Political Checks and Balances

Nepal's politics going out of parties’ control

Yuba Nath Lamsal

The agreement reached between four major political forces had instilled optimism among the people that the country would be rid of protracted crisis and deadlock. These forces namely, the UCPN-Maoist, the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and Madhesi Front, had unanimously arrived at a conclusion that the fresh election as the only solution to the present political crisis and they collectively agreed to go for the polls. But it soon fizzled out as different parties started interpreting the agreement differently in a narrow partisan perspective.

In a democracy, elections are said to be the best democratic practices. It is through election, people articulate their opinion and verdict on the national issues. If we go by the general practice, political parties and candidates, prior to the election, make their stance on certain national issues clear and present their overall policies and programmes. Eligible citizens vote to certain candidate or parties based on their views, stance, policies and programmes expressed through the election manifesto. It is through election, people, in a way, participate in the governance by electing their representatives to govern.

In this way, elections are always welcome in democratic system. Election is the system to seek people’s opinion and verdict on national politics, policies and national issues. People who believe in democracy do not and should not oppose the election. But in Nepal’s case, common sense and values hardly work, which are clearly evident in the asymmetrical views expressed by leaders and parties on the same and similar issues on different occasions. In other words, parties and leader interpret the same thing differently on different occasion to suit their personal and partisan interest. The root of all political problems that we have faced is the inconsistency of the political parties and their leaders.

The recent stance and decision of the parties on election are the clear evidence of inconsistency of parties on their stance and rhetoric. As the parties had earlier failed to agree on some key issues, the Constituent Assembly (CA) failed to deliver a new constitution. In the failure to deliver the constitution, all parties, big or small and ruling or opposition are equally responsible. None of the political parties represented in the Constituent Assembly appeared practically serious on constitution. All parties stuck to their own partisan and sectarian stance and agenda. They refused to make compromise and arrive at a middle and pragmatic ground to resolve the contentious and controversial issues. They were in the mood to let the CA die if their agendas were not accepted and incorporated. This mentality failed the CA, which ultimately saw its demise without accomplishing the mandated task.

The demise of the Constituent Assembly created a political and constitutional problem in the country. The Interim Constitution has not foreseen the failure of the Constituent Assembly and another election for the CA. The extension of the CA was the alternative way to prevent the country from sliding into constitutional crisis. But that option, too, was blocked by the verdict of the Supreme Court. In its verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constituent Assembly cannot be extended for another terms. The most difficult situation surfaced in Nepal's political landscape on May 28 because neither the Constituent Assembly was able to deliver the constitution nor was there any room for the extension of the CA. Under such difficult circumstance, the government was left with no option other than announcing the fresh election.

The election was definitely not the choice of the government but compulsion. But the opposition parties mainly the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML came vehemently against the election declaration. They even threatened to boycott the election held under the government headed by Dr Baburam Bhattarai. The election announced earlier had to be cancelled in the absence of necessary legal tools. The opposition parties welcomed the decision of the Election Commission that it was unable to hold election on the announced date.

But the same parties are now raising the issue of fresh election and they have agreed for it. This is yet another example of parties’ double standard. If election was, at all, necessary, the parties should have agreed on the date already announced and all legal hurdles for election could have been sorted out on the basis of consensus among the parties. Moreover, the recent agreement on the necessity of fresh election reached among the political parties clearly indicates that the decision of the Prime Minister and the government to declare election was politically and morally correct and justified.

Then why opposition parties opposed the election until a month ago and why they have now seen the election as the only option? Firstly, parties are devoid of moral ground and political outlook. Secondly, they do not have faith on democracy and free election. They want election to be conducted by the government under their leadership. This implies that parties do not want free and fair election but to influence and manipulate the election through the misuse of power. This is the raison d’être behind their demand to remove the present government and form another government under their own leadership. But they should understand the fact that leadership of the government alone would not ensure victory in the election. If this was the basis for victory in the election, the Nepali Congress would have won majority in the Constituent Assembly election held four years ago because the election was held by the government headed by the Nepali Congress chief late Girija Prasad Koirala.

The logic of the Nepali Congress behind its demand to head the next election government, too, is frivolous and silly. The Congress leaders are of the view that the Nepali Congress did not get even a single chance to lead the government in the last four years whereas the UCPN-Maoist and the CPN-UML were able to lead the government twice. This logic also does not have solid ground. The leadership of the government is not something that is to be given when someone demands. But party or leaders take the leadership by proving their own worth and supremacy in the contemporary national politics. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Nepali Congress has failed to prove its worth and supremacy in the present politics of Nepal. One likes it or not, the politics of Nepal is revolving around the UCPN-Maoist. If the Congress’ logic is to be taken into consideration for leadership of the government, the Nepali Congress may still not be eligible to get this chance. This is because Nepali Congress has already led ten governments— five governments led by Girija Prasad Koirala, two by Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and three by Sher Bahadur Deuba— after the political change in 1990. CPN-UML led the three governments— one by Manmohan Adhikari, one by Madhav Nepal and one by Jhalnath Khanal. But UCPN-Maoist has got the chance of leading the government only twice—one by Puspa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ and the other one is the present government headed by Dr Baburam Bhattarai — despite being the largest political party.  By this account too, the Maoists claims to continue to lead the government is logical and has justification.

But these logics do not count much in the present difficult situation. The country is in worst political crisis in history. Under such circumstances, political parties need to be more flexible and pragmatic. If parties continue to pursue their partisan agenda, political solution can never be found which means the country would be in perpetual crisis and transition. Thus, the parties need to bury their personal and partisan agenda and interest and arrive at a compromising point to steer the country out of this protracted stalemate. The inherent spirit of the Interim Constitution is the collective approach and consensus among the parties on all issues until a constitution is written and promulgated.  People are aware of the fact that the political parties are responsible for the present protracted crisis. They are also aware that the solution should be found by political parties themselves because there is no alternative to political parties in a democracy.
But things may go wrong way if parties continue to commit mistakes and do not realize it. In such an eventuality, people may take the political parties as the root of the problems, which would be unfortunate for the country and our fledgling democracy. When people think that parties are the problems, then no one would ever know which direction the politics would go. But the way parties are behaving, it seems that the politics is slowly slipping out of their hand and control. If that is the case, it may only invite either anarchy and civil war or direct external intervention. Thus, parties need to tackle the problem before it goes beyond their control.