Consensus government has become a subject of non-stop discussion in political circles and among intellectuals and other people who are gravely concerned by the deteriorating political scenario. Among those who are pleading for a change, the Maoists top the list; but they are not alone. There are some elements in every party, including those that share the present government, who want a government of national consensus. It can be argued, who does not? But it should be seen what such a government can do in terms of improving the present political imbroglio.

Logically, the concept of a complete national consensus is a political fallacy, because some political ideologies stand completely juxtaposed to each other. For example, the monarchists and the republicans cannot stand on the same plank ideologically. So it is a state of compromise. Secondly, all the political forces do not possess equal weight. Those with greater weight will have more bargaining power, and the smaller ones will have to make more compromises or sustain higher losses. Thirdly, the concept of a compromise government is a short-lived one; and it is not a permanent political solution but a short-term means of resolving the given current problems. In the fourth place, it has to be seen in the light of possible options. In the fifth place, it has to be evaluated in the light of its probability to be sustained.

In practical terms, it has to be clearly understood what is meant by consensus government. The Maoists claim that because they were sent to the Constituent Assembly (CA) by the people with the largest popular support, they have the legitimacy to lead a consensus government. This is a valid claim, but it could not stand the test of sustainability. The Maoists did lead the government in the aftermath of the CA election. This was just a coalition government and not a consensus government. They could not accommodate the second largest party, the Nepali Congress, into the coalition, and thus failed the test of consensus government for which they are making the loudest call this time around.

The government of the day has to fulfil a given political goal. The national political goal was the finalisation of a new constitution when the Maoists led the government, and it is still the primary goal. Even if the Maoist-led government was not a consensus government, it had the advantage of having a two-thirds majority in the CA or the Legislative Parliament which was a mandatory figure to pass the constitution. But the Maoists did not follow the track of making the constitution. Was there a serious impediment to making the new constitution except for their own disinterest? There was none as far as it was transparent. The Maoists later claimed that there were hidden hands, but it is analogous to the jackal calling the grapes sour when he failed to reach them. It raises a question of their intention. Supposing the Maoists get a second chance to lead the government, where is the guarantee that they will be serious in pursuing the path of constitution making?

Consensus making is a process of giving and taking. The Maoists are very strong in their position as to what they should get, but they have never shown the readiness to barter even an inch if it is a question of giving. It can be judged from their past commitments. A lone example is the restoration of the lands and properties that the Maoists had impounded during the insurgency. Even long after the end of the conflict, they continue to hold such properties. And there is a bundle of failed commitments. With such a track record, it is hardly convincing that the Maoists can really lead a consensus government to the satisfaction of all the components.

Let us come to the present coalition that enjoys the support of 22 parties but fails to accommodate the Maoists. It claims that it has good intentions, viz., it is in favour of making the new constitution. But with the Maoists out of the coalition, the grand 22-party coalition fails to contain the two-thirds majority required to pass the constitution, but it is not making way for the Maoists to enter. The Maoists had made some qualified conditions like discussion of the step of the president of Nepal in reinstating Rookmangud Katawal as Chief of Army Staff. The present coalition is certain that if some of the conditions are met, the Maoists are likely to cooperate. But there is no compromise from either side. Thus, given the attitude of the present coalition, it looks certain that there will be no cooperation with the Maoists.

There is very little time left for the completion of the constitution. It is arguable that if the Maoists join the present government, it will be a consensus government. This is theoretically correct to argue in this light, but there are two lacunas in this argument. First, this approach should have been adopted at the start of the second coalition. The Maoists had quit on a whimsical ground, and there was some remorse after the descent from the seat of power. It would have been easier to persuade them to join the government.

Secondly, there was enough time to follow the schedule of the constitution making. Now, even if there is a compromise, the schedule is stretched too far and there is no possibility of finishing the constitution on time. The pity is that both the Maoists and the present coalition deliberately created this situation. It is a useless exercise to shift responsibility from one to the other. Both sides are equally responsible for the failure. The real culprit is the insatiable desire for power. If the constitution does not come out by the deadline, history will blame both the Maoists and the non-Maoists. But what is the way out at this juncture?

The country must be saved, and the sovereign people must be obeyed. First of all, there should be a realistic reappraisal of the time needed for the completion of the constitution, and the life of the present CA should be extended to allow that time. Secondly, the leaders must be kept away from the seat of government power. A fresh caretaker government should be formed by dissolving the present coalition. The caretaker government can be led by a non-controversial person agreeable to the parties. Such a government will have only limited functions, mainly dealing with the nature of helping the CA to finalise the constitution. The function of such a caretaker government should extend to conducting a fresh general election after the promulgation of the new constitution.

Removed from the seat of government power, the leaders can indulge in some real exercise of their brains. They will be more regular in their attendance at the CA. They can collaborate without envy and enmity. They can finalise the constitution with the needed seriousness, and they can also find ways to integrate the Maoist rebels into suitable situations, the second goal of the nation. 

Khagendra N. Sharma

knsad1@gmail.com

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.