http://www.kantipuronline.com/Nepal/abhimat.php
सञ्जय उपाध्याय
नेपाली काङ्ग्रेसभित्र उठेको सत्ता छाड्नुपर्ने र नेकपा माओवादीका लागि र ाजनीतिक मैदान खाली गर्न नहुने दुवै तर्कले सो पार्टर्ीी मुलुकमा ओगटेको विशिष्ट स्थानलाई प्रतिविम्बित गर ेको छ । काङ्ग्रेसले सधै“ आफूलाई प्रजातन्त्रको पर्याय ठान्दै आउनु अन्य दलका लागि जति अप्रिय भए पनि सो चित्रणस“ग पर्ूण्ातः असहमत हुन सकिने अवस्था छैन ।
२००७, ०४६ र ०६३ सालका आन्दोलनहरूको नेतृत्व गैर काङ्ग्रेसी -अर्थात्, नेपाली सर्न्दर्भमा वामपन्थी) दलले गर ेको भए तिनले हाम्रँे भूर ाजनीतिक संवेदनशीलताका माझ कस्तो अन्तर्र ाष्ट्रिय र्समर्थन पाउने थिए भनेर ठम्याउन त्यति गाह्रँे पर्दैन । तत्कालीन सर कार हरूलाई पनि आन्दोलनको प्रतिकार गर्न निकै सजिलो हुन्थ्यो होला ।
तर , हाम्रँसामु कटु यथार्थ के पनि हो भने ०१७ र ०५९ सालका र ाजनीतिक दर्ुघटनाका कार क पनि काङ्ग्रेस नै बन्यो । दर बार लाई जति सर ापे पनि घटनाक्रमको विकासलाई लुकाउन सकिन्न । सत्तँबाहिर र ह“दा कैयौ“ प्रतिकूलतामाझ प्रजातन्त्रप्रति त्यसर ी समर्पित र हन सक्ने दलले सर कार मा छ“दा त्यसको संर क्षण गर्न नसक्नुमा प्रतिस्पर्धीहरूस“ग उसले बढाएको दूर ीका साथै आन्तरि क कलह जिम्मेवार रहेका छन् ।
विचार एउटा शाश्वत आदर्शभन्दा पनि सङ् गठनलाई साकार स्वरूप दिने विविध स्वार्थ समूहहरू समायोजन गर्ने अस्त्र बनेको दलमा र्सतर्कता र सावधानीको निर न्तर ता झनै महत्त्वपर्ूण्ा हुनुपर्ने हो । तर , प्रजातन्त्र आगमनलाई नै अन्तिम सफलता मान्ने काङ्ग्रेसी धृष्टताको मूल्य सार ा मुलुकले तिर्दै आएको हाम्रँे इतिहास छ ।
संविधानसभा निर्वाचनमा काङ्ग्रेसले दोस्रो स्थान पाउ“दा त्यसलाई र्'र्समनाक' भन्न नेताहरूले छोड्न सकेका छैनन् । त्यसो त वामपन्थी मत दर्ुइ ठूला दलमा विभाजित हु“दा पनि फाइदा लिन नसकेको पीडा असह्य हुने नै भयो । प्रधानमन्त्रीको पद र प्रमुख मन्त्रालयहरू आफूस“गै हु“दा पनि माओवादीहरूले त्यसर ी जित्न सक्नुले काङ्ग्रेसीहरूलाई अझ पोलेको हुनर्ुपर्दछ
सङ्गठनमा मौलाएको चर म नातावाद र कृपावाद, भ्रष्टाचार मा आर ोपित नेताहरूलाई पार्टर्ीी दिएको प्रश्रय एवम् नेताहरूको सत्तामा पुगेपछि प्रजातान्त्रिक मूल्य र मान्यता बिर्सने प्रवृत्तिजस्ता विषयहरू स्वयम् काङ्ग्रेसीहरूले औ“ल्याउने गर ेको धेर ै भइसक्यो । तर , यसपालि त दल परि चयको सङ्कटमै पर्यो ।
प्रधानमन्त्री गिरि जाप्रसाद कोइर ालाले शान्तिप्रक्रियालाई जसर ी भए पनि कायम र ाख्ने नाममा आफ्नै दलका असहमतिहरू बेवास्ता गर्दै माओवादीका र्सत एकपछि अर्को मान्दै गए । उता कोइर ाला परि वार भित्र उत्तर ाधिकार ी हुने होडमा कसैले दर बार त कसैले माओवादीलाई समाउन पुगे । पार्टर्ीीकीकर ण भएपछि पनि दुवै खेमाका नेताहरूले भावनात्मक एकता भइनसकेको र्सार्वजनिक घोषणा गर्न छाडेनन् ।
बीपी कोइर ालाको र ाष्ट्रिय मेलमिलाप नीतिको पुनःव्याख्या गर्ने क्रममा काङ्ग्रेसीहरूले कृष्णप्रसाद भट्टरर् ाई र तार ानाथ र ानाभाटजस्ता नेताहरूलाई प्रतिगामीको बिल्ला भिर ाइदिए । अहिले आएर र ाजावादीको कम्तीमा १० प्रतिशत मत हुनैपथ्र्यो र त्यो सबै कुनै षड्यन्त्रका आधार मा माओवादीलाई गएको गुनासो गर ेर मात्र के गर्ने -
संविधानसभा, गणतन्त्र, समावेशी र ाज्य संर चनाजस्ता नार ा माओवादीकै थियो । र ाजतन्त्रस“ग नाता तोडे पनि काङ् ग्रेसले धर्म, पर म्पर ा र संस्कृतिका सकार ात्मक सन्देशलाई अघि बढाउन सक्ने थियो । यथास्िथतिवादलाई समूल तिर स्कार गर्न काङ्ग्रेसलाई उसको चरि त्र र व्यवहार ले नै दि“दैन थियो । क्रान्तिकार ी बन्ने होडमा ऊ पछाडि पर्नु नै थियो र पर्यो पनि ।
एक जुगमा एकपल्ट मात्र आउने भनिएको दिनले पनि विगतका संसदीय निर्वाचनहरूभन्दा त्यस्तो उल्लेख्य सङ्ख्यामा मतदाता आकर्षा गर्न सकेन । डर -त्रासका भर मा माओवादीहरूले चुनाव जिते भनेर टाउको ठटाएर के गर्ने - समग्र चुनाव अभियानलाई स्वदेशी र विदेशी अनुगमनकर्ताका आ“खैमुनि आफू अनुकूल बनाउ“दा काङ् ग्रेस बेखबर र हनुको जिम्मा माओवादीहरूले लिने कुर ै भएन ।
जनादेशको कदर गर्दै मूलधार मा अग्रस्थान बनाउन सफल पर्ूवव्रि्रोहीलाई सर कार बनाउन दिनुपर्ने ठहर नितान्त प्रजातान्त्रिक नै हो । तर , चुनावपछि पनि वचन र कर्मले प्रतिस्पर्धामूलक बहुदलीय पद्धत्रि्रति पर्ूण्ा निष्ठा देखाउन नसकेको दलका हातमा सत्तँको बागडोर सुम्पन्न तत्पर नहुनुलाई अप्रजातान्त्रिक भनिहाल्न पनि सजिलो छैन । अन्य कुनै दलले यसर ी जनमतद्वार ा आफूभन्दा ठूलो सावित भएको सङ्गठनलाई सत्तँ हस्तान्तर ण गर्न आनाकानी गर ेको भए अन्तर्र ाष्ट्रिय समुदायको धर्ैय पहिल्यै टुटिसक्ने थियो ।
काङ्ग्रेसको पर ाजयका कार णहरू जेजस्ता भए पनि त्यो घातकचाहि“ पक्कै होइन । प्रजातन्त्रको प्रभामण्डल ऊस“गै सुर क्षित छ । कम्तीमा एमालेले नाम र झन्डा नफेर ेसम्म यो र ाजनीतिक पु“जीमा काङ्ग्रेसी एकाधिकार र हिर हनेछ । यसमा काङ्ग्रेसले गौर व मान्न सक्छ भने घमण्ड गर्न पनि सक्छ ।
