Politics At The Crossroads Of History
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Nepal is currently at the crossroad of history, from which it has not been able to move. We are where we were four years ago when the Constituent Assembly election was held. Our forward journey has been suddenly stalled and suspended, creating a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the people.
The direction and destination of our political journey are unclear. The political parties and their leaders are supposed to clear the mist of uncertainty and assure the people of the country’s future political course. But the parties themselves are lost in the cloud of uncertainty and confusion and have no clear-cut agenda and direction.
Inherent fears
Why has the political process not moved ahead from the point it reached four years ago? This is because of the parties’ lethargy in accomplishing the jobs they were entrusted with. There are inherent fears in the parties that they would be obliterated once the peace and political process comes to an end and the next round of political course begins. They are, thus, buying time and waiting for an opportune time to manipulate.
The parties are trying to extract maximum benefit from the hung Constituent Assembly. The constitutional provision that requires a two-third majority of the total members of the Constituent Assembly to pass any provision of the constitution has been a boon for the parties. At the moment, no single party holds even a simple majority let alone the two-third required. At least the three largest parties must work together to take a decision on constitutional matters.
There are now mainly four major forces that have a decisive role in national politics. The UCPN-Maoist is the largest party in the Constituent Assembly whereas the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are second and third in terms of their strength in the House. The individual Madhesi parties cannot play a decisive role in national politics, but recently, they have formed a united front to pursue their cause. The combined Madhesi front is the fourth largest political force in Nepal.
Even if all the other parties come together, they would not have the magical two-thirds majority. Thus, the other parties have a compulsion to cooperate and collaborate with the Maoists in order to write the new constitution. Similarly, the Maoists, who make up the largest force in the Constituent Assembly, must work with the other parties at least with the two major forces out of the three - the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and Madhesi front.
Despite this constitutional compulsion, the parties do not seem to be prepared to accept the existence of the other parties. The Nepali Congress and CPN-UML feel comfortable working with one another but not with the Maoists. The Maoists, too, are not enthusiastic to cooperate with the Nepali Congress. Despite their rhetoric of consensus, they, in reality, do not believe in it.
The Nepali Congress is unwilling to accept the leadership of the Maoists in the government because this would mean granting democratic legitimacy. The Nepali Congress still does not recognise the Maoists as a democratic force but a radical and revolutionary communist party.
Moreover, the Constituent Assembly, republican set up, federalism, secularism and inclusive democracy are the agenda of the Maoists. If the constitution is promulgated under the leadership of the Maoists, it would help the Maoists entrench themselves further in Nepal’s national politics and in the international arena. The Congress, thus, wants to complete the peace process and constitution writing under its leadership.
The Maoists, too, want to complete the ongoing political process under its leadership. But it alone cannot lead and complete the process and needs the support of others. However, the other parties are not willing to cooperate in writing the constitution on Maoist terms. Here lies the crux of the problem, which has created a hitch in the constitution-making process.
Different parties have different positions and stances on certain key issues that include the federal and governance model. The Maoists want a presidential system with a powerful president to be directly elected by the people and the prime minister to be elected by Parliament with only a daily administrative role. But the Nepali Congress wants a parliamentary system in which the prime minister with full executive powers is elected by the parliament.
In the model suggested by the Nepali Congress, the president will be ceremonial with no executive powers. But this is not the real issue. Both the parliamentary systems and presidential systems have worked well in many countries. It would make no difference whether we adopt the presidential or parliamentary system. The parties also know this, but they are just trying to have things their way in the constitution.
The real issue that will have serious impact on the country and its political and economic life is the model of federalism. The course of our political journey and action would be determined by the type of federal model and the number of federal states we agree on. The entire process is likely to be stalled when the issue of state restructuring is put on the table.
Federalism is, without doubt, the agenda of the Maoists which has already been institutionalised albeit verbally. The Madhesi parties, which emerged in the country’s political scene only after Jana Andolan II, have accepted federalism with the hope that the entire southern plain bordering India would be a single federal and autonomous Madhes state with the right to self-determination. If this cannot be done, they would lose interest in federalism.
The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, right from the beginning, have not shown much interest in federalism. They accepted the federal agenda as a compromise with the Maoists only to keep the peace process rolling. Other fringe parties have either expressed reservation or opposed it openly.
Right to self-determination
The Maoists have pushed for federalism with the guarantee of right to self-determination to the federated states. Political analysts and experts have pointed out the risk in granting the federated states the right to self-determination as this grants them the right to secede. This kind of right is given to states which were earlier independent and were recently brought into a federal structure of a particular country.
The right to self-determination was granted to the republics of the erstwhile Soviet Union because the union had been created by annexing several independent states after the success of the October Revolution. The issue concerning the right to self-determination had also created fierce debate between V.I. Lenin and other leaders.
The debate and exchange of letters between Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg on the issue concerning the right to self-determination to the federated republics of the Soviet Union are indeed interesting. Rosa had said that the right to self-determination would ultimately pave the way for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In reply, Lenin had agreed to Rosa’s views but said that it would be possible only when there was no socialist or communist regime in the Soviet Union.
According to Lenin, as long as the socialist/communist system remained in place, the central government and its military would be strong, and the federated states would not dare raise the issue of independence. This debate continued to rage for years even until Joseph Stalin’s rule. As said by Lenin, once the communist regime fell, the Soviet Union, too, collapsed like a house cards, and all the federal republics declared independence from Moscow.
Nepal’s case is different from that of Russia. We are going for a federal structure under a unified country. All of us including our parties must learn a lesson from this experience while determining federalism and the rights and jurisdiction of the federated states and central authority. If we make the slightest mistake, we might have to regret forever.
