E-Kantipur

The Supreme Court on Friday delivered its judgement on a writ filed by two advocates who contended that any further extension of the tenure of the Constituent Assembly was unconstitutional. The apex court said one more extension would be quite alright but any further extension would be unconstitutional. The court ruling also spoke of a referendum as a way out. It is with reference to the concept of referendum that one cannot but be distressed. Is referendum a really democratic concept that allows the people to freely express their opinion on a particular issue? Nepal had a kind of experience in referendum when the late King Birendra, following a mass agitation back in 1978, announced a referendum to choose between Western multi-party democracy and “reformed” Panchayat system. Over two thirds of the voters turned out for the referendum and the Panchayat system of governance won the referendum held in 1980 by about 55 percent to 45 percent. (The 10 percent margin is really a narrow one in view of the fact that five percent of the votes on the other side would have almost tied the result.) There were enough voices of dissent after the result were announced who contended that the referendum was rigged. But like a true democrat that he was, the late BP Koirala said the result was “inexplicable” but that he accepted the

verdict of the people. The “reformed” Panchayat continued from 1980

till a popular agitation in February 1990 forced the late king to discard

the system and introduce Western style multi-party democracy.

Within 10 years, the relevance of

the result of the 1980 referendum had vanished.

In another example, a major referendum was held in Sudan to determine whether there should be a division of Sudan into the Islamic-majority North and the Christian-majority South. The January 2011 referendum in Southern Sudan was, however, a foregone conclusion. Some 99 percent of 3.9 million who voted opted for separation to form an independent Southern Sudan. The result was welcomed by all democratic countries, particularly those of the West. Nearer home, a non-binding UN resolution in 1948 had directed that the people of Kashmir be allowed to vote in a plebiscite to decide their future. But both Pakistan and India in their own unique ways ensured that the plebiscite to decide their own future by the people of the state never materialised. The result is there for all to see: both sides of the erstwhile princely state are in a state of flux. Countries that consider themselves as democratic seem to fight hard not to allow the people to decide their own future. Switzerland is known for holding referendums on various issues. In a referendum conducted in 2009, over 57 percent of the people approved a ban on construction of minarets — highlighting just how secular the people of a ‘secular’ democratic country can be.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2006 agitation, the new government that assumed office in a jiffy declared Nepal to be a secular state as if any deliberations on the issue would prove detrimental to the nation. The concept of secularity was never a part of the pro-democratic movement and so when it was announced it took everyone — not only in this country but in western nations too — by surprise. There are demands now from a section of the population to hold a referendum on the issue. (There are those who suspect that the declaration by the interim Koirala government was result of intense pressure, lobbying and, may be, even covert deals, from a large number of NGOs and INGOs, especially those out to spread religious doctrines. And in the Constituent Assembly soon after it began its meeting decided to abolish monarchy in the country. The Nepali Congress and the United Marxist-Leninists were supporters of constitutional monarchy but both changed their hues to accommodate the Maoists who were adamant on the issue. The RPP Nepal is today calling for a referendum to decide the monarchy issue. But it is more than certain that such a referendum would never be held in either of these two issues because, after all, even in a democracy, there are those afraid of referendums. Secularism and republican system may indeed be best suited to the country but the question is: was it proper to impose them without ascertaining the wishes of the people because everybody knows political parties, though they claim to represent the people, do not echo the feelings and aspirations of the common man.

The referendum fiasco of Greece is a classic case of democracies abiding by the people’s wishes. The rich countries of the European Union who were trying to bail out Greece from, its debt crisis were stunned early this month the Greek Prime Minister Papandreou said he would hold a referendum to let his people decide on the European bailout package and in the wider context, Greece’s place in the European Union. Media reports said that European heads of governments were dismayed  by the Greek PM’s decision. They were pretty sure which way the referendum would go. The referendum announcement brought a downward trend in global stock markets. The European leaders threatened to withhold about US $10 billion dollars worth of aid package for Greece unless Greece agreed “to adopt the terms of the Brussels debt deal without referendum”. The following these moves, Papandreou faced strong opposition from within his own party with the result that he had to cancel the referendum he had earlier announced. That was the end of the Greek referendum on financial bailout and on Greece’s place in the European Union. So who’s afraid of a referendum? Democrats? Autocrats? In fact, everyone seems to be afraid of really facing the people. So a fair and free referendum in Nepal in the coming days can virtually be counted out.

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.