The way it’s done in Germany
- KNOWLEDGE AND POWER
JAN 26 - If the presidential system may invite crises, would a mixed system work better? The mixed system proposed may not provide stability in Nepal as well. In a country where the political culture is to concentrate power in one’s office and person, the political actors may not abide by the principle of “sharing power” between the president and the prime minister. Actors occupying both the institutions may attempt to maximise executive power if they hail from different parties.
The president, with the backing of the army, may be able to undermine the indirectly elected prime minister. Presidents have often used the argument that they are elected by the whole country to legitimise their power concentration, and this may occur in Nepal as well. Ironically, the people might support such a move, as has often happened in Latin America and Africa, because the people wish a strong leader to appear and solve all their problems! When even the current ceremonial president did not abide by the recommendation of the cabinet to fire the army chief, it is likely that most of the presidents with some executive power will use more power than that awarded by the constitution.
The Sri Lankan experience, where the state governed by imposing a state of emergency for around 30 years since the country’s independence and which continued till last year, suggests that the president will encroach upon the power of the executive if the policy and activities of the cabinet formed by parliament goes against its interests.
On the other hand, “power sharing” will not take place if the same party wins both the presidential and parliamentary elections. In such an instance, it will formally facilitate the formation of an extremely powerful president. Such a presidency will be formally much more powerful than the president of a presidential system because it will control both the executive and legislative branches without the possibility of facing a no-confidence motion as in a parliamentary system.
The Nepali Congress is advocating the Westminster parliamentary system. However, it has not proposed significant reforms that will address the weakness of the system observed in Nepal in the 1990s. Without any major reforms, observers are probably right that government instability will continue in the future with the Westminster system.
If Nepalis want to avoid instability, we need to look beyond the symptoms and find out the underlying reasons why the political parties and actors manoeuvred to frequently change governments. The political parties engage in such activities despite knowing that it has made them unpopular. This indicates that there are strong reasons that pushed them into such behaviours.
A constructive vote of no confidence, as in Germany, could be the proximate mechanism to reduce instability. Such a no-confidence motion passes only if the opposition can prove that they have majority support to form the next government. It is easier to gather support to demonstrate the lack of a majority of the government because different political actors may unite for the purpose as it will increase the chances of them accessing power, but the same actors will divide when it comes to gathering the required majority to form a government because many want to lead and/or join it. This will reduce the frequency of change in governments to some extent.
The reason for the high governmental instability in Nepal is the desire of the political actors to access and control power. That, in turn, is partly due to the fact that whoever is in power often abuses state power and resources to promote the party and factional or personal political interests. Such behaviour was facilitated by the Westminster system, through which the party that formed the government controlled most of the state power.
This monopoly on the use and abuse of state power contributed to generating existential fear among opposition politicians that led them to try and unseat governments as soon as possible. To reduce such tendencies, first, the ruling parties should be restrained from abusing state power and resources that threaten the existence of other political actors. Second, the opposition should also be given power so that it can influence policies and serve the people. They should not feel that their situation is hopeless while remaining in the opposition.
Giving the opposition some role in governance and restraining the ruling party will reduce the desperation of the opposition that pushes them to throw out the government at any cost. The German parliamentary system, which is significantly different from the Westminster system and has been replicated in countries that are going through institutional reforms, facilitates sharing power with the opposition.
The German parliament has empowered the opposition in a number of ways. One, the parliamentary committee chairs are divided proportionately among different political parties being represented in the house. Thus all political parties, including the opposition, have access to some power. This also increases accountability because committees that are headed by the opposition are more active in monitoring the government. This was clear from the example of the Public Accounts Committee, which was headed by a member of the opposition and was the most active and effective committee in holding the government accountable in Nepal. The Germans have the same number of parliamentary committees as ministries. This also increases accountability by facilitating more opposition members to head the committees that resulted in more direct and detailed monitoring.
Second, the German model encourages bills to be initiated in parliament. In the Westminster model, most of the legislation is presented by the government; and since its party is in the majority in the house, most of the government bills are passed. During the 1990s, only 1 percent (three out of 296) bills that became laws were initiated in parliament in Nepal. In Germany, on the other hand, around one-third of the bills are initiated in parliament. Such private bills not only allows political parties outside government to be part of the policy making process but also leads to formulation of policies that the government may not be interested in formulating.
Global experience suggests that the presidential system could invite major crises while the classical Westminster model has also failed in Nepal. A reformed parliamentary system, on the other hand, as discussed above could increase stability by reducing the incentive to change the government and making it difficult even when political actors want to do so.
Posted on: 2012-01-27 08:40
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
Shit! The note is lost. I had better avoid extemporising. ...have been told not to blab.
OUR PUBLICATION :