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Implications of a hung CA
By DR BIPIN ADHIKARI
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=146272
The Kathmandu Post, May 8, 2008
The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007, which pledged a Constituent Assembly (CA) to the people, has done so without enumerating its constituent powers whatsoever.
All that this constitution provides for is a guarantee of the basic rights of the Nepali people to participate in a free and impartial election to the CA and frame a constitution for themselves through this organ. The Interim Constitution does not guarantee that the sovereign house will have no limitations in its constituent powers or that it will not be constrained by the decisions of the interim legislature or the interim government on the basis of this constitution or by any executive agreement that it has signed with rebellious groups in the pre-election period.
As such, the guarantee of the basic rights of the Nepali people to frame a new constitution does not imply the unencumbered sovereign capacity of the CA to draft a new constitution of its choice without any limitations on its powers.
The assembly is intended to operate within two concrete a priori formulations. Article 159 declares that (a) Nepal shall be a federal state and (b) a country with a democratic republican setup. The first formulation concerns sharing of sovereign powers between political units, which do not exist till now in the Nepali consciousness, and the second concerns dispensing with the monarchy, which allegedly lost its credibility in the fight against the Maoists.
As to these preconditions, while the nature of the federal state is something still to be worked on, Article 159 requires that the transition to a republic be made at the first meeting of the CA. To give effect to this formulation, the parties in the alliance even dropped the clause requiring a simple parliamentary majority by the third amendment to the Constitution.
It is just by chance that the operation of this provision is tied to Article 75 which ensures that all questions submitted for a decision to the CA, except as otherwise provided in Part 7 of the constitution, must be decided by a majority vote of the members present and voting. Accordingly, the alleged first meeting must also pass a motion to this effect by a working majority in the House in order to abolish the monarchy.
Similarly, the constitutional declaration that Nepal shall be a federal state comes ahead of its due date. Ordinarily, it is the elected delegates of the CA, who have the responsibility of deciding what form of government is best for Nepal, who should make the decision. With this clause inserted into the constitution, the debate has now been carefully shifted to the issue of autonomy, which had not been the demand of the natives of this country so far.
This shows the enormity of the contradictions that the CA finds itself in. A genuine CA by definition can only be convoked under conditions of full democratic liberties of the delegates, permitting the participation of all the parties concerned, and without any external or internal limitations on its constitution making powers.
A CA is not a legislature that is supposed to be governed under express or implied limitations on its constituent powers. It is a self-sufficient source of power from which all specifics of a state are to be derived. As a corollary, it should be able to exert paramount control over the constitution while making the frame of the government and its administration. While the Interim Constitution might have given birth to the CA in the normal course of political development, the assembly can chart out its future ways without any guidance from the parent document and forge ahead with its own terms and conditions. Otherwise, there is no difference between a normal legislature and a CA intending to give a fresh start.
