CPN-UML, Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and some fringe parties collapsed in the wake of the Maoist government’s decision to sack the then army chief and appoint the second-in-command as the new army head. However, the president blocked the decision. Prachanda, thus, resigned on moral ground, opposing the activism of the ceremonial president and demanding civilian supremacy.
The issue of civilian supremacy was raised more loudly by the Maoists after Prachanda stepped down. The Maoists claimed that the president’s move was not in line with the spirit of parliamentary democracy. In countries where parliamentary democracy is being practised as in the United Kingdom and India, the head of state approves whatever the executive chief recommends and decides.
Currently the parliamentary system is at work in Nepal, too. The parliament elects the prime minister who is the executive chief of the country and is responsible and accountable to Parliament. The president is the head of state - constitutionally a ceremonial head - and the interim constitution has not provided any active political and decision-making role to the president. The prime minister is the executive head and his decision must prevail.
Prachanda could have survived as prime minister as he still commanded a majority in Parliament. The CPN-UML and the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum had not withdrawn support to the Prachanda-led government. But he chose to resign on moral ground as his decision did not prevail.
After the fall of the Prachanda-led government, a new coalition was created. The Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and Madhesi parties joined hands in forming a non-Maoist government headed by UML senior leader Madhav Kumar Nepal. However, the Maoists refused to recognise this government and continued with their protests both in Parliament and in the streets to fail the government. Despite the vehement protests of the Maoists, the Madhav Nepal-led coalition government survived more than 14 months. Ultimately, Prime Minister Madhav Nepal resigned under pressure not only from the Maoists but also from members of his own party - the CPN-UML.
Factional fighting in the CPN-UML played a crucial role in forcing Madhav Nepal to step down from the chair even though he enjoyed a comfortable majority in Parliament with the backing from the Nepali Congress and Madhesi parties. During the time of the formation of the government headed by Madhav Nepal, UML Chairman Jhala Nath Khanal had shown his utter displeasure. His discontentment was valid as it was morally not appropriate to form a government headed by someone who had lost the election from two constituencies. Khanal was directly elected by the people, and he was a strong aspirant and also legitimate candidate for the prime minister’s post. However, Madhav Nepal managed to become prime minister by manipulating the factional politics in the CPN-UML and the international situation to his advantage
There are three distinct groups in the CPN-UML - one led by Khanal and the other two by KP Oli and Madhav Nepal. The Oli and Nepal groups joined hands to form the non-Maoist government with support from the other parties, mainly the Nepali Congress and Madhesi parties. It was for this reason that Khanal was critical of the Congress-UML coalition, and he played a key role in pulling down the Nepal-led coalition government, which ultimately paved the way for the formation of the present UML-Maoist coalition government headed by Khanal.
Oli and Nepal are now firing salvos at Khanal and his government and have demanded his resignation openly, especially in the wake of the latest expansion of the cabinet in which the UCPN-Maoist was given the portfolio of the Home Ministry. Worse still, the Home Ministry portfolio has not only created controversy and conflict within the CPN-UML but has also stirred a hornet’s nest in the Maoist party.
The prime minister faces two challenges at present. One is to maintain a delicate balance within his own party and the other is related to taking the coalition partners along. As there are reports that efforts are already afoot from various quarters to topple this government and form a new one, the prime minister’s ability to handle these matters faces a crucial test.
Moreover, the deadline for promulgating the new constitution is drawing closer. If the constitution is not promulgated by May 28, which is just two weeks away, the Khanal government will face stiff opposition, and detractors from within his own party and other opposition parties may intensify their tirade against the coalition government.
The fundamental responsibility of writing the constitution, however, lies with the Constituent Assembly, and the role of the government is simply to facilitate the process. In the Constituent Assembly there are more than 25 parties, and all the parties must share the responsibility on the basis of their strength. However, the parties do not seem to be prepared to accept this reality.
The country, people and democracy have been the casualty of the parties’ inaction, inability, partisan agenda and power struggle. Even after so many years of democratic exercise, democracy and a democratic culture have not taken root in the country. Institutions have not been created and strengthened. Instead, the high handedness of the politicians in every sector and direct political interference have weakened the system and institution.
Show democratic culture
Ironically, the parties still do not seem to have realised their weaknesses, mistakes and failures. They are engaged more in the blame game than doing some soul searching to see where they have failed. Our parties seem to be more bureaucratic than democratic. It is high time the parties demonstrated a democratic culture and liberal attitude to accommodate the concerns and voices of all the people in the larger interest of the country and the people.

Comments