Row In Governance Model: A Non-Issue

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Political parties have currently locked horns on governance model. The parties have made the governance model as their prestige issue, which is, in fact, no issue at all. The row is whether Nepal is to adopt presidential system, parliamentary type or a mixed model. The political parties know well that there is no fundamental difference in these models because all the three models are the sub-system within the multi-party capitalist political system. The parties are just using this issue as a tool to weaken the position of the rival party and have their strong say in the constitution making process.

There are a clearly three types of views on the issue concerning the governance model. One is the parliamentary model which is being pursued vigorously by the Nepali Congress. The Maoists have proposed and pushed for a presidential system whereas the CPN-UML has come up with a compromising middle way approach of mixed model.

There are various models of political systems in the world. On ideological basis, there are mainly three categories of governance models. One is the feudal and dictatorial model which is being practiced in several African and Middle East countries. In this model, power is centralized into the hand of few elites and feudal landlords and their patron monarchy. The military dictatorship may also fall under this category. Nepal, too, used to have the feudal monarchical model until a few years ago.

The second type of model is the communist or socialist model that is in practice in China and a few other countries. The third model is the multi-party capitalist model which is popular in the Western industrialized countries and also in many developing countries. The multi-party capitalist system has different models. But the fundamental essence of all types of Western capitalist model is same—the multi-party political system and capitalist economy.

The United States of America has the presidential model in which president is directly elected by the people. In the United States, president is the executive chief whereas there is no provision of prime minister. The other model is British parliamentary system which is also called Westminster model. In this system, monarchy is the head of the state whereas the prime minister is the executive chief. The Prime Minister is elected by parliament and is also accountable to the House.

Several British colonies after attaining independence adopted the British type of system or Westminster model. Most of the newly independent countries entered into the Commonwealth Union, a group of former British colonies, and regarded British Queen as their head of the state. Canada, Australia and several other countries adopted this system. A few countries like India did not accept the British monarch as their head of the State but joined the Commonwealth and adopted the British type of parliamentary political model. Some other countries that were not part of the British Empire also adopted British parliamentary system because other conditions in those countries were similar to that of the United Kingdom. Japan has Westminster model because it has to adjust multi-party democracy under monarchy. In the countries which have monarchy, Westminster model is best suited. In republican democracy, other system either presidential or mixed system would be better.

The third model is the mixed one which is also called French model. In France, President is directly elected by the people and enjoys all executive power. Prime Minister is elected by parliament and is responsible only for daily administration. In several Francophone (French speaking) countries or the former French colonies, the mixed model or French system is more popular.

The Nepalese parties are currently not debating on types of political systems or political model but on governance model within the western type of multi-party capitalist democracy. As the country is in the process of political transformation and constitution writing, there should have been fierce debate on which type of political system would be best suited to the country like Nepal. But all parties have agreed on western capitalist model but are debating on the model within the multi-party capitalist democracy.

The UCPN-Maoist had pushed for the presidential system akin to what the United States has been practicing. But it made a compromise to go for the French model because of other parties’ insistence. Maoists are against parliamentary model because agreement on this model would mean the continuity of the older system that Nepal had briefly experimented during the period between 1951 and 1960 and also after 1991 political change. The Maoists have their own logics and reasons against parliamentary system. According to the Maoists, the parliamentary model is suited only in monarchical system and this model has failed in republican democracies. They even do not take Indian democracy as a successful model. They attribute to problems that India is fraught with to parliamentary model. Parliamentary model, according to the Maoists, is the root of political instability in the developing countries and Nepal also cannot afford more political instability. This is the public position of the Maoists but their inner desire for the presidential system is to show the people that they want a break from the parliamentary system. If they go for presidential system, it would give a message to the people that they have adopted different type of political system. Ever since the Maoists entered into the peace process, the hardliner factions in the party have accused the principal leadership of being deviated from revolutionary political line. The Maoists leadership wants the presidential system not only to placate the hardliners in the party but also to show the people that they are different from other parliamentary parties.

The Nepali Congress does not subscribe to this view and demands that parliamentary system is the best answer to Nepal’s problem. The Nepali Congress has its own logic against the presidential system and says that directly elected president would give rise to authoritarian tendency in the leadership. According to the Nepali Congress, parliamentary system ensures perfect checks and balances in politics, which is necessary for functioning democracy. This view of the Nepali Congress is just for public consumption. But main reasons for the Nepali Congress to stick to parliamentary model are something else. Firstly, Congress considers parliamentary system its own agenda whereas the presidential system is the Maoist scheme. The Congress does not want the Maoist agenda to be established. Secondly, accepting presidential or mixed model and sacrificing parliamentary model may send message to the people that Congress surrendered to the Maoists. Nepali Congress led a movement in 1951 for parliamentary system. In 1990, too, the Congress was the principal constituent of the united front that spearheaded the political movement and reestablished parliamentary system. Nepali Congress, thus, considers parliamentary system its political property right which it does not want to lose.

So far as the CPN-UML is concerned, it has no firm position and any of the two systems is acceptable to it, although it has come up with an alternative model to bring the Maoists and Congress to a common point. The CPN-UML has proposed directly elected prime minister and a president to be elected by parliament. The UML is not adamant but wants a compromise to resolve this issue so that the constitution writing process would move ahead.

Viewed from the past experience, parliamentary system has failed in Nepal. But the failure was not due to system itself but because of the incompetence and bad intention of the parties and the leaders. In a country like Nepal, there is always likelihood of hung parliament. In such a case, parliamentary system may give rise to instability. Our own past experiences have also shown that parliamentary system may not be best suited for Nepal.

So far as presidential system is concerned, it is relatively more stable because directly elected president cannot be removed from office easily until his or her term expires. But there are two dangers in this system, too. One is the likelihood of giving rise to authoritarian tendency and the other is possible confrontation between the president and parliament. The mixed system is a hybrid model which may not be suitable for Nepal. It would, thus, be better if Nepal adopts either the presidential system akin to the model the United States has practiced or the Westminster model that the being practiced in the United Kingdom.

Given the merits and demerits of both the presidential or parliamentary models, the former would be better for Nepal. We have already experimented parliamentary system twice but the experiences are not very encouraging. Although system itself does not have to do with the success and failure, parliament system has practically proved to be a failure in Nepal. As we are always in the process of experimentation, there would be no wrong in once again experimenting presidential system. If we adopt presidential system, it would give different meaning and message to the people. But its success or failure would depend on the behavior of the people and leaders who handle it.

Comments