However, the faulty Interim Constitution has outsmarted its architects in two very surprising ways. First, as far as the general rule of the constitution is concerned, the members of the CA must vote on each and every article of the draft constitution in order to pass it; and failing unanimous passage of the motion, at least two-thirds of the total members of the CA must give it a unanimous exit to turn it into the new constitution.
So, even if the first meeting of the assembly, for example, were to abolish the monarchy and establish a republican state by a simple majority, the move cannot in anyway pre-empt the power of the CA members to reintroduce a new motion restoring the monarchy in due time and pass it by a two-thirds majority. There is nothing in the constitution which can restrain this motion; and as long as there are people in the House to table such a motion and to support it by a required strength, the monarch is here to stay. This means that, contrary to popular belief, the king's fate will remain undecided until the new constitution is promulgated. Same with the declaration of a federal state.
Secondly, the faulty system of proportional representation that the architects of the Interim Constitution introduced with little knowledge of the ensuing structure has already generated a mixed political lot in the assembly. As no party has an outright majority, what we have is a hung CA, and there are many parties in the House which do not share the political platform of the Seven-Party Alliance (which had monopolized the process of drafting the Interim Constitution). The House is compelled to work with these uneasy political partners.
As the constitution does not provide for the dissolution of the assembly on any ground, except when the objective has been accomplished, a hung assembly is bound to work out either a coalition government or a minority government with the support of these backbenchers. The requirement of a two-thirds majority in the constitution making process will force the ruling elite to redefine issues like federalism and monarchy in the overall context of the state's restructuring. The smaller parties in power will make a lot of difference when major constitutional policies are sorted out in the House.
There are some who have already started an exercise (in futility) to help produce a national government eliminating the prospect of any opposition in the constitution making process. The Seven-Party Alliance is almost an exercise of this type, which has already served its purpose. But it is inconceivable that it can continue any longer in the new scenario. In any case, such a national government has a very poor reputation historically. Whether it is the national government of GP Koirala (2006-08) or of British Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain (which held office from 1931 until 1940), all have been a liability to the nation. Fortunately, a loyal opposition is going to be prominent in Nepal for the next two years. This opposition is going to make sure that the nation is in safe hands.
Additionally, a coalition government led by a party which has lost its credibility before the majority of the people can be equally destructive to the cause of the nation. Nepal is surely familiar with the hung parliament after 1995. It is perhaps not out of place to mention that even in the 1974 general election in the UK, sitting Prime Minister Edward Heath had refused to resign at first, attempting to build a coalition government despite winning fewer seats than the then opposition Labour Party. So if Prime Minister Koirala is still trying to hang on to his post, it should come as no surprise. But the House itself is going to take offence against such ambitions.
The structural limits on the power of the CA and unauthorized normative or inspirational impositions are going to grow fainter due to the operation of the hung CA. This is good for the country.
lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com
Posted on: 2008-05-07 20:01:25 (Server Time)
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=146272
The Kathmandu Post, May 8, 2008
The Interim Constitution of Nepal 2007, which pledged a Constituent Assembly (CA) to the people, has done so without enumerating its constituent powers whatsoever.
All that this constitution provides for is a guarantee of the basic rights of the Nepali people to participate in a free and impartial election to the CA and frame a constitution for themselves through this organ. The Interim Constitution does not guarantee that the sovereign house will have no limitations in its constituent powers or that it will not be constrained by the decisions of the interim legislature or the interim government on the basis of this constitution or by any executive agreement that it has signed with rebellious groups in the pre-election period.
As such, the guarantee of the basic rights of the Nepali people to frame a new constitution does not imply the unencumbered sovereign capacity of the CA to draft a new constitution of its choice without any limitations on its powers.
The assembly is intended to operate within two concrete a priori formulations. Article 159 declares that (a) Nepal shall be a federal state and (b) a country with a democratic republican setup. The first formulation concerns sharing of sovereign powers between political units, which do not exist till now in the Nepali consciousness, and the second concerns dispensing with the monarchy, which allegedly lost its credibility in the fight against the Maoists.
As to these preconditions, while the nature of the federal state is something still to be worked on, Article 159 requires that the transition to a republic be made at the first meeting of the CA. To give effect to this formulation, the parties in the alliance even dropped the clause requiring a simple parliamentary majority by the third amendment to the Constitution.
It is just by chance that the operation of this provision is tied to Article 75 which ensures that all questions submitted for a decision to the CA, except as otherwise provided in Part 7 of the constitution, must be decided by a majority vote of the members present and voting. Accordingly, the alleged first meeting must also pass a motion to this effect by a working majority in the House in order to abolish the monarchy.
Similarly, the constitutional declaration that Nepal shall be a federal state comes ahead of its due date. Ordinarily, it is the elected delegates of the CA, who have the responsibility of deciding what form of government is best for Nepal, who should make the decision. With this clause inserted into the constitution, the debate has now been carefully shifted to the issue of autonomy, which had not been the demand of the natives of this country so far.
This shows the enormity of the contradictions that the CA finds itself in. A genuine CA by definition can only be convoked under conditions of full democratic liberties of the delegates, permitting the participation of all the parties concerned, and without any external or internal limitations on its constitution making powers.
A CA is not a legislature that is supposed to be governed under express or implied limitations on its constituent powers. It is a self-sufficient source of power from which all specifics of a state are to be derived. As a corollary, it should be able to exert paramount control over the constitution while making the frame of the government and its administration. While the Interim Constitution might have given birth to the CA in the normal course of political development, the assembly can chart out its future ways without any guidance from the parent document and forge ahead with its own terms and conditions. Otherwise, there is no difference between a normal legislature and a CA intending to give a fresh start.
