Oped»
Monday Interview
JUN 20 -
Constitutionally, PP leader govt head
Nepali Congress, the second biggest party in the Constituent Assembly with 110 seats, has decided to lay claim to the government leadership. Two clear front runners have emerged for the post of the prime minister, senior leader Sher Bahadur Deuba and Parliamentary Party (PP) leader Ram Chandra Poudel. The Kathmandu Post talked to NC Spokesperson Arjun Narsingh KC about the possible shape of NC leadership of new government and the internal party dynamics.
Nepali Congress has expressed its willingness to lead a new government. Who is likely to get the top job?
That is not for any individual to decide. It should ideally be a collective decision of Nepali Congress and in accordance with the party statute. The decision has to be an outcome of both due process and party policy. Inside Congress we have been trying to come to an agreement based on consensus for the last few days. Nonetheless, if we cannot come to a consensus candidate, the party statute has the final say on who leads the party into the government. We should all honour what the party statute says.
What does the party statute say regarding government formation?
Our statute leaves the task of drafting of a policy framework of whether to lead the government or not, whether to participate in it or not, or whether to help the government or not to the Central Working Committee. Following the policy directives of CWC, the parliamentary party has to make the final decision. We are trying to come to a consensual agreement. If that path fails, we have to make a decision on the basis of the CWC policy directive and the decision of the parliamentary party.
NC CWC, as you said, proposes the party policy, including whether to lead the government or not. But who makes the final decision on the prime ministerial candidate, the CWC or the parliamentary party?
Nepali Congress statute clearly mentions that the parliamentary party leader heads the government.
But didn’t you say it is the CWC which proposes the policy?
CWC discusses policy issues like whether to join the government and sets the conditions for the parliamentary party to join the government. As CWC is the third strongest party body after general convention and Mahasamiti, the decision it takes is final. But I believe we should go by party rules and statute in case there is no consensual candidate.
It is rumoured that if the CWC makes the final decision, Sher Bahadur Deuba may emerge as the prime ministerial candidate. On the other hand, if the parliamentary party decides, it will be Ram Chanda Poudel.
This is the wrong way of looking at it. I don’t think you can divide CWC between different factions. In politics, each person has certain aspirations and claims. No one does politics to become a hermit. We should not take these aspirations and claims as unnatural. The CWC should make a collective decision and if not, we should follow the constitutional process, which should readily accepted by all sides.
Is the majority voice in the NC in favour of the parliamentary party making the final decision?
As I said, the party statute has already settled the issue.
Do you imply Poudel has a better chance?
Rather than talk about chances of any particular individual, I believe we should create a situation whereby the party as a whole can settle the issue. Because no matter who leads the government, he or she is likely to face huge challenges. The issues of peace and security, constitution making, a logical end of the peace process, bringing together the political parties in the Constituent Assembly, even the challenges within the party—it is important the party stay united to solve these issues.
Are the issues of the upcoming NC convention, leadership of future government and the tenure of current government related? Or are they completely separate issues?
They are not separate issues. It is difficult to see how developments in Nepali Congress, the cornerstone of the political process in Nepal, can be seen in isolation form the country’s current political scenario. But this interrelatedness doesn’t affect the party’s course of action. Nepali Congress is well capable of handing these issues in an integrated manner.
A government under NC leadership does not seem to be the solution to the current political deadlock as UCPN (Maoist) has made it clear it will not join a government under the leadership of other parties.
You should understand a couple of things: first, the Maoists do not want to part ways with their weapons, hence we are deeply suspicious of the Maoists. We believe that the Maoists, under the cover of catchy slogans like civilian supremacy, national sovereignty, and peace and loktantra continue to pursue the policy of the capture of the state. Thus, until the management of the Maoist arms and army is completed, until they are separated from their weapons, Congress cannot accept Maoist leadership. But the Congress continues to believe that there should be a government of national unity, that the Maoists should be a part of it, and only dialogue and consensus can help find the solution to the current stalemate. The constitution making and the peace process cannot be concluded by keeping the Maoists out. For the Maoists to be able to lead the government again they must first prove their democratic credentials and fulfil their past commitments.
There have been some voices in the NC who have said that they will be ready for a Maoist-led government if Pushpa Kamal Dahal makes way for some other prime ministerial candidate.
Those are purely personal thoughts of some Congress leaders. The party should be not seen as representing the viewpoints of a few individuals. More important is what the institution as a whole decides. When we have made it clear that we will not accept Maoist leadership unless they part ways with their arms and army, it really does not matter whose name they propose.
But when a recent meeting of top Maoist office bearers decided to go into the new government under Dahal’s leadership, the NC said that such a move hampered consensus building. Wasn’t the party hinting that an alternate candidate would be acceptable?
What we said was that, if the Maoists are really keen on consensus, why should they insist on a particular person? Why not say that they are open to all options? If someone says that a particular party under particular leader should lead the government, and we agree to it, it will not be national consensus, it will be a surrender.
Shouldn’t the Maoists decide who they would like to lead them into the government?
We have no problem with that. If the Maoists are to lead the government, let them decide their leader. But what the Maoists were saying was that the government should be formed under a particular leader, otherwise they would stay in opposition. We interpreted the decision as an indicator that the Maoist felt there was no alternative to their leadership. Thus we said that the decision narrowed the path of consensus. We never said that it ended all possibilities of consensus. We still believe that consensus should be sought, dialogue between political parties should continue, and that there can be no solution by sidelining the Maoists.
Posted on: 2010-06-21 08:30
Headlines
Advertisements
