One for the individual
Experience past and present, especially the present, shows how difficult power sharing has been in the country. From even before the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990, the governments have been short and unstable, leading to a constant tussle for power. The trend continued after the Jana Andolan of 1990 and 2006. Tussles for power takes place among the parties and within a single party, leading to what we call factions. Today, there are at least two factions in each major party. Within CPN-UML, there are the Khanal and the Nepal factions. In the Nepali Congress there are the Deuba and the Paudel factions, and in the Maoist party, there’s the triumvirate of Dahal, Baidya and Bhattarai factions.
The story of Madhesi parties is starker. The original Madhesi Janadhikar Forum (MJF) has split five times, and the biggest factions today—in terms of number of Constituent Assembly members are MJF-Loktrantrik (28), MJF-Ganatantrik (13) and MJF-Nepal, the original MJF led by Upendra Yadav (12).
The parties and the factions are constantly playing the game to get to the seats of power. Rest assured that whoever replaces the current Prime Minister Bhattarai, in all likelihood, is going to be the result of factional politics. Whoever replaces PM Bhatttarai is going to face a similar fate. In this rivalry between parties and factions, and the opaque deals among them, it’s impossible to say which faction is going to triumph and with whose support.
Making this worse, the parties and the factions show a deplorable capacity to go to any length — which includes breaching the existing laws of the land — to protect and promote one of their own. As it is, the party structures rely heavily on the shoulders of activists who do their dirty work during elections, or, as recently demonstrated by the Congress, in enforcing the much-despised bandas and other unwholesome activities. The parties need an extensive network of patronage, corruption and, at times, violence to sustain these activists. The net result: national politics often resembles the rule of the organised gangs or, given the lack of diversity in top parties, chieftains representing their clans.
Amid all this, we often hears the anguished cries from the people — “We need honest politicians.” The problem, however, is not only with the politicians. Although it would be a mistake to deny them any agency, the structural problem is with the system that nurtures and sustains them. Even if there were honest politician willing to defy the party networks and culture in any of these parties, he or she would not be able to rise in the hierarchy of that opaque organisation.
This, in the minimum, is going to be the state of affairs until the new constitution — that great hope of the transition — is written. It’s a fickle hope, one that has appeared moribund during the three and a half years after the election for the Constituent Assembly and has revived a little with the election of PM Bhattarai. There’s been some progress on two fronts. The process of integrating the Maoist army into the national army is underway, and the parties have substantially reduced the number of contentious issues in the Assembly.
Other than federalism, the second biggest challenge in writing constitution has turned out to be the form of government we are going to adopt. A few months back the task force entrusted with finding a compromise floated the idea of a “French model.” The model combines an executive president directly voted into office, together with a prime minister chosen by the parliament to run the day-to-day administration. The compromise contains elements to satisfy the two key political groups — that of the old-school democrats who want to retain the present parliamentary system, and that of the progressives, who want an elected president with executive power.
As they deliberate, I hope that the constitution makers do not relent to the pressures of retaining the old parliamentary system. That system is not going to lead to stability and prosperity. It’s a model the country has practiced for the last two decades (barring former king Gyanendra Shah’s coup) and given rise to every conceivable Machiavellian tactics to become the prime minister. In this system, it is impossible for anyone who isn’t a product of the party machinery to climb up to the highest office. The system leaves no room for an independent candidate, a candidate who is either unable or unwilling to dedicate his or her life to a party but is very much capable of governing or holding public office. The importance of the independent candidate is great, and it’s going to be greater in the future.
Looking ahead, it is certain that our society is going to be divided. Most of the divisions are going to be fuelled by the parties to appease their constituencies and gain a few votes, a few seats to bargain for a handful of ministries after the elections. Already, the premordialists are adding kerosene to the fire of ethnic mistrust, and communalism daily mocks the individual. Casteism, regional inequalities and religious harmony are other fault lines.
It’d be dishonest to argue that the demands of different interest groups are illegitimate. But the solution, a leader who can unite the country and address the grievances of all the groups, is unlikely to emerge when parties and factions are so eager to please and promote one of their own. Moreover, present politics compels them to sow divisions to reap the votes.
A directly-elected executive president will be compelled to rise above narrow partisan politics and address all, if not most, interest groups. This will not only have a moderating effect on polarisation, it would also help unite the country and make federalism more palatable — disunity being the primary fear of those who oppose it. It also leaves the possibility of an independent candidate assuming the highest political office. It will, of course, not happen immediately. A presidential candidate requires a vast network of supporters. Even in established democracies like the US with the world’s longest-running written constitution, the independent candidates do not win the elections, but they often do have the power to tilt the elections. That is still a small victory for individualism, and for democracy.
Posted on: 2011-12-26 09:03
Post Your Comment
Today's Paper
The Kantipur in Print
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
FROM THE PAST 7 DAYS
ENTER KEYWORD OR DATE
Abin
All of them discussed the issue. The result was the same...and we have committed to continue discussions on the issue till midnight.
ADVERTISEMENTS
OUR PUBLICATION :