However, the faulty Interim Constitution has outsmarted its architects in two very surprising ways. First, as far as the general rule of the constitution is concerned, the members of the CA must vote on each and every article of the draft constitution in order to pass it; and failing unanimous passage of the motion, at least two-thirds of the total members of the CA must give it a unanimous exit to turn it into the new constitution.
So, even if the first meeting of the assembly, for example, were to abolish the monarchy and establish a republican state by a simple majority, the move cannot in anyway pre-empt the power of the CA members to reintroduce a new motion restoring the monarchy in due time and pass it by a two-thirds majority. There is nothing in the constitution which can restrain this motion; and as long as there are people in the House to table such a motion and to support it by a required strength, the monarch is here to stay. This means that, contrary to popular belief, the king's fate will remain undecided until the new constitution is promulgated. Same with the declaration of a federal state.
Secondly, the faulty system of proportional representation that the architects of the Interim Constitution introduced with little knowledge of the ensuing structure has already generated a mixed political lot in the assembly. As no party has an outright majority, what we have is a hung CA, and there are many parties in the House which do not share the political platform of the Seven-Party Alliance (which had monopolized the process of drafting the Interim Constitution). The House is compelled to work with these uneasy political partners.
As the constitution does not provide for the dissolution of the assembly on any ground, except when the objective has been accomplished, a hung assembly is bound to work out either a coalition government or a minority government with the support of these backbenchers. The requirement of a two-thirds majority in the constitution making process will force the ruling elite to redefine issues like federalism and monarchy in the overall context of the state's restructuring. The smaller parties in power will make a lot of difference when major constitutional policies are sorted out in the House.
There are some who have already started an exercise (in futility) to help produce a national government eliminating the prospect of any opposition in the constitution making process. The Seven-Party Alliance is almost an exercise of this type, which has already served its purpose. But it is inconceivable that it can continue any longer in the new scenario. In any case, such a national government has a very poor reputation historically. Whether it is the national government of GP Koirala (2006-08) or of British Prime Ministers Ramsay MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain (which held office from 1931 until 1940), all have been a liability to the nation. Fortunately, a loyal opposition is going to be prominent in Nepal for the next two years. This opposition is going to make sure that the nation is in safe hands.
Additionally, a coalition government led by a party which has lost its credibility before the majority of the people can be equally destructive to the cause of the nation. Nepal is surely familiar with the hung parliament after 1995. It is perhaps not out of place to mention that even in the 1974 general election in the UK, sitting Prime Minister Edward Heath had refused to resign at first, attempting to build a coalition government despite winning fewer seats than the then opposition Labour Party. So if Prime Minister Koirala is still trying to hang on to his post, it should come as no surprise. But the House itself is going to take offence against such ambitions.
The structural limits on the power of the CA and unauthorized normative or inspirational impositions are going to grow fainter due to the operation of the hung CA. This is good for the country.
lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com
Posted on: 2008-05-07 20:01:25 (Server Time)
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Inexplicable Results
http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/2008/englishweekly/spotlight/apr/apr18/coverstory.php
VOL. 27, NO. 31, April 18, 2008 (Baishakh 06 2065 B.S.)
Wining majority from out of 240 seats allotted for first-past -post system, the CPN-Maoist, which is yet to receive global recognition as a mainstream party, has turned Nepal, a back water of world's largest democratic country, into a red field. Although the counting of votes for another 335 seats allotted for the proportional representative system is yet to complete, it is almost certain that CPN-Maoist is going to emerge as the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly Elections 2008. The result is inexplicable but CPN-Maoist, a party which fought a decade long violent insurgency – got the mandate in an election which international observers described as free and fair. In a country where a minority government of CPN-UML collapsed in nine months, how long another government led by a radical Maoist will be watched with great interest
By KESHAB POUDEL
"The results of the present election were unexpected. We had not imagined that our party will win such a large number of seats," said CPN-Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai to The Kathmandu Post.
"This result surprised us as our candidates have suffered badly," said CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal, who resigned just a few days back following the election results.
"How the Maoists won the election in so many places is surprising," said Nepali Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba, after his victory in two constituencies in far western districts.
Prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala, who was congratulated by international observers including former American president Jimmy Carter, too, is shocked by the results. "I didn't imagine that our party will be rooted out in such a manner. Just wait for few more days before deciding to quit the government," prime minister Koirala told his colleagues who had gone to meet him at his residence in Baluwatar on Monday.
Not only the top leaders, common people in the streets, too, are very surprised to see the outcome. This is the reason there is no jubilation and happiness despite the wave of victory in favor of the Maoists and there is no spontaneous support and jubilant mass of the people. The only persons participating in the election rallies are the party cadres.
Constitutional Provisions
With the elections to the Constituent Assembly accomplished, the focus of political debate in Nepal has at once shifted from the electoral issues to the issues involving formation of a new government according to the fresh mandate.
“But in the absence of a clear direction under the Constitution, which suffers from many deliberate lacunas and caveats, a very constitutional process is about to be handled in a very controversial way. It is giving the impression that even after housing 601 assemblymen, freshly elected and nominated, the culture of ad hocism does not intend to disappear,” said Dr Bipin Adhikari, lawyer and constitutional analyst.
