E-Kantipur

This article is being written under the optimistic assumption that despite all the obstinacies and alibis of the political parties, the constitution will eventually be written and promulgated within the extended time of one year. As most of the party leaders and the chairman of the Constituent Assembly (CA) have been claiming, almost 80 percent of the work of writing the constitution has been completed. This claim may be true in terms of the amount of text. But contentious issues have not been cleared, and that will weigh heavier than the claimed 80 percent.

The most contentious issue is federalisation of a unitary country. There have been so many claims for the formation of separate federal units on geographical, ethnic, linguistic and spatial grounds. The formation of the State Restructuring Commission in the Interim Constitution was mooted to solve this contentious issue. The two coalition governments completely ignored the formation of the SRC. It is hope that the SRC will be formed and get to work during the extended time frame. The SRC will come out with the most appropriate considerations for the formation of the federal units, facilitating a rational decision by the CA.

There is another equally contentious issue of the form of government: whether it should be a presidential or parliamentary/cabinet form of government. There are examples of successful parliamentary/cabinet type governments. The British model is a good example of a successful parliamentary/cabinet type of government in a unitary situation where the democratic model works within a limited monarchical system. Another successful model close by is the Indian federal republic where a parliamentary/cabinet type of government functions with a limited president as the head of state. The specialty of this type is that the cabinet holds effective power subject to majority support of parliament to which the cabinet remains responsible. The head of state is a ceremonial figure. Although the cabinet is the de facto authority, parliament can remove it by passing a simple vote of no confidence. Parliament, thus, exercises de jure sovereign authority of the state. 

This is not to say that other types have been unsuccessful. The US is a conspicuous example of a presidential form of government where the president is both head of government and head of state. The US is supposed to have practiced a model of separation of powers with the legislative, executive and judicial functions of the government being carried out by independent agencies. The president, as the head of government, is not responsible to parliament, called congress there, in the usual sense of the word. He cannot be dispensed with a simple majority vote against him. However, he can be dismissed by passing a special impeachment motion by a joint session of congress presided over by the chief justice.

There are other models. For example, the French tried a limited president model which resulted in political instability with governments falling as soon as they were formed. The Fifth Republic tried re-empowerment of the president after which the country has remained politically stable. It can be loosely called a mixed type. The success of the presidential type notwithstanding, most European nations have gone in favour of limited power to the head of state.

Most of the colonised countries of Asia and Africa have tried to follow the model of their colonial power as the role model. However, the success of such an imitation presupposes certain preconditions. The primary precondition is the acceptance of the democratic principles of freedom and equality in the given society. It is a sad observation that in most of the cases, the democratic exercise has been a failure with the conspicuous exception of India where the concept of equality is at complete variance with the existing social discrimination; but the democratic system has been miraculously functional. It looks like India could not be governed well under any other model.

India can be a role model for Nepal where there is an equal degree of social stratification. Although we are smaller in size, we have the largest extent of ethnic differentiation per unit of geography compared to anywhere in the world. The geographical variance in Nepal again has no match anywhere in the world. The ethnic and other differences are bound to have separate aspirations which are likely to clash with each other in many cases. So, how to have a means of commonality and unity of interests which is necessary for the upkeep of a nation? There may not be a readymade formula, but the thread of political ideology forms a strong link between the diverse interests. Political awareness creates a wider habitat of self-identification than the given ethnic or linguistic bonds. Taking India as a case, there is an India awareness through such diverse means as political parties and labour unions where a labourer in Assam considers a labourer in Kerala as his kin but opposes a next door capitalist as his enemy. A communist in Kashmir is tied with a communist in Meghalaya but is opposed to his next door congressman. Such functional links are provided in the multiparty arrangement of the parliamentary model.

India being an ex-British colony, its model might have been inspired and influenced by the British. For Nepal, never having been a colony, the experience is different. But we have followed the Indian process of socialisation through religion and other forms of social contacts including education. Our thinkers have been inspired and influenced greatly by Indian thinkers. Our leaders have been influenced and inspired greatly by their Indian compatriots and political tutors. They are even tutored and discipled by them. Nepal has not had a long history of political struggle, but whatever experience Nepal has is in the model of parliamentary government. Nepali leaders or political workers will have great difficulty adjusting to any other model like a presidential form.

In the present state of confusion, the Maoists have been contemplating the presidential form, but a majority of the other political parties are talking of a parliamentary or cabinet form. Transplantation of the presidential model will have to tackle several problems. The first, as argued in the previous paragraph, is familiarisation with the cabinet model. The workers and the people will take at least a quarter century to fully comprehend the full implications of the presidential system. Secondly, the presidential system is suited to the existence of two parties where there is a possibility of either party winning a majority in the periodic elections. Nepal seems to be heading towards the inconvenient continuance of a hung parliament. The principle of proportional representation is not compatible with the majority of a single party. The coalition system of government is a necessity whether you like it or not. The coalition is based on the principle of shared power, but the presidential system demands the hegemony of a single party at the centre.

The Maoists might have anticipated the gradual concentration of power in their hands. If the result is the opposite of their anticipation, and their influence becomes narrower, they will be the greatest losers. In the probable scenario of extreme polarisation, the chances of their winning an absolute majority will become thinner as time advances. So adoption of a presidential system will be counter-productive for the Maoists. But in a parliamentary model, the chances of sharing power will come time and again through periodic elections. In such circumstances, there will be the possibility of lasting alignment among political parties which agree on specific common agendas. Such arrangements are not possible under the presidential system.

I would like to conclude that in the context of Nepal, the parliamentary model would be preferable to the presidential model.

knsad66@yahoo.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.