Here’s to El Presidente
It is good to finally find political leaders, the media and intellectuals debating the parliamentary, presidential or mixed system of government to be incorporated in the new constitution. But it is so bad to observe that all the ideas, arguments and logic in favour or against these proposed systems are going to waste. What is the use of debating when one main contender, i.e., the Nepali Congress, makes public declarations of accepting nothing less a parliamentary system of governance; and the other stronger contender, i.e., the Maoists, reject it outright?
Similarly, what is the point of arguing when the Maoists want a president vested with executive power which the other side refuses to countenance? The intransigence on the part of the political actors leaves room for a mixed system of a directly elected president, an indirectly elected prime minister and division of executive power. What is the point of adopting a system of government that does not work?
The current debate does not centre round the moot question of choosing a political system that is good for Nepal. It is focused on what best suits the individual interest of the leaders and how best they can be catapulted to the seat of power. Prachanda wants a presidential system because he believes he can get elected by a popular poll to a position that will not be shaken by parliamentary whims. Sushil Koirala does not want a presidential system because he does not believe he or any leader from his party has any chance of getting elected by the people directly. Hence, he believes parliamentary manipulation is the best safeguard against the unshakable rise of an ambitious man like Prachanda. Could there be a more ridiculous and stupid logic than this for choosing a system of government for the stability and development of Nepal?
A mixed system of having both an elected president and prime minister, said to be conceived in Switzerland, looks at worst miscarried. Even if carried out in practice, it foresees at best a continuation of the present sharing of power, position and perks. In other words, the quota system of distribution of public offices like ministerial berths, personnel in constitutional bodies and diplomatic posts and officials in public corporations will continue. This means the president will be as helpless as today, and the prime minister will be as powerless as today. They will be like the stone idols of today, which can listen but not act.
Like the idols, leaders will continue to enjoy honourable positions and lucrative privileges without delivering anything to the people. Was not the constitutional monarchy a mixed system of sharing executive power, which ultimately failed? A mixed system in our context is no system at all. Take the example of Belgium where there was no government for more than a year. Still the country kept on running without any problem. Can we do that? Nepal is not Belgium. A mixed system with an amalgam of decision-making power will be the last straw for the collapse of the country.
As far as the parliamentary system is concerned, it has lost its credence in Nepal. Notwithstanding the extreme love and hatred of different parties for it, it has failed to function and take roots primarily because of the political leaders. The kings and the Maoists exploited their weaknesses and dealt it a crushing blow. At least, I am not surprised to see it happening as it did for over a decade since 1990. In 1991, I had given vent to my strong belief that democracy was destined to fail in Nepal because of the undemocratic character of our people and naturally of their leaders.
In 10 years’ time, democracy went down the drain. Even its revival in 2006 was least promising for its institutionalization. To think that the parliamentary system of government is the only and best democracy in the world is nothing less than bankruptcy of the brain.
Does it mean to say that a presidential system is better than this? A parliamentary or presidential system has equal democratic credentials. However, a presidential system has higher chances of success in Nepal for three reasons. One, we need an identifiable decision maker who can be held accountable for commissions and omissions. We don’t want the shuttlecock game of passing the buck between Singha Durbar and Narayanhiti Durbar repeated under a new dispensation as it is visible today among the political leaders. Two, people want action and solid action, which is possible under an executive president free from unnecessary pressures. Of course, a good president will do well for the people. A bad president, which is equally possible, will be bad for the people. But there is, at least, a 50-50 chance of getting a good president. Three, as far as dictatorship is concerned, it is a thing of the past. Ex-king Gyanendra has proven beyond a doubt that no matter how much power is vested in one man, absolutism does not work in Nepal. So why fear Prachanda or any other cultist?
All said and done, I believe the political scenario I had envisaged two years ago (The Kathmandu Post, Oct 2, 2009) will unfold in the coming days. “It is difficult to believe that a new constitution, in whatever format, will have a long life and smooth sailing. To the best of our intention and ingenuity, it will be yet another political experiment. A parliamentary constitution has the highest potential for failure given past experiences in 1959 and the 1990s. A presidential system with an executive president could be a better option to try for effective administration and political stability. But many in the democratic camp fear that it could give rise to dictatorship. The judiciary is alarmed that legislative control would take away its independence. The federal formation looks like an uncharted chessboard. In the midst of confusion, the best we can expect is a hotchpotch document with more weaknesses than strengths. It would be nonetheless desirable if the new constitution, at least, makes enough room for the executive to act effectively under a stable condition. Nepalis are less worried about who is in the seat of power than how long anyone would be able to exercise it.”
ADITYA MAN SHRESTHA
Posted on: 2012-01-24 09:05
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 :