According to Article 38(1) of the Interim Constitution, the Prime Minister is to be appointed on the basis of political consensus. “There is no provision in the Constitution as to who should initiate the process; how it should be done; and whether there are standards of conduct to get it done. Political consensus is the rule even if there is a majority party in the House. Although the Council of Ministers is to be formed under the Prime Minister's chairmanship, the Council itself is to be the product of political consensus. In this jurisprudence of consensus, the difference between those who have more popular support, and those who have barely survived, is not constitutionally recognized. So, essentially, a majority Prime Minister has no majoritarian power, even if that means disregard to the voters, and the fresh mandate the voters have conferred on the Prime Minister,” said Dr. Adhikari.
The Constitution clearly states that if consensus cannot be reached as above, the Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Even if this provision is rationalised as a stimulant towards consensual process of constitution making, it does not stand out as an acceptable rule of law.
According to Dr. Adhikari, a unicameral house of 601 person is a very loud arrangement. It is impracticable also because the interim Constitution has not provided any mini-legislature within the Constituent Assembly to work on legislative and policy issues so that these jobs are done professionally, and through a deliberative process. It is too much for all 601 assembly men to work in the Constituent Assembly as legislators, and in a meaningful way.
The present result of first-past-post system is just one of the forms decided to elect the members for Constituent Assembly as there is just 240 seats allotted under this system.
According to article 63 of the Interim Constitution, the constituent assembly consists of 601 members. Under the proportional representation system there will be 335 members, 240 under the first-past-post system and 26 are nominated on the recommendation of the cabinet.
For the purpose of this constitution "political consensus" means the political consensus reached between the seven political parties- Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (UML), Janmoracha Nepal, Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandadevi), Nepal Majdur Kishan Party, Samyukta Janmorcha and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
After 1995 when CPN-UML formed a government as a single largest party, this is first time in the history of Nepal when communist party with radical ideology has won such a large seats in the election held under the observation of more than one thousand observers led by former US president Jimmy Carter and United Nations Mission to Nepal.
Despite monitoring by international observers, the election was full of violence and threats. From daughter of prime minister Koirala, Sujata Koirala to many other NC leaders who lost the elections lost due to intimidation and threat.
Even many goons came from across the border to terrorize the voters of Sujata Koirala in her constituency 3 of Sunsari. One of Sujata's workers died in cross firing in the bordering polling booth.
"Don't ask me about election. I cried for help from all sides. I did not receive any support. EC was one sided and administration was not concerned about mass rigging," said Koirala.
Though Nepali voters are hailed as a peaceful and conscious voters, Nepalese have tendencies to back one extreme to another without knowing its fall out. When King dissolved the elected parliament in 2002, people welcomed it by lighting the lamps. In similar way, people welcomed the move of February 1,2006 action of the King. They welcomed the interim government led by Koirala and all its actions without any resentment. In the election, they voted radical communist outfit to power without knowing its implications on their life like in CPN-UML in 1992 elections.
Reasons Behind Election Debacle
Several reasons work for the debacle of two parties. One of the main reasons of debacle of Nepali Congress and CPN-UML is their long negative list. Those who had negative views against those two parties voted Maoists as a next choice.
The second important reason was that voters decided to give a chance to fresh players. At a time when there is no plus point in favor of CPN-UML and Nepali Congress –which followed the Maoist line - people saw the Maoists as better alternative.
Nepali Congress has lost a big monarchist vote bank and people disliked CPN-UML because of its feeble stands on political issues. CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal- who was also a member of constitution drafting committee in 1990, proved to be inconsistent.
Along with others, CPN-UML also gave up its stand on nationalism. CPN-UML was completely silent over the citizenship Act, water resources treaty and other such sentimental issues. Except anti-monarchy posturing, nothing was left to Nepali Congress and CPN-UML to compete with Maoists. However, the Maoists established itself as an anti-monarchical force long before them.
At the last minute, Maoist even issued statement urging Royalist to vote for them.
People have seen Nepali Congress and CPN-UML's role in the government turn by turn. However, among three players, Maoists were untested. This also prompted voters to vote for Maoists.
Other major reason for Maoist victory is deep rooted fear psychology. Rural people decided not to take the risk of voting other parties. When there was a wide spread rumor in the rural areas about Maoist threat and intimidation, no one could dare to risk their life by not voting the Maoists.
Even in his last leg of political campaign, CPN-Maoist leader Prachanda urged his cadres to behave as Gandhiji for seven days. That means they would continue to use drastic methods after the election.
"One of the main reasons behind our devastation is our failure to convince the rural voters that they will be safe after the election for CA," said senior CPN-UML leader Pradeep Nepal.
In an indication of how the Maoists would behave in coming days, on Monday (April 14) Maoists attacked finance minister Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat and his convoy when he was on his way home after winning election in Nuwakot
Because of guarantee of security in urban areas and presence of huge international observers, the population in urban areas did not feel any threat. However, the situation in rural Nepal was very difficult. By winning from a constituency in Rautahat district, a wanted man Babban Singh showed how threat works in rural areas.
The role of unseen power was the most significant to notice. "Maoists have been used for first phase of destabilization in Nepal from 1996-2007 by this unseen power. Now, Maoists can be used for second phase of operation in Nepal to have upper hand in Nepal security," said a political analyst.
International Response
International response to the Maoist victory is positive now. India which has backed Maoists and seven party alliance since November 2006 permitting them to ink the 12 point agreement in New Delhi has already expressed satisfaction. From Indian point of view, this is a great success as they have covertly backed parties and Maoist up to the present point.
Indian ambassador to Nepal Shiv Shanker Mukherjee has already met Maoist leader Prachanda and congratulated him for the success of his party in the election. " India has taken the Maoist victory in constituent assembly elections in Nepal as a positive development," said Indian foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee. "We support the Maoist victory in the April 10 Constituent Assembly election in Nepal and view it as a positive development. The Maoists have successfully taken part in the democratic process. It will now be easier to India to work with the democratically elected government of Nepal."
