Political Checks and Balances

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Checks and balances are necessary in politics to create accountability, maintain transparency and fairness and ensure good delivery of services to the people. The term checks and balance is referred to the separation of powers, which is fundamental component of a genuine democratic system. Under the principle of separation of powers, three branches of governments are created to maintain checks and balances. They are Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. These branches act independently to limit the work of one another so that any particular branch of government may not exceed its limit. These checks and balances do not necessarily clash but complement one another and work in coordination. All these three organs are so interlinked and interdependent on each other that one in the absence of other becomes almost ineffective if not defunct.

Nepal is, at present, in the unique situation in terms of checks and balances. Now one branch—the Legislative—does not exist. It is because the Constituent Assembly saw its demise for failing to deliver a new constitution within the stipulated time, even though two extra years were given. None repented on its demise because every political party is responsible for the failure of the Constituent Assembly. But parties have realized its values and relevance long after the Constituent Assembly ceased to exist.  And some leaders are now demanding the revival of the Constituent Assembly.

Even when the Constituent Assembly (CA) was alive, the leadership of all major political parties was divided on the fate of the Constituent Assembly. The leaders who had won the election wanted the Constituent Assembly to continue. But those who were defeated in the last election played their role to fail the Constituent Assembly and wanted fresh election. There were distinctly two groups in the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and UCPN-Maoist--one wishing for the continuity of the Constituent Assembly and the other against it. Sushil Koirala and his team stood against the continuity of the CA because Koirala himself and most of his staunch loyalists had been defeated in the election and were not in the Constituent Assembly. Sher Bahadur Deuba and several of his key supporters in the party had been in the Constituent Assembly and wanted the continuity of the CA. Similar case was with the CPN-UML. Jhalanath Khanal and his team were in favor of extending the term of Constituent Assembly because Khanal had been elected and presence of his faction in the CA was relatively stronger than that of his rival faction. Khanal’s rivals like KP Oli and Madhav Nepal wanted discontinuity of the CA because Oli had been rejected by the people during the election and Madhav Nepal, too, had lost the election from the two constituencies but was later brought to the CA.

The UCPN-Maoist, too, was divided over the fate of the Constituent Assembly. This party, quite for a long time, had had two different views and versions on the political line and course. The hardliner faction headed by Mohan Vaidya was against the political line of peace and constitution and wanted the old guerilla war to be continued to capture state power. According to Vaidya camp, the peace and constitution was a reformist road, which is not compatible with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism—their guiding political doctrine. This is natural for this group, which is opposed to the ongoing peace and political process, to seek the early termination of the Constituent Assembly. But the mainstream faction of the UCPN-Maoist wanted to complete the peace process in order to institutionalize the agendas it had raised like republican system, secularism, writing the constitution by the elected representatives of the people, federalism, proportionate electoral system and inclusive democracy. This faction definitely wanted the ongoing political process to be completed, for which it advocated the continuity of the Constituent Assembly.  The Madhesi parties, too, were in favor of the continuity of the Constituent Assembly as they were not wholeheartedly prepared to face the fresh election.

But those who wanted the continuity of the Constituent Assembly had not been able to speak up openly due mainly to the verdict of the Supreme Court and partly because of the people’s strong apathy towards the elected body and representatives. The Supreme Court had ruled that the Constituent Assembly could not be extended beyond May 28, 2012. Moreover, the lackluster performance of the members and parties and their too much preoccupation in power game instead of focusing on constitution writing had caused heightened public apathy towards the parties and Constituent Assembly itself.  The parties and their leaders, thus, could not advocate for another extension of the life of the Constituent Assembly, despite their strong desire to do so.

The demise of CA was a foregone conclusion on the May 28 right from the early morning. But parties could not save it and formalize the works already concluded concerning the constitution. The leaders that wanted to disband the Constituent Assembly had their strong say and influence, which led to the present political crisis. The political parties had their own calculation in the post-CA scenario. The Maoists and Madhesi parties were optimistic that they could fare better in the election held under their government. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML believed that with the demise of the Constituent Assembly the coalition government headed by Dr Baburam Bhattarai would be automatically toppled paving the way for the formation of national unity government possibly under their leadership. Moreover, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML were feeling uncomfortable with the strong presence and position of the UCPN-Maoist in the Constituent Assembly. Congress and the UML thought that the status and position of the Maoists as the largest political force would be over and all parties would be treated with equal status. Guided by this notion, some of the influential leaders and factions in the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML acted to terminate the popularly Constituent Assembly, in which they were successful, although it eventually proved to be unfortunate.  As a result, the democratically elected body of the people became victim of the conspiracy and design of a few leaders, who were rejected by the people. What can be bigger irony than this in Nepal’s contemporary politics?

All calculations of the political parties failed after the CA demise. Although the government announced fresh election, the Election Commission refused to hold the polls in the absence of necessary legal and constitutional tools. The calculations of other parties, too, failed. The intention of the Nepali Congress was to hold the election under its own government. Similarly, its other calculation that status and position of the Maoist party as the largest political force of the country would be gone with the CA ceasing to exist also utterly failed. Even after the demise of the Constituent Assembly, the politics of Nepal has continued to revolve round the UCPN-Maoist and its chairman Prachanda.

To come back again to the original theme, the checks and balance is more necessary in the present-day Nepal because one of the three branches (Legislative) does not exist. In such a scenario, there must be checks and balance among different institutions. In the absence of Legislative, there are chances that some power centers may try to centralize power at certain individual’s hand. The apparent tension between the Prime Minister and the President is the reflection of this trend. Although, the executive comprises of the Prime Minister, the government and the President, there must be checks and balances between these two institutions as well. Both the President and the Prime Minister are political persons and their political faith and orientation are definitely reflected in their action. The President was elected on the ticket and nomination of the Nepali Congress. Although the President has already quit the Nepali Congress membership, it is only for technical and legal purpose. The UCPN-Maoist has based its logic of not accepting the Nepali Congress-led government on this fact. The UCPN-Maoist says that the principle of political checks and balance would be breached if the Nepali Congress was given the leadership of the next government because the Congress will have both the President and the Prime Minister.

The Maoists’ claim may or may not be logical. But one thing is true that if the Nepali Congress gets the leadership of the government, other parties will have nothing in their hands. The Maoists may lose its political center stage and initiative once it hands over the government’s leadership to other parties. As the conventional wisdom goes, since the Nepali  Congress ( second largest party) got the President, CPN-UML ( the third largest party) got Speaker and the fourth largest force (Madhesi  parties) got the vice President, what should the largest party (UCPN-Maoist) get if it was also denied of the leadership of the government? Although general rules and logics seldom work in politics, this question must be answered by pundits and politicians prior to seeking the political consensus.