Political Uncertainty Continues

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Recently, the ceremonial President appears to be more active in our national politics. So far, he has not taken any decision but is only trying to persuade the political parties to agree on a common point for ending the political deadlock that the country has seen especially after the demise of the Constituent Assembly. In the period of one month, President Yadav has convened two all-party meetings in which he passionately called upon political parties to forge consensus on the future political course of the country. And he is in consultation with people from the cross section of society including lawyers, constitutional experts, former judges, individual leaders of political parties, rights activists and civil society members. These events have taken place every day, which have made the President virtually busy round the clock. Apparently, there should not be any objection from any section or sector on the efforts made by the President for national consensus or his meetings with the people. The Head of the State has every right to meet and share with the people.

But some may disagree with the tone and tenor with which the President has passed remarks over the national politics and activities of the political parties. According to them, it would not bode well for the ceremonial president to pass remarks on politics and criticize the political parties as the job of the ceremonial Head of the State is, as is the practice of parliamentary democracies everywhere in the world, just to attest to what the government asks and proposes.

The opinion is distinctly divided over the role, responsibility and constitutional boundary of the President. One section is of the view that President has no power and authority, in whatsoever situation, to interfere in the country’s politics under the pretext of unraveling the political and constitutional gridlock. The Interim Constitution has granted no space for the President to poke nose on political activities. According to them, the President, as per the Interim Constitution, can act only on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Any kind of action on the part of the President without the consent and recommendation of the Prime Minister would not only violate the fundamental and inherent spirit of the Interim Constitution but would also be against the universally accepted principles of parliamentary democracy.

But there are other people who subscribe to the view that the President as the guardian of the country and patron of the constitution has bigger role in the present political vacuum. According to them, President refrains from partisan politics only when the country’s political situation is normal and smooth. In the present context when Nepal’s political situation is mired in complications and complexities marked by political constitutional vacuum, President’s role may be necessary because it is the only elected institution of the country at present. Being active in country’s affairs and being involved in partisan politics are two different things. Based on these logics, this school of thought is trying to provoke the President to get involved and interfere in the day-to-day politics, which implies that the President should remove the present Prime Minister and appoint someone else in his place. One can, now, easily imagine how and why the President is becoming more and more active and passing remarks, sometimes sharp and critical, on our national politics and political parties.

As far as the definition of political and partisan activities is concerned, the demarcation and difference between these two terminologies is very thin and blurred at the present context of Nepal. The efforts to provoke the President to intervene are clearly guided by the partisan interests of mainly two parties—the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML because the President’s move, if he at all acts, would only benefit these two parties that are doing everything to provoke the President to intervene and get involved in politics. Any kind of action on the part of the President without national consensus or without the consent of the government would definitely be interpreted as being motivated by partisan interest, irrespective of however sanctified his motives may be.

The parties that champion the parliamentary type of political system are demanding for President’s action and intervention.  Those who are opposed to parliamentary system are demanding presidential system have argued that president’s action of any kind without the prime minister’s recommendation and consent would not only be against the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy but also set a bad precedence, which would be detrimental to democratic development in Nepal. This is a great irony of our contemporary politics. Moreover, the post of president is a highly revered and respected, which should by no means be drawn into controversy. Once drawn into political controversy, the credibility and respect that this institution commands would cease to exist for forever. The President must have been well aware of this situation and is expected to refrain from any kind of partisan misadventure in order to maintain the sanctity of the institution of presidency.

President is, of course, a guardian and his duty is to defend the constitution. But it does not mean that President alone is the defender of the constitution. Nepalese people are the genuine and bigger defender of the constitution and the country. If deemed absolutely necessary, Nepalese people would spontaneously come forward in a collective and united way to defend the constitution. Thus, the only objective of some parties and people to provoke the President to intervene is to reap political benefit, which the President must have been aware of. These parties want the President to dislodge the present Prime Minister and appoint someone else, preferably the Nepali Congress leader, in his place.  If President gets provoked and interferes in politics, there is a strong likelihood of confrontation between the president and some political forces, which may invite another round of conflict in the country.

The country is already in crisis. This situation demands wise and mature decision of political leaders and other stakeholders. Should parties and leaders fail to demonstrate maturity, the country may further slide into political crisis and complication. It seems that Nepal’s politics, so far, is power-centric. National interests and people’s concerns have hardly found space on the agenda of the political parties. The politics is slowly getting polarized due to power centric policies and attitude of our political parties.  Our political parties seem to be prepared to do anything and everything, be that moral or otherwise, legal or otherwise and constitutional or otherwise, for power. This is the fundamental reason behind the political crisis we have seen in Nepal. The attempt to provoke the President by some parties and people is also guided by this power-centric politics, which is absolutely wrong and unfair.

If the present power-centric political polarization continues to get priority, Nepal may ultimately slide into the status of a failed state. The only alternative to save the country is the broad national consensus, mutual cooperation, co-existence and understanding among the key political forces of the country.  This would alone help not only to complete the constitution writing and the peace process but also rescue the country from the quagmire of political uncertainty.

The primary requirement for consensus is the will and desire of the parties to rise above their partisan interest and power-centric politics. If they are able to shun power-centric politics, it would help make their political and positional clarity on some unsettled issues, which seems to be lacking at present. Based on the bottom-line of all parties, a middle-ground can be sought which would contribute to building national consensus. With the demise of the Constituent Assembly without delivering a constitution, peace process has derailed, which need to be brought back on tract.

National consensus is easier said than done. Given the diverse ideologies and orientation of the existing political parties, narrowing down political differences and bringing the parties into a common ground is definitely a Herculean task, for which assistance of neutral facilitators is may be required. In the case of Nepal, there is hardly anyone who can be called a neutral personality. Civil society members are supposed to be neutral, which can be often called in to facilitate the negotiation between the parties in conflict. But our civil society, too, is highly partisan and it often carries the partisan agenda, from which we cannot expect the genuine role of facilitation for national consensus. Against this background the role of the President should be to facilitate consensus but not confrontation.