Beleaguered parties and bizarre politics

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Politics of the country seems to be still in bizarre and uncertain state. Until Dr Baburam Bhattarai was in the helms of affairs, opposition parties namely the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML raised hell to oust the Maoist-Madhesi coalition government. A new formula was brokered to replace the Bhattarai-led government, which installed the sitting chief justice on the saddle of power. Under this formula brokered by four major parties, there is no party representative in the chief justice-led non-party and non-political government; instead, it would be composed of ex-bureaucrats, which is further strange in the multi-party political system.

Good or bad, the so-called neutral and non-political government is in place. There are opinions both for and against this new political arrangement. The four major parties—the UCPN-Maoist, the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and the Madhesi Front— have called this government as a product of the doctrine of necessity. However, the critics have described it as a homicide of multi-party democracy. Those who call it a doctrine of necessity, the country was in a dire constitutional and political vacuum and crisis that necessitated to arrive at this decision, although it was not their choice.

But it was not the doctrine of necessity but it was the making of the ill intention of the parties, to which the president, too, became a party. Soon after the demise of the Constituent Assembly, the government had declared election and fixed the election date. The twice declared election could not be held in the absence of necessary legal and constitutional tools. The constitutional and legal tools could not be brought about in the absence of consensus among political parties. After declaring the election, the Bhattarai-led government had prepared the ordinance to facilitate the election and sent to the President for his approval. However, President refused to issue those ordinances citing the absence of national consensus. In it also lies a big flaw. In the first place, there can never be national consensus on any issue. In the formation of the chief justice-led government, there had never been national consensus. This decision was taken with the consensus of only four parties but not by all political forces. National consensus does not mean the consensus of political parties alone. There has to be consensus of all including civil society for national consensus.

But the formation of this non-party government should have been called a doctrine of compulsion rather than the doctrine of necessity. It was a compulsion because the rival political parties were not prepared to accept any other options. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML rejected the Maoist-led government whereas the Maoists and Madhesi parties were not prepared to accept the leadership of the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML in the government. There was, therefore, no option other than the leadership of the sitting chief justice. There were some people who had mooted the idea of ex-chief justice to lead the caretaker government for the purpose of holding the election. But there was no unanimity in the name of ex-CJ and different parties had different choices.

But the best option should have been the continuation of the Bhattarai-led government until the elections were held because it had the constitutional continuation. Other political parties could have joined the Bhattarai-led government. Had it been the case, election would have been held in November last year and Nepal’s politics would have taken a new course because the government had already declared the election and fixed its date. Unfortunately, the election could not be held for two reasons: one the President refused to issue ordinances as proposed by the government to facilitate the election and the second was the declaration of the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML not to participate in the election held under Bhattarai-led government.  There was also a mistake and weakness on the part of the president in creating atmosphere conducive for election. Firstly, he always insisted for consensus and early election. The president seemed to have been heavily influenced by opposition parties. In the name of building consensus, his efforts were seen to have been guided to oust the Maoist-Madhesi government rather than seeking genuine consensus and early election. Had president sincerely taken initiative for consensus, the election could have been held under Bhattarai-led government. This is where the role of the President has been questioned. When the President acts on recommendation of four parties, he could also have done on the recommendation of the government, which had been composed of 22 different parties, to hold the early election.

Now the non-party government is in the helms with the sole mandate of holding the election in July this year. But neither government nor the Election Commission seem to be prepared to hold the election in July. If the election was not held in July, people may certainly raise question of validity of the present government. If the election dates are not fixed at the earliest, people may also raise doubt over the intention of the government. Some people have already started expressing their skepticism about the possibility of the election and are of the view that the present government would seek to differ election under certain pretexts and prolong its life. Unless the election is held and new government is formed by the next parliament, constitutionally, there is no provision of removing the present government. The government can be removed only on two conditions— one is voluntary resignation by the chairman Khil Raj Regmi or his death, which we neither can imagine nor wish. Thus, the only way is the election, for which the entire country and the people need to cooperate.

But the political parties themselves are ruining the atmosphere of election. There are calculations and miscalculations of parties on the outcome of the election and their position. All parties are not confident of their position in the election. Most feared one is the CPN-UML as its political base has already crumbled and is further deteriorating due to the strong presence of the UCPN-Maoist. Although the opposition parties are slightly optimistic of their better position in the election due to the split in the UCPN-Maoist, it in no way is likely to benefit the CPN-UML. The benefit of the split in the UCPN-Maoist is more likely to go to the Nepali Congress, which has made the Nepali Congress more hopeful of its better performance in the next election. Even then the Congress is not confident because of its dwindling political base in Madhes and ethnic majority areas. The UCPN-Maoist, too, is uncertain about its performance and position in the election mainly due to split in the party. The split has definitely weakened the UCPN-Maoist but it is not known what exactly will be its impact. Its lack of confidence can, thus, be seen in its proposition for alliance with Madhesi and ethnic parties that have been advocating identity-based federalism. Similarly, the fragmentation in the Madhesi parties has made them fearful of the election.

This is a ground reality which has made all the parties uneasy. This is the reason why they are not pushing for early election. More than that the Election Commission, too, is not very enthusiastic in  holding election at the earliest because of the protest of the some other political groups including the newly formed CPN-Maoist. These parties have openly challenged and threatened that they would not allow the election to be held under the present government headed by chief justice Khil Raj Regmi.

Now the government may seek to prolong its life by not holding the election. This mission may get backing from the President as well because the president’s fate is also linked with the election. In the present context, president is the only constitutional institution that holds all powers and this position will certainly not be there after the election and formation of the new elected government. Similar interest can be of the external powers. Some external powers that have interest and stake in Nepal may find the unstable and uncertain state more favorable to reap benefit and serve their interest. Thus, there is a convergence of interest of all in delaying election, probably for indefinite time.  This may delay the election— the symptom of which is already visible.

But such a situation would be very unfortunate for the country and the people. We must realize that the present government was formed to hold the election most probably in July and if not in November. If election was not held in July, the government will lose its political legitimacy. And if it fails to hold election even in November, the relevance and legitimacy of the present government will completely be lost requiring the parties to seek an alternative arrangement. But the parties themselves are divided on this issue and they are the ones that have been pushing election further ahead. Although certain political party may gain and some may lose at the moment, all political parties, country, people and democracy will be the loser in the long run if elections are not held at the earliest. Non-party and non-political government is not in the interest of anyone. If such a government remains in power for longer time, it would only invite further uncertainty and anarchy which may ultimately pave the way for the rise of a new type of authoritarian rule. At the same time, external elements will have more opportunity to meddle and interfere in our internal affairs in a more brazen way. Thus, all parties must remain united and collectively to exert pressure on the government and the Election Commission to hold the election possibly in July.