Fourth time still unlucky
The discussion over parliamentary versus presidential forms of government is not as much a question of experimentation as it is about creating democratic institutions for our nation’s future, considering its elaborate social diversity, multiple experiences and history. Institutional designs like the electoral system, power separation and governance efficiency significantly impact the functioning of democracy. Therefore, unlike the traditional proponents of parliamentarianism who ask for indirect election for both top offices keeping intact its Westminster structure, those pushing for directly elected executive president or prime minister in Nepal today are also asking for a powerful and inclusive parliament, judiciary and federal state.
The Parliamentary form of government being the oldest democratic system entered unchallenged in South Asia in the early 1950s, largely owing to the strong colonial legacy and political background of the founding fathers of newly independent nations, with only Mahatma Gandhi having alternative ideas. In his famous Hind Swaraj written in 1909, Gandhi had declared, “The mother of parliament was a sterile woman and a prostitute……Carlyle called it the talking shop of the world”.
Gandhi wanted the Panchayat system in a localised government where the basic unit of democracy would be a village. Alarmed but bowed in their reverence for the Mahatma, other greats like Gopal Krishna Gokhale stood strongly in favour of the parliamentary system but put off the debate until independence anticipating Gandhi’s change of heart. Thirty-seven years later, the Indian Constituent Assembly was elected. Gandhi, staying firm in his belief, would only withdraw the ‘prostitute’ word for its being uncivilised.
With Nehru standing firmly behind the parliamentary system, Ambedkar replied this time, “What is the village but a sink of localism and a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism?” Gandhi hardly resisted. Indian founding fathers, thus, were never in two minds about the form of government. It was among the least debated motions in their Constituent Assembly.
So was the case in Pakistan. Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s problem was that he never had peers of equal calibre like Nehru had in India. Muslims extolled him as their saviour. Being the only consensus personality among the minorities forced him to assume the position not only of Governor General but also of Protectorate General of Hindu Minorities.
Jinnah’s study and stay in England greatly had shaped his political ideas ans personal preferences.The 1956 constitution of Pakistan prepared in his footprints appears parliamentary by all accounts. Pakistan fell into to the bouts of governing experiments in the absence of the successor of Jinnah’s mantle. The young nation with its institutions still forming went to war against India, bringing the army into the political driving seat forever. Implicating Jinnah for Pakistan’s instability would contain little modicum of accuracy.
Historical experience of South Asian nations vary deeply in that their similar institutional choices have resulted to dissimilar sets of expectations and outcomes as in the other parts of the world with identical regimes and institutions. This leaves the question of democratic consolidation, increasingly, to be resolved by national experiences and contexts. This means that the question of government stability, inclusion and performance cannot be answered solely through the virtues and vices of particular forms of government without ensuring the functionality of institutions that have been shaped by national experience and need.
Democratic stability, in societies as diverse as South Asia’s, stems from conciliation, temperance and inclusion. But they have been navigated from an extremely divisive angle in today’s Nepal. Unless we get a unifying, inclusive, and national political leadership whose attempts are focused at bringing the most oppressed to the top, and who prides on speaking for all Nepalis, the longevity of our social harmony stands in jeopardy. This leaves an opening for a new political turmoil even under a new constitution.
Similarly, claim of inclusion in an individual reflects an autocratic frame of mind. Even the medieval kings ordained themselves the most representative ones to legitimise their unlimited assertion of authority. In modern times, some “elected parliamentary dynasties” of the developing world have also inherited this tendency. The inclusion for society at large in Nepal then would reflect in collectivity, togetherness and in ensuring everyone’s participation in every process assembled. Arguments that imply that “an individual lifted by parliament is inclusive, but exclusive if directly elected” are too incongruous to buy.
The institutional design of election—mixed proportional representation for instance, balances the logic of inclusion to the side of the directly elected executive. Being the model Nepal is likely to adopt, this design of election shows a higher correlation with collective inclusion than in majoritarian governments. Applying it to Nepali federalism, it can be extended further down to the state assemblies. These stages accommodate all kinds of democratic aspirations of regions, ethnicities and other social categories. Then, a unifying figure at the top who is equally connected to the people, and who can relate to all federal units without being fractional looks more obligatory.
A directly elected executive, indiscriminate to ethnicity and tactical feign of posing oneself as victim despite continuously enjoying state power for decades, has less chance of winning election on divisive politics because of its responsibility to see the nation as a whole. It necessitates the aspirants to rise above a constituency, a region and ethnicity. It discourages pitting one community against the other.
The inclusion we must strive to achieve is not where minorities are talked into exchanging blows but where a Janajati or a Madhesi or a Tharu or a Dalit leader wins election on the slogan of national unity and social harmony. It is never going to happen under a traditional parliamentary system that brings votes for an executive candidate through pandering to a small constituency milking on the strategy of divide and rule. It will ‘orphanise’ the mainstreaming of minorities and will systemically ‘otherise’ those perceived to be in the mainstream.
Nepal has experienced the parliamentary system three times in the last 50 years: in 1958, in 1990 and in 2006. Blaming its briefness to other than its own endogenous fault is really far-fetched. Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Holding up the traditional parliamentary system for a fourth doing in Nepal looks so ridiculously comparable.
Dhakal is a political analyst
Posted on: 2012-01-23 10:14
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 :