Nepal is currently at the crossroad of history, from which it has not been able to move. We are where we were four years ago when the Constituent Assembly election was held. Our forward journey has been suddenly stalled and suspended, creating a sense of uncertainty and confusion in the people.
The direction and destination of our political journey are unclear. The political parties and their leaders are supposed to clear the mist of uncertainty and assure the people of the country’s future political course. But the parties themselves are lost in the cloud of uncertainty and confusion and have no clear-cut agenda and direction.
Inherent fears
Why has the political process not moved ahead from the point it reached four years ago? This is because of the parties’ lethargy in accomplishing the jobs they were entrusted with. There are inherent fears in the parties that they would be obliterated once the peace and political process comes to an end and the next round of political course begins. They are, thus, buying time and waiting for an opportune time to manipulate.
The parties are trying to extract maximum benefit from the hung Constituent Assembly. The constitutional provision that requires a two-third majority of the total members of the Constituent Assembly to pass any provision of the constitution has been a boon for the parties. At the moment, no single party holds even a simple majority let alone the two-third required. At least the three largest parties must work together to take a decision on constitutional matters.
There are now mainly four major forces that have a decisive role in national politics. The UCPN-Maoist is the largest party in the Constituent Assembly whereas the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are second and third in terms of their strength in the House. The individual Madhesi parties cannot play a decisive role in national politics, but recently, they have formed a united front to pursue their cause. The combined Madhesi front is the fourth largest political force in Nepal.
Even if all the other parties come together, they would not have the magical two-thirds majority. Thus, the other parties have a compulsion to cooperate and collaborate with the Maoists in order to write the new constitution. Similarly, the Maoists, who make up the largest force in the Constituent Assembly, must work with the other parties at least with the two major forces out of the three - the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and Madhesi front.
Despite this constitutional compulsion, the parties do not seem to be prepared to accept the existence of the other parties. The Nepali Congress and CPN-UML feel comfortable working with one another but not with the Maoists. The Maoists, too, are not enthusiastic to cooperate with the Nepali Congress. Despite their rhetoric of consensus, they, in reality, do not believe in it.
The Nepali Congress is unwilling to accept the leadership of the Maoists in the government because this would mean granting democratic legitimacy. The Nepali Congress still does not recognise the Maoists as a democratic force but a radical and revolutionary communist party.
Moreover, the Constituent Assembly, republican set up, federalism, secularism and inclusive democracy are the agenda of the Maoists. If the constitution is promulgated under the leadership of the Maoists, it would help the Maoists entrench themselves further in Nepal’s national politics and in the international arena. The Congress, thus, wants to complete the peace process and constitution writing under its leadership.
The Maoists, too, want to complete the ongoing political process under its leadership. But it alone cannot lead and complete the process and needs the support of others. However, the other parties are not willing to cooperate in writing the constitution on Maoist terms. Here lies the crux of the problem, which has created a hitch in the constitution-making process.
Different parties have different positions and stances on certain key issues that include the federal and governance model. The Maoists want a presidential system with a powerful president to be directly elected by the people and the prime minister to be elected by Parliament with only a daily administrative role. But the Nepali Congress wants a parliamentary system in which the prime minister with full executive powers is elected by the parliament.
In the model suggested by the Nepali Congress, the president will be ceremonial with no executive powers. But this is not the real issue. Both the parliamentary systems and presidential systems have worked well in many countries. It would make no difference whether we adopt the presidential or parliamentary system. The parties also know this, but they are just trying to have things their way in the constitution.
The real issue that will have serious impact on the country and its political and economic life is the model of federalism. The course of our political journey and action would be determined by the type of federal model and the number of federal states we agree on. The entire process is likely to be stalled when the issue of state restructuring is put on the table.
Federalism is, without doubt, the agenda of the Maoists which has already been institutionalised albeit verbally. The Madhesi parties, which emerged in the country’s political scene only after Jana Andolan II, have accepted federalism with the hope that the entire southern plain bordering India would be a single federal and autonomous Madhes state with the right to self-determination. If this cannot be done, they would lose interest in federalism.
The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML, right from the beginning, have not shown much interest in federalism. They accepted the federal agenda as a compromise with the Maoists only to keep the peace process rolling. Other fringe parties have either expressed reservation or opposed it openly.
Right to self-determination
The Maoists have pushed for federalism with the guarantee of right to self-determination to the federated states. Political analysts and experts have pointed out the risk in granting the federated states the right to self-determination as this grants them the right to secede. This kind of right is given to states which were earlier independent and were recently brought into a federal structure of a particular country.
The right to self-determination was granted to the republics of the erstwhile Soviet Union because the union had been created by annexing several independent states after the success of the October Revolution. The issue concerning the right to self-determination had also created fierce debate between V.I. Lenin and other leaders.
The debate and exchange of letters between Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg on the issue concerning the right to self-determination to the federated republics of the Soviet Union are indeed interesting. Rosa had said that the right to self-determination would ultimately pave the way for the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In reply, Lenin had agreed to Rosa’s views but said that it would be possible only when there was no socialist or communist regime in the Soviet Union.
According to Lenin, as long as the socialist/communist system remained in place, the central government and its military would be strong, and the federated states would not dare raise the issue of independence. This debate continued to rage for years even until Joseph Stalin’s rule. As said by Lenin, once the communist regime fell, the Soviet Union, too, collapsed like a house cards, and all the federal republics declared independence from Moscow.
Nepal’s case is different from that of Russia. We are going for a federal structure under a unified country. All of us including our parties must learn a lesson from this experience while determining federalism and the rights and jurisdiction of the federated states and central authority. If we make the slightest mistake, we might have to regret forever.
Comments
Post a Comment