‘Mixed’ model isn’t solution to instability
Executive Chairman of Nepal Centre for Contemporary Studies, professor Lokraj Baral has witnessed Nepal’s political upheavals from the abolition of Rana regime in 1951, the coup by king Mahendra in 1960, the restoration of multi-party democracy in 1990 to the second Jana Andolan of 2006. As the debate sparks, both inside and outside the Constituent Assembly, on which form of governance the country should adopt, Bidushi Dhungel and Gyanu Adhikari met with Baral to share his experience and ideas. Excerpts:
Historically, how do you break down the kinds of government that we have lived with in Nepal?
There was the Rana regime with family oligarchy. Then we had the multi party system since 1951, which I call the era of party politics. This lasted from 1951-1960. But within that time, monarchy became powerful as it was like an absolute monarchy. In my judgement, the 1959-60 experiment was also not a parliamentary system. It was virtually monarchical because the king gave the constitution as a gift. What followed was the Panchayat party-less system from 1962-1990 with the leadership of the king. Then we had the restoration of democracy with the expectation of a constitutional monarch. Even under the 1990 constitution, there was a great compromise with the palace. It was a semi-parliamentary system. If you talk of de facto power, the elected PM and government also looked up on the palace as a source of power and authority. The elected government was preoccupied with the palace and its feelings. According to the constitution, Nepali people were sovereign, but in practise, there was a compromise with the palace. The elected PMs could not use the army as they liked, for example.
What about the system today?
The 2006 movement brought about the real transformation of power. It made the
people truly sovereign to such an extent that they could take any decision, including the abolition of monarchy. It is now up to party leaders whether they maintain the spirit of 2006 Jana Andolan or not.
What is the fundamental difference between the 1990s situation and now?
There is a fundamental difference: the Nepali people are sovereign under the present interim constitution. When you talk about the CA, the body in itself is sovereign. The people themselves are making their constitution as in India or the US. The CA has the mandate to keep any form of governance. In the 90s, the leaders and governments continued to try and appease the palace and couldn’t take democratic decisions that weren’t based on compromise with the palace.
Out of the Westminsterial and Presidential form of governance, which do you think is suitable for us and why?
For the last 60 years, we were brainwashed by the Westminster model. Since the end of the Second World War, all developing countries saw the parliamentary system as the only form of democratic governance and no one tried to switch over to the American presidential system. This was natural as with the end of the colonial rule in India, our leaders’ democratic apprenticeship came from the Indian experience. But when we practiced it on the basis of our own context, it created contradictions and a full-fledged parliamentary system materialised. The experience of Britain is very different and the reasons and context under which the parliamentary system works there cannot be applied there. Our history, society and party formation and political orientation is different. The largest party now is the Maoist. The left has a huge majority. But all parties are disorganised and there is a virtual anarchy in the country. These are the conditions. Even after the elections and the new constitution, these practices will continue. Coalition politics will continue. The PM will continue to have severe limitations. That’s why politically, organisationally, historically, I don’t see good reasons for the parliamentary system.
Do you see the 2006 movement as one for parliamentary democracy?
No, the movement was for democracy. I am not for debate around forms of governance but for substance of governance if we want to keep democracy alive. If you look at the situation of the country, there’s 18-hours of load shedding a day. And no one is doing anything. If one party tries, then the work is intercepted by another; there is no control whatsoever. There is sovereignty that has been transferred to the Nepali people, but its up to the parties what is done with it.
Does the presidential system mean less democracy?
No. For me, it’s not about form, but substance. I am a proponent of democracy. As a student of political science, I came to the conclusion that if you have a fixed executive for four or five years, it’s democratic because the person is directly elected by the people. I was listening to some NC leader who was saying that a president would be like having the king. But what childish talk that is! We are talking about an elected figure that is brought to power by the sovereign people for some time, not a king who inherits power.
Defending the Westminsterial model, some argue that the actors are to blame and not the system. Do you agree?
It is a matter of the substance and functioning of governance. But if you don’t have order, governance doesn’t work. We have been examining the system of what I call “electocracy,” not democracy. For a democracy, you also need an efficient government. We have been watching what’s happened in the past 60 years and we are forced to ask: where is the delivery?
Even after 2006, just look at how many governments we have had. The reason that I am advocating the presidential system is that at the end of the day, in Nepal, all political parties, including those that claim initially to be radical and leftist, make their way towards democracy and move towards a liberal polity. They all land at liberal democracy. In 1949, Pusha Lal ji was also the same. The same goes for the United Left Front in 1990 and the same applies to the Maoists as well. The parties are in a transformative phase now.
Some argue a presidential system would mean dictatorship whereas a parliamentary system means democracy.
If the representative of the sovereign people of Nepal is going to be a dictator, who can prevent him from being so? Could we prevent Mahendra from assuming power? In a parliamentary system, dictatorship was possible too. In fact, authoritarianism is more possible in a situation of instability and chaos created by a parliamentary system. A presidential system could actually check that. At least we’d have an elected executive in seat for four years or five years who could actually deliver and quell some of the people’s frustrations.
What’s your opinion on the proposed mixed model?
Well, it’s better than a straight forward parliamentary system as in the past, but it too will not be a permanent solution. People tell me that I am taking a Maoist stance, but that’s childish talk. I am making an informed suggestion after having seen the way on which parliamentary politics has worked in Nepal in the past 60 years. If parliamentary system can deliver prosperity, development and stability, then I have nothing to say against it. I think that we need a fixed executive to deliver and do something for the government. But on the French model, we need a strong government mandated on the people which can perform. At the end, regardless of form, performance is the key.
But won’t there be a problem with division of power in the mixed model?
Yes. There is a scope of a clash of personality and politics in the French model and this being Nepal, that’ll probably happen. There is no chance for a nominal head in Nepal—the current President is the proof in his actions over the resigning of the Chief of Army Staff in 2008.
Posted on: 2012-01-16 09:04
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 :