The United States - which still tags Maoists in its terrorist watch list – has mumbled few words of congratulations for conducting election. For Europeans, they were in constant touch with the Maoist leadership.
Nepal's other neighbor China also expressed satisfaction over the way the constituent assembly election was held.
Lessons For Nepali Congress
Nepali Congress legendary leader B.P. Koirala often said that Nepali Congress has no utility if it gives up the policy of national reconciliation. "If we give up national reconciliation, which is based on nationalism and democracy, our role will diminish. We must understand that we will lose our identity in case we give up national reconciliation," said Koirala in his book King, Nationalism and Politics (Raja, Rastriyata and Rajniti).
"National unity cannot be achieved in vacuum. Which means that the people factor and the monarchy must combine, that there must be total understanding between these two elements of national life. The alternative to this is ruin. That is what I feel and, therefore, I do not contemplate any alternative to this," said B.P. Koirala in his interview to Bhola Chatterji, an Indian journalist in 1979.
However, joining hands with extremists and following their ideology, Nepali Congress has badly suffered in the election. Although he is regarded as a hero by international community, prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala is completely a loser at his end of political carrier. He pushed Nepali Congress from largest party with majority to nowhere.
Challenges For Newly Elected body
The greatest challenge for the elected representatives of the people is to realize their responsibility as trustee of the people – the sovereign. “In no way, this elected body would be under a bondage to follow the diktat of the dubious power centers of the party or elsewhere. Though it was an avoidable game of populism, the CA is a reality. It will have to take up every issue in the constitution making in accordance with the fresh mandate of the people. It is under no compulsion to endorse the ruling or decisions of the previous nominated house of legislators," said the analyst. “The greatest challenge to Nepal at present is a question of survival as a truly independent, democratic and prosperous nation.”
"We will bring peace, stability and prosperity to the people. We will work to protect our independence and sovereignty," said Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda in his victory rally.
While taking about these consensus issues, national unity is the first and foremost task ahead.
"It requires a caliber in the leadership, a long term vision and accommodative attitude. People of Nepal have always been supportive of the political ideals of broadest unity between different sections of the people. B.P. Koirala is all the time remembered by different ideological groups of Nepal mainly because of his politics of reconciliation based upon a long term vision," said the political analyst.
Issue of Monarchy
Although article 159(2) of the interim constitution declares that the implementation of transition to republic shall be made at the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, the parties are yet to make new decision on it. The newly elected body has to discuss over the utility of institution of monarchy in its first session. Since time immemorial, it has been the most significant continuity from the past. The newly elected body has to balance the pros and cons of its utility and legislate about its fate.
"This legislative body is not going to be a rubber stamp of any past decision. As it represents the sovereignty of the people with its fresh mandate, it cannot remain under duress from the seen and unseen centers of powers or irrational decisions of the past," said the analyst. "As it is going to consider things in a long term perspective, it has to evaluate the role of traditional institution maintaining traditional faith of the people as a stabling factor."
The election results showed that it was neither about the king against the people or upper cast Vs lower cast or Madhes Vs Pahad. Many members who actively took part in King's direct rule have won the election and some of them are contesting the election through proportional representation. Former regional administrator under King's direct rule Mrigendra Kumar Singh Yadav and former assistant minister under his direct rule Govinda Chaudhari won the election as candidates of Terai Madhesh Loktantrick Party and Bijaya Kumar Gachhedar - who was reportedly soft about King's direct rule - also secured victory from two constituencies in the election as a candidate of MJF.
Many people of hilly origin won seats from Madhesh contesting as candidates of major parties Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN-Maoist. They won seats in all 22 districts of plain, which Madhesi parties wanted as a separate federal state. In some districts like Bardiya, Kailali, Kanchapur, Jhapa, andUdayapur, these parties swept the polls.
Similarly, many republicans including CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, Home minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Dr. Shekhar Koirala, Mahesh Acharya also lost the elections. Republican leader Narahari Acharya won the election but at the cost of Nepali Congress which was virtually uprooted in many places.
The Pandora's Box of Constituent Assembly is now reality for Nepal and the country needs a sobriety in the decision making process on the part of the legislators as well as the political parties.
VOL. 27, NO. 31, April 18, 2008 (Baishakh 06 2065 B.S.)
Wining majority from out of 240 seats allotted for first-past -post system, the CPN-Maoist, which is yet to receive global recognition as a mainstream party, has turned Nepal, a back water of world's largest democratic country, into a red field. Although the counting of votes for another 335 seats allotted for the proportional representative system is yet to complete, it is almost certain that CPN-Maoist is going to emerge as the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly Elections 2008. The result is inexplicable but CPN-Maoist, a party which fought a decade long violent insurgency – got the mandate in an election which international observers described as free and fair. In a country where a minority government of CPN-UML collapsed in nine months, how long another government led by a radical Maoist will be watched with great interest
By KESHAB POUDEL
"The results of the present election were unexpected. We had not imagined that our party will win such a large number of seats," said CPN-Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai to The Kathmandu Post.
"This result surprised us as our candidates have suffered badly," said CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal, who resigned just a few days back following the election results.
"How the Maoists won the election in so many places is surprising," said Nepali Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba, after his victory in two constituencies in far western districts.
Prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala, who was congratulated by international observers including former American president Jimmy Carter, too, is shocked by the results. "I didn't imagine that our party will be rooted out in such a manner. Just wait for few more days before deciding to quit the government," prime minister Koirala told his colleagues who had gone to meet him at his residence in Baluwatar on Monday.
Not only the top leaders, common people in the streets, too, are very surprised to see the outcome. This is the reason there is no jubilation and happiness despite the wave of victory in favor of the Maoists and there is no spontaneous support and jubilant mass of the people. The only persons participating in the election rallies are the party cadres.
Constitutional Provisions
With the elections to the Constituent Assembly accomplished, the focus of political debate in Nepal has at once shifted from the electoral issues to the issues involving formation of a new government according to the fresh mandate.
“But in the absence of a clear direction under the Constitution, which suffers from many deliberate lacunas and caveats, a very constitutional process is about to be handled in a very controversial way. It is giving the impression that even after housing 601 assemblymen, freshly elected and nominated, the culture of ad hocism does not intend to disappear,” said Dr Bipin Adhikari, lawyer and constitutional analyst.
According to Article 38(1) of the Interim Constitution, the Prime Minister is to be appointed on the basis of political consensus. “There is no provision in the Constitution as to who should initiate the process; how it should be done; and whether there are standards of conduct to get it done. Political consensus is the rule even if there is a majority party in the House. Although the Council of Ministers is to be formed under the Prime Minister's chairmanship, the Council itself is to be the product of political consensus. In this jurisprudence of consensus, the difference between those who have more popular support, and those who have barely survived, is not constitutionally recognized. So, essentially, a majority Prime Minister has no majoritarian power, even if that means disregard to the voters, and the fresh mandate the voters have conferred on the Prime Minister,” said Dr. Adhikari.
The Constitution clearly states that if consensus cannot be reached as above, the Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Even if this provision is rationalised as a stimulant towards consensual process of constitution making, it does not stand out as an acceptable rule of law.
According to Dr. Adhikari, a unicameral house of 601 person is a very loud arrangement. It is impracticable also because the interim Constitution has not provided any mini-legislature within the Constituent Assembly to work on legislative and policy issues so that these jobs are done professionally, and through a deliberative process. It is too much for all 601 assembly men to work in the Constituent Assembly as legislators, and in a meaningful way.
The present result of first-past-post system is just one of the forms decided to elect the members for Constituent Assembly as there is just 240 seats allotted under this system.
According to article 63 of the Interim Constitution, the constituent assembly consists of 601 members. Under the proportional representation system there will be 335 members, 240 under the first-past-post system and 26 are nominated on the recommendation of the cabinet.
For the purpose of this constitution "political consensus" means the political consensus reached between the seven political parties- Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (UML), Janmoracha Nepal, Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandadevi), Nepal Majdur Kishan Party, Samyukta Janmorcha and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
After 1995 when CPN-UML formed a government as a single largest party, this is first time in the history of Nepal when communist party with radical ideology has won such a large seats in the election held under the observation of more than one thousand observers led by former US president Jimmy Carter and United Nations Mission to Nepal.
Despite monitoring by international observers, the election was full of violence and threats. From daughter of prime minister Koirala, Sujata Koirala to many other NC leaders who lost the elections lost due to intimidation and threat.
Even many goons came from across the border to terrorize the voters of Sujata Koirala in her constituency 3 of Sunsari. One of Sujata's workers died in cross firing in the bordering polling booth.
"Don't ask me about election. I cried for help from all sides. I did not receive any support. EC was one sided and administration was not concerned about mass rigging," said Koirala.
Though Nepali voters are hailed as a peaceful and conscious voters, Nepalese have tendencies to back one extreme to another without knowing its fall out. When King dissolved the elected parliament in 2002, people welcomed it by lighting the lamps. In similar way, people welcomed the move of February 1,2006 action of the King. They welcomed the interim government led by Koirala and all its actions without any resentment. In the election, they voted radical communist outfit to power without knowing its implications on their life like in CPN-UML in 1992 elections.
Reasons Behind Election Debacle
Several reasons work for the debacle of two parties. One of the main reasons of debacle of Nepali Congress and CPN-UML is their long negative list. Those who had negative views against those two parties voted Maoists as a next choice.
The second important reason was that voters decided to give a chance to fresh players. At a time when there is no plus point in favor of CPN-UML and Nepali Congress –which followed the Maoist line - people saw the Maoists as better alternative.
Nepali Congress has lost a big monarchist vote bank and people disliked CPN-UML because of its feeble stands on political issues. CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal- who was also a member of constitution drafting committee in 1990, proved to be inconsistent.
Along with others, CPN-UML also gave up its stand on nationalism. CPN-UML was completely silent over the citizenship Act, water resources treaty and other such sentimental issues. Except anti-monarchy posturing, nothing was left to Nepali Congress and CPN-UML to compete with Maoists. However, the Maoists established itself as an anti-monarchical force long before them.
At the last minute, Maoist even issued statement urging Royalist to vote for them.
People have seen Nepali Congress and CPN-UML's role in the government turn by turn. However, among three players, Maoists were untested. This also prompted voters to vote for Maoists.
Other major reason for Maoist victory is deep rooted fear psychology. Rural people decided not to take the risk of voting other parties. When there was a wide spread rumor in the rural areas about Maoist threat and intimidation, no one could dare to risk their life by not voting the Maoists.
Even in his last leg of political campaign, CPN-Maoist leader Prachanda urged his cadres to behave as Gandhiji for seven days. That means they would continue to use drastic methods after the election.
"One of the main reasons behind our devastation is our failure to convince the rural voters that they will be safe after the election for CA," said senior CPN-UML leader Pradeep Nepal.
