Editorial»
Take lessons, avert crisis
DEC 11 - Over the weeks two vital and relevant events have taken place from which Nepal can learn lessons to end the present crisis created artificially by politicians with narrow vision. The first event is the offer of a joint peace council by Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga. The offer comes at a time when power struggle between Kumaratunga and Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe in growing. It assumes special significance because under the Sri Lankan constitution the President is the head of state, head of government as well as commander in chief of the armed forces. As the head of the cabinet, she is also in charge of ministerial allocations. The present offer has come in the wake of November 4 cabinet changes that widened the political impasse, endangering the peace process with LTTE.
It is remarkable that soon after the rift between them, they appointed a joint committee, headed by their secretaries, to find a way out for them to work together on issues of national importance. Kumartunga’s proposal has been widely welcomed, especially her desire to take a bipartisan approach to the peace process. In the beginning, the people thought that the President precipitated crisis with her sudden take-over of the ministries. But now Sri Lankan people’s wishes are with both the President and the Prime Minister. People in Sri Lanka now feel that both their leaders have changed their attitude. It is a welcome development in the backdrop of the Sri Lankan people’s mandate to them, to pursue the peace process. Sri Lankan President’s example is meaningful even in our context. It has shown that if national leaders are really serious and sincere to find out a way for solving immediate problems it can be done.
For instance, the Sher Bahadur Deuba Cabinet was dismissed more than one year ago in the name of restoring normalcy in the country. However, there has not been any serious attempt to rectify the mistakes and initiate a process to end the political and constitutional logjam. People had hoped that concrete proposals would be put forward after the fall of the Sher Bahadur Deuba government. Chandrika is to be appreciated for the simple reason that she did not take much time to avert the constitutional crisis and then hold a one on one meeting with her Prime Minister. Her move to get the Prime Minister, his government and parliament to function normally and carry forward the peace process should be admired. Setting all fear and suspicions at rest, she has specifically said “the Prime Minister will be in charge of the peace negotiations”. The Prime Minister has also shown a positive attitude to the proposal of the President. This example shows how a constitutionally all-powerful President and a democratically elected Prime Minister, belonging to a different political party, can cohabit in find ways to solve national problems.
In our country too, if the king and the responsible political leaders, especially from Nepali Congress and UML, had shown such an insight, the present political crisis would have been averted. Still, the situation in our country can be retrieved, if the concerned players of politics show sensitivity and sense of responsibility. President Kumartunga’s constructive proposals, therefore, should give us a warning that in the absence of reconciliation and rational assessment of the situation, we might lose our national sovereignty at some point of time. In our case too, the stand off between the king and the agitating political parties can be overcome easily. Peace can be restored once when there is correction of the earlier course and realisation of the need of cohabitation as, in the present context, no single political force can impose its will upon the other.
Another event of importance is the recently held assembly elections in India’s three states and Delhi, which restored the BJP to power in three Congress ruled states. Elections are held and will be held in future too, but the present election is meaningful to remind the role of Election Commission in preserving the basic norms of parliamentary democracy. This is significant in the backdrop of the appointment of Keshavraj Rajbhandari to the vacant post of Chief Election Commissioner amidst raging controversy. Many print media organisations have dubbed him as “master’s man”, not known for doing things on his own. Some political pundits have also opined that nothing can be expected of a man who never cared for maintaining democratic norms. However, we want him to take lessons from other countries, especially from the example of his counterparts in India. During the recently held elections, India’s Chief Election Commissioner, J.M. Lyngdoh, once more showed exemplary courage by fulfilling his constitutional duty without being cowed down. It is worth remembering that despite some flaws in his action, T.N. Seshan performed very boldly and then it was under his stewardship that India’s Election Commission produced salutary results. Seshan became an international figure for his fearless action against those politicians who violated the code of conduct prescribed by the Commission. Like Seshan, J.M. Lyngdoh also created history by issuing show cause notice to Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Punjab Chief Minister Amrinder Singh, for their alleged misuse of state government’s aircraft.
The commission demanded an explanation from the Congress, the main opposition party, asking it to show cause why its recognition as a national party should not be suspended or withdrawn. Can our newly appointed Chief Election Commissioner believe that national status of the main opposition party at the centre will be summarily withdrawn if his Indian counterpart is not satisfied with the response to his show cause notice? Of course, it is hard to act like Lyngdoh here in Nepal but this should, at least, help Rajbhandari in understanding the role of Election Commission, in a democratic system. It is another matter that the Indian Congress contested the allegation of misuse of state government’s aircraft, and thus saved itself from punitive action.
Indian people never had any doubt about the integrity and independence of Lyngdoh, winner of Magsaysay award. His action shows that the Election Commission’s conduct must demonstrate the virtue of a democratic system. For all its weakness, it must be accepted that electoral process is of a great strength. If Keshav learns something from Lyngdoh and then gives some concrete evidences of impartial and objective role in the coming days, he can restore his credibility. In the context of the country’s fluid situation and the growing fear of foreign interference, it is imperative for us to strengthen our democratic institutions like the Election Commission. If the aforementioned events are well analysed and lessons taken accordingly, we can make our election system better. It will finally pave the way for the resolution of our national problem and keep away the need for a third party.Posted on: 2003-12-11 02:25
Headlines
Advertisements
