Parties Fail To Learn From History
Yuba
Nath Lamsal
A
popular maxim goes: Those who forget history are condemned to repeat.
Spain-born American philosopher George Santayana coined this phrase in mid 19th
century which has become so popular that this is, perhaps, the most quoted and
repeated maxim in the modern day political lexicon. This saying is so popular
in politics because politicians often tend to forget the history. As a result,
the same mistakes keep on repeating over and over again.
The
repetition of mistakes is a common phenomenon in politics. This tendency reigns
in politics everywhere in the world but more is in the developing countries,
where the level of political consciousness is relatively low. Nepal is a showcase of this trend as the same
old mistakes keep on repeating every time and politicians never learn from
history and from their past mistakes. This is not the case of any particular
party, leader or ruler but a general tendency that happens in all systems and
regimes that Nepal saw since it emerged as a nation state. Our leaders are so
short sighted and are with such a bad memory that they forget the event soon
after the crisis is over. This has become a chronic problem in our political
realms and no political party is free from this syndrome.
Now is the time for all the political parties to develop a common understanding and work in a collective and cooperative way so that the political mission with which the country is moving ahead can be achieved and accomplished. The interim constitution, too, has clearly stated that there must be collective decision, compromise and consensus among the major political parties to govern and take any decision that has far-reaching impact on the country and the people. But that is hardly seen in practice when it comes to Nepal’s applied politics of today. The constitution is being regarded as mere piece of paper never to be followed and respected when it is not in consistent with personal and partisan interest. The parties and leaders often tried to violate the constitution and misinterpret its provisions in the past which ultimately led to not only failure of the constitution but also collapse of the regimes. Every time the soul of the constitution was killed to implement the decisions that may be against the inherent spirit of the statute and also against the fundamental interest of the country. There are quite many stances when parties and leaders interpreted the constitution differently which invited the Supreme Court to intervene. On controversy regarding Tanakpur agreement with India, the then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, who had signed the accord with New Delhi, just interpreted the accord a mere understanding and said it did not require ratification of parliament. Koirala’s interpretation had come in response to opposition parties’ demand that the accord be presented in parliament and get it ratified in accordance with the constitutional provision. The case was finally moved to Supreme Court which gave its verdict in favor of opposition clearly stating that the accord required parliamentary ratification. The then government took this constitutional provision as an obstruction to his regime. This is not the only case that parties tried to violate the constitution. The case of the dissolution of parliament by minority government of CPN-UML also created controversy and parties interpreted the constitutional provision differently. In this case, too, the government’s position was proved to be wrong. The government has always been the loser in the court battle every time. The tendency of the parties to interpret the constitution differently to suit the partisan interest sows the seed of discord and dispute among the key political actors that lead to confrontation, which may ultimately lead to fall of the regime and also pave the ground for the rise of authoritarian tendency. History is witness to this fact. King Mahendra took advantage from the rift among the parties which pushed the country into the trap of king’s dictatorship in the name of Panchayat regime for three decades. Similar case was repeated in 2003 when the fragmentation in the parties and unnecessary confrontation among the parties encouraged Gyanendra to impose his absolute regime prohibiting people’s fundamental rights. There is again possibility of the rise of another kind of dictatorship out of the present crisis if the disputes among the parties persists and prolongs, for which the government and opposition parties would be equally responsible. Both the government and the opposition have now acknowledged the possibility of dictatorship if present deadlock was not resolved at the earliest through national consensus. But the prescription of the government and the prescription of the opposition for the outlet of the present crisis are different. The opposition parties are pressing for resignation of the Prime Minister to pave the way for national consensus and national unity government, which, according to opposition parties, is the only way out to find an amicable solution to the present crisis. However, the Prime Minister has refused to step down saying that his resignation at this critical period would invite dictatorship in the country. The chance of rise of dictatorship would be more if the Prime Minister sticks onto his post rather than he quits.
Now is the time for all the political parties to develop a common understanding and work in a collective and cooperative way so that the political mission with which the country is moving ahead can be achieved and accomplished. The interim constitution, too, has clearly stated that there must be collective decision, compromise and consensus among the major political parties to govern and take any decision that has far-reaching impact on the country and the people. But that is hardly seen in practice when it comes to Nepal’s applied politics of today. The constitution is being regarded as mere piece of paper never to be followed and respected when it is not in consistent with personal and partisan interest. The parties and leaders often tried to violate the constitution and misinterpret its provisions in the past which ultimately led to not only failure of the constitution but also collapse of the regimes. Every time the soul of the constitution was killed to implement the decisions that may be against the inherent spirit of the statute and also against the fundamental interest of the country. There are quite many stances when parties and leaders interpreted the constitution differently which invited the Supreme Court to intervene. On controversy regarding Tanakpur agreement with India, the then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, who had signed the accord with New Delhi, just interpreted the accord a mere understanding and said it did not require ratification of parliament. Koirala’s interpretation had come in response to opposition parties’ demand that the accord be presented in parliament and get it ratified in accordance with the constitutional provision. The case was finally moved to Supreme Court which gave its verdict in favor of opposition clearly stating that the accord required parliamentary ratification. The then government took this constitutional provision as an obstruction to his regime. This is not the only case that parties tried to violate the constitution. The case of the dissolution of parliament by minority government of CPN-UML also created controversy and parties interpreted the constitutional provision differently. In this case, too, the government’s position was proved to be wrong. The government has always been the loser in the court battle every time. The tendency of the parties to interpret the constitution differently to suit the partisan interest sows the seed of discord and dispute among the key political actors that lead to confrontation, which may ultimately lead to fall of the regime and also pave the ground for the rise of authoritarian tendency. History is witness to this fact. King Mahendra took advantage from the rift among the parties which pushed the country into the trap of king’s dictatorship in the name of Panchayat regime for three decades. Similar case was repeated in 2003 when the fragmentation in the parties and unnecessary confrontation among the parties encouraged Gyanendra to impose his absolute regime prohibiting people’s fundamental rights. There is again possibility of the rise of another kind of dictatorship out of the present crisis if the disputes among the parties persists and prolongs, for which the government and opposition parties would be equally responsible. Both the government and the opposition have now acknowledged the possibility of dictatorship if present deadlock was not resolved at the earliest through national consensus. But the prescription of the government and the prescription of the opposition for the outlet of the present crisis are different. The opposition parties are pressing for resignation of the Prime Minister to pave the way for national consensus and national unity government, which, according to opposition parties, is the only way out to find an amicable solution to the present crisis. However, the Prime Minister has refused to step down saying that his resignation at this critical period would invite dictatorship in the country. The chance of rise of dictatorship would be more if the Prime Minister sticks onto his post rather than he quits.
