The perils of executive presidency
Prashant Jha’s arguments regarding system of governance debate inside and outside the Constituent Assembly (“A Question of Form”, January 4) must be contested. The columnist starts with the premise that there is little reason to fear the Maoist agenda, because “they have not been able to dominate all spheres of life”. I would argue, to the contrary, that the party has been the central player in the state and society over the last five years, and has indeed dominated all the vital spheres—governance (from village level to national), constitution-making and the peace process.
In governance, the spread of corruption to the grassroots, which has destroyed an entire crop of local leaders through the ‘all-party mechanism’, was mainly a Maoist creation. In constitution-making, the other political forces have had to fight for every inch for democratic space, given the pre-feudal notions among the ex-rebels on how to organise society. The dangerous turn to identity-based politics and provinces is a Maoist gift to the people. The rise of impunity, too, is a Maoist memento, exemplified by the attempted pardon for a CA member convicted murderer in an honour killing.
One reason we may be handed an unworkable, less-than-democratic document by the CA is because the last three years of constitution-writing has been under the shadow of the Maoist gun. The peace process was to have been completed by September 2008, but the party prevaricated to the extent that the cantonments are not disbanded even as critical issues are being negotiated today. In constituent-writing, the critical matter pending (besides definition of federalism, for which there is a commission) is the system of governance. Jha agrees that Pushpa Kamal Dahal would like to be “the first elected executive president of the country”, but claims that those who dislike this prospect do so “out of paranoia and prejudice”.
I would make the following argument: the executive presidency is being foisted on the people to feed the personal ambitions of Dahal. Such a system would bring an autocratic stability to Nepal, the peace of the cremation grounds. Further, a centralised presidency goes against the very concept of devolved federalism, which is why it is intriguing to see the Madhesi and ethnic stalwarts going along with Dahal.
There should be no embarrassment in challenging the royalist and Maoist propaganda, and to maintain that the prime minister-in-parliament system of the 1990s was a success. It opened up society, exposed corruption and malfeasance, promoted participatory development and local government, and helped the GDP grow at six percent annually. Sadly, the Maoist insurgency destroyed the momentum of parliamentary democracy within five years, and today we are asked to believe that the system was ‘flawed’ by the very force which wants to replace people’s representatives with commissars.
Beyond the wrong choice of an executive presidential system per se, there is every reason to be wary of the Maoist chairman in that position. His record since 2006 is clear indication that he will definitely try to create a one-party state, using his personal guile and his party’s fist. Barely two weeks ago, he conceded that the party had sought to conduct a ‘revolt’ since 2008, but there were few to point out to him this breach of trust.
Dahal’s plan is for a directly-elected president when every other institution is indirectly elected (including parliament and prime minister). Once in the seat of power, Dahal will move to consolidate a centralised regime, compromising the institutions of state including the army, of which he would be Supreme Commander. He would win elections ‘democratically’, using the money massed by the party and the ability to call up brute force in the districts. All of this can be said with confidence on the basis of Dahal’s record since 2006, even as he has kept the polity and civil society in thrall.
Certainly, the people will rise against a presidential autocracy, but why would we want to waste another ten years of our lives? Given the locked position of the Maoists (for executive presidency), the Nepali Congress (for parliamentary system) and the half-assed ‘French model’ of the UML, the best compromise seems to be a presidency selected through an electoral college comprising the two houses of parliament and the provincial legislatures. The president too would then be indirectly elected, and we may save democracy.
There is an ingrained belief among many analysts that the Maoists of Nepal are the rebel underdog. However, here they have been part of the state establishment for more than five years now. And now, they are in a position to define our future through the new constitution. Is it not better to be alert now, than to have to dig ourselves out of the rubble of a destroyed society some years hence?
Posted on: 2012-01-05 07:50
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 :
