Hail to the chief
Given Nepal’s historicity and continuation as an independent country, it looks somehow absurd in this second decade of the 21st century to be debating what form of governance would suit this country. The only other people in the world today with such concerns are the South Sudanese who became independent only a few months ago. Unfortunately, we are in a maze of our own make, and there is no coming out without debating.
At the heart of the dissent over a directly elected executive president or prime minister are a few basic questions. Such an executive is a recipe for tyranny, a no-experience testing for Nepal, will either be benign or bumpy vis-à-vis neighbouring regional powers, does not match the plural system we are creating, will somehow emulate monarchical stability that we chose to abolish, offers no space for legitimate opposition and, therefore, is inappropriate for Nepal are the foremost talking points that have been forwarded to provide life-support to our ailing Westminster model. A dispassionate examination of the facts will not only dissipate such logic, but also justify why a directly elected executive will prove appropriate for Nepal.
The democratic political system has no single acceptable form, yet the “demos” — the people — as its foundation have always remained undisputed. No form of democracy is problem-free either. But democracy lives vibrantly and survives longer when a political system allows direct communication between the people and the leadership, including the opposition.
A direct election of the executive offers that lifeline of straight dialogue which no middleman like an electoral college can interdict. Such dialogue manifests popular sovereignty in its pristine form. Once nurtured by the mighty constitutional principles of the separation of powers, it stops tyranny or demolishes it some try to develop one. In our own experience, it was under the Westminster model that the monarch rose to become an autocrat twice — in 1960 and in 2005 — simply because he, cut off from dialogue with the people, tended to adore his own or his surrogates’ ideas as the people’s and failed.
Overplaying the fear of autocracy, notwithstanding the hyperbolic element in it, to decry an elected executive head of state stands in sharp discrepancy to the Nepali people’s historical ability to unseat autocrats. Sixty years ago, when the people were less educated and unaware about politics of the bigger stage, they untied themselves from Ranarchy’s century-old clout. The Panchayat regime lasted only 30 years while the latest one in 2005 could hardly prolong for a year. Nepalis, thus, have practically shortened the life span of autocracy to zero, and an elected head treading that path will only invite one’s own peril. Besides, a constitutionally empowered and fully alert judiciary and legislature will keep pulling the strings making it impossible for tyranny to raise its head.
It is agreed that experimenting with political systems limits the nation’s ability to progress. However, we have been sort of experimenting with a slew of things. The Constituent Assembly (CA), republican state, secularism, mixed electoral system and inclusion have all come together for a journey towards a new destination. The process was chosen over easier means to get a constitution, for example, a commission that could have compiled an excellent constitution. No one ever thought it was going to be a
cakewalk.
Moreover, the people asked their representatives in the CA to institute change for broadening the new constitution’s acceptability without knowing in the first place what that constitution would look like. Thus, the experimentation argument challenges and dwarfs the existence of the very political process we are in the middle of. In contrast, having a directly elected executive equates choosing the best alternative out of multiple good options available on the table at this opportune moment of constitution making.
Because our experience with the Westminster model has hardly any sweet spot worth mentioning, we must take it to another level, the level of a directly elected executive. Parliament will continue as an institution where multiple representatives of the people make laws and work to offer no let-up to the executive. That’s where our country’s plurality has to be reflected, not in an individual head of state.
Let’s be realistic, one individual, be it ceremonial or dominant, can only work to protect the national interest in the whole but cannot pretend to represent a hundred different languages and an equal number of ethnicities. If one claims to have done so, it becomes more divisive, partial and artificial; we are not proposing to elect a king in either way.
The question of giving legitimate space to the opposition is a serious one. In this regard, the mixed electoral model is good because it offers a window from where the executive runners-up can come to parliament as party nominees and serve the country the way US presidential candidates do in their Senate. Realizing the necessity of the contribution of senior leaders in the new political context, the CA has established the precedent of nominating leaders who have lost its membership ballot.
Finally, there is one very less considered fact of geopolitics which makes it urgent to have a directly elected executive in Nepal. Right since the first democratic change of 1951, Nepal has unnecessarily pulled the fender-bender of geopolitical interests in electing a prime minister here.
A directly elected executive will require going among the people to form a government, not flying towards what Upendra Yadav once satirically referred to as the “Mecca Medina” of Nepali politics. A direct election will entirely negate that component of external blessing. This prepares the executive to perform a true geopolitical balance that Nepal needs but has seldom seen post-1951. It will ultimately free our rising neighbours to partner with Nepal without having to be interpreted as taking sides for their engagement, ushering in a new era of superior relationship.
What Nepal requires is not a flurry of examples from around the globe because examples and experiences are available to support all interpretations. Living through the regimes of various hues in a short span has developed a dismissive impression about politics among the people that everything can change while nothing really changes in Nepal. It is time we straightened the message and said it loud and clear: Change is possible and it’s coming for good.
Posted on: 2012-01-13 09:27
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 :