In an indication of how the Maoists would behave in coming days, on Monday (April 14) Maoists attacked finance minister Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat and his convoy when he was on his way home after winning election in Nuwakot
Because of guarantee of security in urban areas and presence of huge international observers, the population in urban areas did not feel any threat. However, the situation in rural Nepal was very difficult. By winning from a constituency in Rautahat district, a wanted man Babban Singh showed how threat works in rural areas.
The role of unseen power was the most significant to notice. "Maoists have been used for first phase of destabilization in Nepal from 1996-2007 by this unseen power. Now, Maoists can be used for second phase of operation in Nepal to have upper hand in Nepal security," said a political analyst.
International Response
International response to the Maoist victory is positive now. India which has backed Maoists and seven party alliance since November 2006 permitting them to ink the 12 point agreement in New Delhi has already expressed satisfaction. From Indian point of view, this is a great success as they have covertly backed parties and Maoist up to the present point.
Indian ambassador to Nepal Shiv Shanker Mukherjee has already met Maoist leader Prachanda and congratulated him for the success of his party in the election. " India has taken the Maoist victory in constituent assembly elections in Nepal as a positive development," said Indian foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee. "We support the Maoist victory in the April 10 Constituent Assembly election in Nepal and view it as a positive development. The Maoists have successfully taken part in the democratic process. It will now be easier to India to work with the democratically elected government of Nepal."
The United States - which still tags Maoists in its terrorist watch list – has mumbled few words of congratulations for conducting election. For Europeans, they were in constant touch with the Maoist leadership.
Nepal's other neighbor China also expressed satisfaction over the way the constituent assembly election was held.
Lessons For Nepali Congress
Nepali Congress legendary leader B.P. Koirala often said that Nepali Congress has no utility if it gives up the policy of national reconciliation. "If we give up national reconciliation, which is based on nationalism and democracy, our role will diminish. We must understand that we will lose our identity in case we give up national reconciliation," said Koirala in his book King, Nationalism and Politics (Raja, Rastriyata and Rajniti).
"National unity cannot be achieved in vacuum. Which means that the people factor and the monarchy must combine, that there must be total understanding between these two elements of national life. The alternative to this is ruin. That is what I feel and, therefore, I do not contemplate any alternative to this," said B.P. Koirala in his interview to Bhola Chatterji, an Indian journalist in 1979.
However, joining hands with extremists and following their ideology, Nepali Congress has badly suffered in the election. Although he is regarded as a hero by international community, prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala is completely a loser at his end of political carrier. He pushed Nepali Congress from largest party with majority to nowhere.
Challenges For Newly Elected body
The greatest challenge for the elected representatives of the people is to realize their responsibility as trustee of the people – the sovereign. “In no way, this elected body would be under a bondage to follow the diktat of the dubious power centers of the party or elsewhere. Though it was an avoidable game of populism, the CA is a reality. It will have to take up every issue in the constitution making in accordance with the fresh mandate of the people. It is under no compulsion to endorse the ruling or decisions of the previous nominated house of legislators," said the analyst. “The greatest challenge to Nepal at present is a question of survival as a truly independent, democratic and prosperous nation.”
"We will bring peace, stability and prosperity to the people. We will work to protect our independence and sovereignty," said Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda in his victory rally.
While taking about these consensus issues, national unity is the first and foremost task ahead.
"It requires a caliber in the leadership, a long term vision and accommodative attitude. People of Nepal have always been supportive of the political ideals of broadest unity between different sections of the people. B.P. Koirala is all the time remembered by different ideological groups of Nepal mainly because of his politics of reconciliation based upon a long term vision," said the political analyst.
Issue of Monarchy
Although article 159(2) of the interim constitution declares that the implementation of transition to republic shall be made at the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, the parties are yet to make new decision on it. The newly elected body has to discuss over the utility of institution of monarchy in its first session. Since time immemorial, it has been the most significant continuity from the past. The newly elected body has to balance the pros and cons of its utility and legislate about its fate.
"This legislative body is not going to be a rubber stamp of any past decision. As it represents the sovereignty of the people with its fresh mandate, it cannot remain under duress from the seen and unseen centers of powers or irrational decisions of the past," said the analyst. "As it is going to consider things in a long term perspective, it has to evaluate the role of traditional institution maintaining traditional faith of the people as a stabling factor."
The election results showed that it was neither about the king against the people or upper cast Vs lower cast or Madhes Vs Pahad. Many members who actively took part in King's direct rule have won the election and some of them are contesting the election through proportional representation. Former regional administrator under King's direct rule Mrigendra Kumar Singh Yadav and former assistant minister under his direct rule Govinda Chaudhari won the election as candidates of Terai Madhesh Loktantrick Party and Bijaya Kumar Gachhedar - who was reportedly soft about King's direct rule - also secured victory from two constituencies in the election as a candidate of MJF.
Many people of hilly origin won seats from Madhesh contesting as candidates of major parties Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN-Maoist. They won seats in all 22 districts of plain, which Madhesi parties wanted as a separate federal state. In some districts like Bardiya, Kailali, Kanchapur, Jhapa, andUdayapur, these parties swept the polls.
Similarly, many republicans including CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, Home minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Dr. Shekhar Koirala, Mahesh Acharya also lost the elections. Republican leader Narahari Acharya won the election but at the cost of Nepali Congress which was virtually uprooted in many places.
The Pandora's Box of Constituent Assembly is now reality for Nepal and the country needs a sobriety in the decision making process on the part of the legislators as well as the political parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)