E-Kantipur

The debate over form of governance needs to be problem-based.  Any form the CA adopts must solve four chief problems that have plagued Nepal: unstable governments, history of dictatorship, history of ethnic and gender exclusion, and unaccountability and excessive power of political parties and their top leaders on the state and its democracy.

A stable government is the most obvious need given Nepal’s experience since 1990.  A series of unstable governments between 1990 and 2002 paved the way to ex-King Gyanendra’s dictatorship.  These come-and-go governments resulted from both inter- as well as intra-party rivalries and conflicts for executive posts in the government, whether those of the prime minister or minister.  Seldom did they have any issue-based conflict causing their rise and fall.  The country has taken a leap in the media sphere and economic outlook since then, but it was more because the Janandolan of 1990, which ushered in openness and freedom more than anything else. 

Even if we believe that the Maoist insurgency constrained the functioning of the parliamentary system, the Maoists surely didn’t cause all the rifts among top leaders in the Congress, UML and Madhesi parties.  We only have to see how things have unfolded since 2006 to disprove this unpersuasive claim.  How can you check the hunger for power and Machiavellian tactics of a Girija Prasad or Deuba or Oli and Mainali, or Gachchadar or JP Gupta and so on?  In a country where occupying nodes of state power is the only desirable means of livelihood and source of self-esteem for many, and where patron-client culture persists between political leaders and their cadres, there is no way to restrain a political leader’s unscrupulous maneuverings without making the day-to-day survival of the executive free from both the parties and the parliament.

So, the people’s direct mandate for an executive head with checks and balances is the only way to achieve a stable government.

Without checks and balances, a directly elected executive head will more likely become authoritarian, as many rightly fear.  Prachanda may have been their unreasonable target—but why only Prachanda?  Anyone among the present and future breed of Nepali leaders can derail the system if the person has an unrestrained freehand to run the government for a fixed term.  Even without absolute power, didn’t Deuba dissolve the parliament?  Haven’t many ministers indulged in corruption in appointments and transfers of officials?  We just have to think what that person would do if given a free and absolute hand in all matters of executive decisions, especially in view of the fact that Nepali history and society are just emerging out of its feudal culture and mindset.  In each one of us there lurks a Hobbesian self in the form of a Jung Bahadur or Mahendra or Gyanendra.  The BP Koirala tendency, stifled and stunted for so long in the last 60 years, has burst forth only a few times.  It’s been an exception rather than a rule.  So, checks and balance over the executive is the only way to avoid the twin evils of dictatorship and corruption.  Nepal can avoid the risk of authoritarianism by instituting impeachment provisions, making a permanent parliament in the US style (only one-half or one-third of whose members elected every two years or so) and invested with emergency powers, by separating the directly elected head of government from the indirectly elected ceremonial head of state as nominal supreme commander of the armed forces, and by fixing term limits for the executive head.

A directly elected head of the government may however not choose to be inclusive given his emphasis on merit, performance or potential ethnic bias.  Parliamentary system does allow structural inclusion through coalition as well as powerful ministers who represent diverse constituencies of their own.  But an inclusive ceremonial president and provision in the constitution for diversity in the selection of ministers both from inside and outside of parliament can ensure a diverse face of the government.  And then, in new Nepal, true diversity will not result from tokenism as before (choosing a Dalit minister here, a Janjati or Madhesi state minister there) but in creating a level playing field for all ethnicities in the security, civil and judicial services as well as real devolution of state power through ethnically-aware federalism, proportional representation in the parliament, and an effective affirmative action policy in all branches of government for the underrepresented and the discriminated for a certain period.

Finally, democracy is all about people, and parties are important only insofar as they ensure people’s power and views in an organised manner.   However, what has happened in many democracies around the world is that the parties themselves have become bureaucratic behemoths, unaccountable to the people’s mandate.  Very often they lack internal democracy, don’t conduct regular elections for party executive posts, and their party bosses become centres of power by monopolising ticket distribution at the time of elections.  Party leaders have thus ignored their party cadres’ mandate and opposed even the elected party chairmen on sundry issues.  Deuba and Oli are prime examples of this tendency in Nepal. 

Besides, many party functionaries wield unconstitutional power without ever having to face elections at the people’s level.  And even those who lose multiple times remain a force to reckon with within parties and influence government policy and practices undemocratically.  These turn into party bureaucrats rather than remaining party leaders; they seldom possess independent means of making a living other than what they make by virtue of being a functionary of the party.  In seasoned democracies, once a politician loses elections, he or she most often joins the private sector enterprise or does something outside the sphere of elected power politics.  So, if political parties are the backbones of any democracy, they can also become impediments in democratic practice if their functioning is not transparent and are not subject to the people’s mandate at every step.

So, the framers should institute a structurally stable government, place effective restrains on the directly elected executive, insure diversity and establish people’s electoral supremacy over undemocratic party power.   A directly elected prime minister with independent parliament, judiciary, and ceremonial president appears to be an effective compromise to solve Nepal’s multiple problems of governance.  In short, give the executive head a free and stable hand but prevent his hand from turning into an iron fist.

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.