Rhythms of governance
The 1990s was a memorable decade for reasons too numerous to even begin enumerating. Memorable also because it was frustrating to many of us for how our politicians turned the business of government into a game of musical chairs, particularly at a time when we needed political stability more than anything else.
Yet, even in those years of blatant political one-upmanship, there was a measure of certainty in the person of Gajendra Narayan Singh, founder
of the undivided Nepal Sadbhavana Party. As governments came and governments went, Singh had no qualms about assuring himself a ministerial berth all the time.
One might consider Singh to be a crass opportunist, but from his perspective, it made a lot of sense to him and his party. At a time that politics based on Madhesi grievances had not yet found traction at the national level, by shifting his allegiance to whoever sought it, he ensured a Madhesi presence at the highest echelons of government.
Now, consider the period since the CA election. Every government that has come to power has had the backing of one or other combination of the plethora of Madhesi parties. Since the memory of the two Madhes movements in 2007 and 2008 and how it wreaked havoc to the national economy and life in general is still fresh, one cannot but be thankful that such is the case. Granted that those who claim to speak for the Madhes do so carefully calibrating personal gain against public rhetoric, but that has at least spared the Tarai from further unrest.
The above discussion is perhaps pertinent to the current debate on what form of government is best for Nepal—presidential, semi-presidential or parliamentary. It can be argued that any of the three can work provided we have the right instruments in place, and, of course, there is the political will to serve the people and the country. But this assumes a perfect world and we certainly do not live in one. Our need currently is a political system that will allow the government of the day to get into the rhythm of governing without having to fret about suddenly being supplanted, but which also allows for meaningful representation of Nepal’s great social, regional and religious diversity.
Much of the argument against the presidential system is that it could lead to some form of electoral autocracy for which there is plenty of evidence. Witness the many general secretaries of the former Soviet Socialist Republics who metamorphosed into presidents in the post-1991 era. The two other regions where the presidentialism is much in vogue, Latin America and Africa, have certainly not been exemplars of democratic practice either.
The semi-presidential model does not have a very successful history,
mainly because it forces a directly elected president to work with a prime minister with a parliamentary majority. While this system was meant to institutionalise checks and balances, often when the two individuals belong to different parties, the country can be brought to a standstill by too much checking and balancing.
The numbers game that is inbuilt into the parliamentary system has been the bane of our politics so far, including during what should have been a politically hallowed period when all sides cooperated to give us the best possible constitution for us. Hence, the strong disavowal of the Westminster model and an equally forceful push by a section of the political class and the commentariat are in favour of a presidential system. For a country like Nepal, however, the very stability inherent in a presidency with a fixed term could also end with rather unfortunate results.
An example that springs to mind comes from Chile and the much-lamented Salvadore Allende. Elected president at the head of a leftist coalition in 1970 (after three previous failed attempts), he soon introduced populist policies in favour of the poor and the working class. An admirable effort, one should say, but Allende forgot that he had received only 36 percent of the vote as opposed to the 63 per cent his two main rightist rivals managed to secure, which meant that the majority were against him and what he stood for.
The 1973 coup by Augusto Pinochet in which Allende lost his life had allegedly been blessed by Henry Kissinger, then the National Security Adviser to the US president, and seems to give the impression that the latter’s virulent anti-communism was the only reason for the coup. But it
is also true that Allende’s ouster would not have been possible without the strong backing from Chileans opposed to his policies.
The kind of hubris Allende demonstrated is exactly what is dangerous in the Nepali context. In none of the elections held in Nepal since 1990 has any party managed to receive more than 40 percent of the votes cast (with the Maoists managing a bare 31 per cent the last time around) and there is absolutely no reason to believe that situation is going to change. It is very unlikely that any presidential candidate (and there is every likelihood that the field would be quite crowded) would win a majority vote outright. We can adopt the run-off as well with the two leading candidates facing each other off, but that is only a way to pretend that the final victor has majority support.
At a time that Nepalis are becoming increasingly insular within the groups they identify with most, whether it be based on ethnicity, territory, class or any such marker, and also quite effectively vocal about their interests, the possibility of any one individual, especially one whose tenure is guaranteed, being able to satisfy all the groups is remote to say the least. Even if decisive government were to benefit Nepal in the long run, the possible social upheavals are perhaps not worth the price.
The parliamentary system, on the other hand, forces a government to continuously enjoy the confidence of parliament to remain in office. Since an absolute majority by any party seems out of the question, by definition, this leads to coalition politics and greater political pluralism. As we try to redefine the terms of our membership of the Nepali nation, that perhaps, is what we should strive for even if it throws up warts now and then. If peace is a pre-requisite for progress (and not the
other way around since there are arguments for that as well), one would argue that a parliamentary system is best suited for Nepal.
There remains the stability question, and we can adopt from Germany (and others who have done likewise) the ‘constructive vote of no confidence’, which basically requires any group or individual sponsoring a vote of no confidence against the government to have in place an alternative arrangement. Had our Interim Constitution incorporated such a provision we would have been spared the spectacle of the endless, and ultimately fruitless, rounds of prime ministerial election in the latter half of 2010.
The German innovation of the constructive vote of no confidence happened for a very good reason. Like Nepal, Germany in the immediate aftermath of World War I was characterised by frequent changes of government, until, of course, it came to an end with the election in 1933 of Adolf Hitler by a population craving a strong government. But despite that tragedy and the larger one of World War II, post-War Germany went back to the parliamentary system under a federalised state and has done pretty well by it. That experience could indeed be a lesson for us in Nepal.
Posted on: 2012-01-19 07:55
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 :
