E-Kantipur

Today is yet another D-Day as far as the selection (or is it election?) of a new prime minister is concerned. The third D-Day may yet go the way of the previous two D-Days; that is, nothing but glaring differences among the country’s political parties would surface without giving the country a new prime minister. The three major political parties which consider it their right to hold the nation captive seem to care two figs for the interest of the country or of the people. Their diametrically opposing stands on government formation and the fundamentals of the issues to be incorporated in the new constitution as well as on how the country should be divided into federal units have cost the nation dear—politically, socially and economically. The country’s economy is said to be in a shambles, and as the nation’s economy combined with the political situation that includes law and order and security issues are said to be the main factors for the stability of any nation, there are some who say that Nepal will soon be on its way to being placed in the category of failed states. One would be forgiven for labelling our present bunch of leaders as Nepal’s new monarchs in all respects but without the customary crown.

The third time election to select a new prime minister due Monday could well go the way of the previous elections with none of the two contestants able to muster the necessary votes to become the country’s chief executive. The pre-election behind-the-scenes horse trading might not yield the necessary result. The various Madhesi parties in the Constituent Assembly that also functions as the legislative assembly have their own axe to grind and are said to hold the trump card as far as electing a new prime minister is concerned. The Maoists would need only the support of these parties to form the next government while the Maoist rival, the Nepali Congress, would need much more: the support of the Madhesi parties and other small parties to get past the minimum required votes in the CA.

The Madhesi parties which formed a bloc to negotiate with the rivals have set forth their conditions for support, and have asked the two parties to give them a written undertaking to meet their demands. The Maoists submitted their written commitment, but flatly ruled out the concept of “one Madhes, one province” which obviously forms one of the most important demands of the south-based regional parties. One of the vice chairmen of the Maoist party told news persons that the Maoists could not entertain the “one Madhes, one province” demand. The Maoists, as well as other political parties, if they consider themselves to be political, should have realised the true long-term implications of acceding to such demands. Will the Madhesi parties still vote for the Maoists given the latter’s refusal to endorse the “one Madhes, one province” demand?

The meetings that the Nepali Congress and the Maoist leaders have been having almost everyday with the Madhesi and other smaller parties for the past week since the second scheduled elections for a new prime minister and did not bear fruit were meant not merely to seek their support but also to bargain what each of the two major parties can give them in exchange for their support in the prime ministerial election. The Maoist nominee for the country’s top post, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, has been telling the media that he would secure the necessary support. Not to be outdone, Nepali Congress nominee Ram Chandra Poudel and other NC leaders have also expressed their belief that the Nepali Congress candidate would secure the top post. But analysts are still doubtful as to whether the third round of elections would fare any better than the previous two.

With a responsible UML minister saying in Baglung on Saturday that his party would remain neutral during the elections on Monday and the Madhesi alliance looking at the two contesting parties to fully agree to their written demands, the prospects for a new prime minister to be elected today looks bleak indeed. That this situation continues even a month after Prime Minister Nepal tendered his quit notice speaks volumes about the kind of leadership we are blessed with. The top leaders in any of the three parties never tire of telling the people that they are not after power which—if you believe them—means nothing to them but a potent means to bring the never-ending peace process to a “logical conclusion” and write a people-oriented constitution. 

There are many who think that the peace process can only be brought to a “logical conclusion” when there is a government of national consensus in place. The power politics that one has been witness to since the CA elections has been a direct hindrance to the writing of the constitution for which genuine national consensus is required with all the parties showing willingness to be flexible in their stands in the larger cause of the nation. It would be a mistake to believe that there would be a consensus on issues relating to the constitution once a national government is formed. The parties do bend a little this or that way in order to achieve power, but the same parties would be much more rigid when confronted with the fundamental issues to be incorporated in the constitution. For instance, one of the top Maoist leaders has gone on record as saying that his party would not accept pluralism in any form, giving rise to questions as to whether the Maoists have embraced democratic ideals or are just using these ideals to further their own authoritarian goals. The constitution writing, as anyone would affirm, is the most difficult part of the whole game presently being played out by the present breed of Nepal’s political leaders.

Since the prime task of the CA is writing the constitution and that of the government to take care of the day-to-day affairs of the state—that is, not to take decisions and make policies that will have a long-term impact on the country—this writer had over a year ago suggested in this very column that a neutral government should be put in place to run the affairs of state. Full concentration of the parties including their top leaders should be on constitution writing so that the fundamental differences that exist among the parties on the future constitution can be narrowed down as much as possible. It is still not too late to make amends and to take the right course. But our leaders acting like monarchs without crowns can hardly be expected to take the sensible course.

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.