E-Kantipur

That a person like Sher Bahadur Deuba has been nominated as the Nepali Congress’ official candidate for prime minister is indicative of the severe dysfunctions in the party and only confirms that little can be expected of the party as long as its current leadership is in place. For in Deuba’s person is concentrated all the worst traits of the political class in the 1990 period. Here is a man utterly without any political belief, no strategic ability to understand the potential directions politics will take and how to position himself within them, no concern for either institutionalising democracy or promoting good governance. His sole concern is the accumulation of power and wealth; his sole skill that of petty management, of collecting supporters by promising them various blandishments. Unfortunately, this one skill appears to be enough to succeed in Nepali politics.

Deuba made two “contributions” to Nepal’s politics during the three terms he served as prime minister between 1995 and 2005. First, he instituted the system of “jumbo cabinets”, where in order to form a majority coalition in parliament so that he could form government, he offered ministerial portfolios to so many different individuals from so many different parties that it was exceedingly difficult to find ministries to these ministers. Many ministries were thus split into separate parts and offered to two or more individuals, causing severe administrative turmoil and paralysis of governance. But this too wasn’t enough to accommodate everyone, so Deuba started the tradition of “ministers without portfolio”. The job of these ministers was to sometimes attend cabinet meetings, but mostly to make use of the housing, vehicles and other resources that state officials receive.

In order to ensure that his cabinet colleagues would not abandon him, Deuba turned a blind eye to the malpractices and corruption they engaged in. Further, Deuba actually encouraged the more venal tendencies of the politicians by institutionalising procedures that would enable them to plunder the state. A small example: he issued regulations allowing members of parliament from paying taxes on the import of vehicles. A solely opportunistic move aimed at placating potential rivals in parliament, this provision gave rise to the much-reviled “Prado and Pajero” culture of the mid-1990s, so named for the preferred SUVs bought by MPs to drive around town or to sell to others for a profit. Meanwhile, Deuba remained blissfully oblivious of the state of the nation and its needs. It was during his first term as prime minister that the Maoists started their armed rebellion. When the Maoists issued their list of 40-demands in 1996 threatening a war, Deuba went off on an official visit to India, utterly unconcerned about the threat this could pose to the state.

His second “contribution” was to capitulate to the demands of the ambitious King Gyanendra, who used Deuba as an instrument to systematically dismantle the country’s democratic institutions. Engaged in a bitter battle against his arch-rival G.P. Koirala, Deuba sought to use the King against his rival. Gyanendra wanted parliament dissolved as this would increase his power over the state, so he convinced Deuba to do away with the legislature by convincing him that this would be the best way to cut Koirala down to size. Deuba believed him and followed his instructions. Again at the palace’s instigations, Deuba did not extend the term of local elected bodies in 2002, causing a vacuum in local governance. Then under pressure from the palace and the army, Deuba instituted regulations that massively increased the role of the army in public life, made it totally immune from any oversight and granted it all the money and resources it demanded.

The fact that Deuba was so compliant when faced with demands from the palace-army combine demonstrates his opportunism and lack of belief in the system and institutions of democracy. Demonstrating a complete lack of a sense of proportion, he chose to dismantle the major institutions of Nepali democracy solely in order to undermine Koirala, a man who belonged to the same party as Deuba. The capitulation to the palace also shows a lack in Deuba of any long-term strategic sense. It should have been clear to him from the beginning that Gyanendra was merely using him and would abandon him when the time was opportune. If he had been strategic he would have cultivated alternative sources of power besides the palace and army. Instead, Deuba surrendered everything to the palace and was shocked and surprised when in October 2002, the King ejected him from his position as prime minister. In recent years, Deuba has been known to pathetically complain, in his inarticulate mumble, to everybody who meets him: “I did everything for the King. But he betrayed me.”

All this, of course, is nothing new. All these facts have by now become firmly entrenched in the public imagination, and Deuba is perhaps the most disliked of all the country’s politicians. But, despite possessing almost no popular legitimacy whatsoever, Deuba has managed to remain as one of the most powerful leaders in the Congress, supported by an electoral constituency from his home district in the far-west and by a coterie of politicians whom he has patronized. That a man who had committed so many crimes against the Nepali people can once again be

in a position to grasp the helm of the state is an indictment of Nepali politics and of its most “democratic” party. The Nepali Congress’ entire leadership should be ashamed for failing to hold Deuba responsible for his actions and for the presumption that this man is the best candidate to lead the country during such a difficult period of Nepal’s history.

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.