The
parties are far apart on national issues. Nepal is passing through the gravest
crisis in history. The parties have positional and perceptional differences on
each and every issue and they do not buzz even an inch from their stance. This
arrogance has created deadlock and state of confusion and uncertainty in the
country. This state of confusion and uncertainty has only created a sense of
insecurity. As a result, the law and order situation is at its lowest ebb. The
feeling of insecurity has kept on haunting the people. The law enforcement
agencies are weak and ineffective in curbing violence and criminal activities.
While
feeling of insecurity is rising, the condition of the people is getting further
complicated because of the unbridled price hike of essential commodities. At
times, the black marketers and hoarders resort to creating artificial shortages
of daily essentials and services by taking advantage of the poor law and order
situation and country’s transitional period. As a result, the life of the
people is becoming unbearable as their income is hardly sufficient to support
the family.
The economic condition is worsening. The country is facing perennial power outage, which has not only made people’s life difficult but also has had a serious impact on production and industrial growth. If the present trend continues, the country is likely to witness further decline in its economic viability, which may, one day, may be declared as a failed state by the international community.
The main reason of the present sorry state of the country is the behavior of the leaders and parties. They have forgotten the history and never tried to learn from their past mistakes. Had they learnt from the history and their mistakes, we may not have seen the present crisis in our political front. The parties and their leaders are focusing their attention and efforts on power rather than country’s key issues and fundamental problems. Following the success of Jana Andolan II, the people had expected more from the parties. The parties and leaders had been expected to change their behavior and engage in empowering the people. To the dismay of people’s general expectation, parties and leaders again continued to get bogged down in dirty power and money politics and kept on repeating the same old mistakes. This is the most unfortunate part of our politics and political parties.
The problem arose as soon as parties broke the politics of consensus, which the Interim Constitution had envisioned. The breach of the coalition culture and politics of unity began soon after the Constituent Assembly election. This breach of consensus politics was a breach of the spirit of the interim constitution. The spirit of the interim constitution is that all issues should be settled through consensus among the major political parties. In the breach of this constitutional provision, all the political parties are responsible. The Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, UCPN-Maoist and Madhesi parties are to be blamed for the breach of the inherent spirit of the constitution. But parties have recently realized their mistakes and again are talking of unity and national consensus. This new realization of national consensus, though late, is a good symptom in our political scene, which again makes us optimistic for stability, peace and better future. This is an opportunity for the parties to correct their mistakes and work together as per the constitutional provision at least until the present political transition comes to an end.
The economic condition is worsening. The country is facing perennial power outage, which has not only made people’s life difficult but also has had a serious impact on production and industrial growth. If the present trend continues, the country is likely to witness further decline in its economic viability, which may, one day, may be declared as a failed state by the international community.
The main reason of the present sorry state of the country is the behavior of the leaders and parties. They have forgotten the history and never tried to learn from their past mistakes. Had they learnt from the history and their mistakes, we may not have seen the present crisis in our political front. The parties and their leaders are focusing their attention and efforts on power rather than country’s key issues and fundamental problems. Following the success of Jana Andolan II, the people had expected more from the parties. The parties and leaders had been expected to change their behavior and engage in empowering the people. To the dismay of people’s general expectation, parties and leaders again continued to get bogged down in dirty power and money politics and kept on repeating the same old mistakes. This is the most unfortunate part of our politics and political parties.
The problem arose as soon as parties broke the politics of consensus, which the Interim Constitution had envisioned. The breach of the coalition culture and politics of unity began soon after the Constituent Assembly election. This breach of consensus politics was a breach of the spirit of the interim constitution. The spirit of the interim constitution is that all issues should be settled through consensus among the major political parties. In the breach of this constitutional provision, all the political parties are responsible. The Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, UCPN-Maoist and Madhesi parties are to be blamed for the breach of the inherent spirit of the constitution. But parties have recently realized their mistakes and again are talking of unity and national consensus. This new realization of national consensus, though late, is a good symptom in our political scene, which again makes us optimistic for stability, peace and better future. This is an opportunity for the parties to correct their mistakes and work together as per the constitutional provision at least until the present political transition comes to an end.
Comments
Post a Comment