Nepal´s First President & his Unconstitutional Approach
Prakash Bom
May 05, 2009
What kind of Parliamentary system is this where the army chief who has disobeyed decisions of people elected civil government on several occasions can defy government order on his discharge by claiming that the president but not the Prime Minister who has constitutional power to lay him off from his duty?
Nepal Army chief Katawal´s disobedience and defiance to people elected civil government reflects the mindset of "feudal regime" that resists people´s aspiration for change. Therefore, President´s decision against the order of civil government not only has reinforced the military supremacy but also has created constitutional crisis, which has undermined the power of civil government over military.
The crisis obviously puts forward an argument for legislative scrutiny in order to render clarity regarding appointment and dismissal of the army chief(s) that in the most of the world´s successful democratic nations process through "Parliamentary Hearing." The arbitrary appointment political tradition of South Asian democratic nations dominated by ruling elites is the issue that ordinary people need to protest against for change to establish fair democratic appointment procedure.
For example, in the United States whenever the President as the commander in chief and head of the government requires to appoint an army chief general he or she has to nominate the candidate from with the army ranks for Congressional Hearing. The procedure for discharge of an army chief who defies government orders, such as in the case of Nepal Army chief Katawal, needs Congressional approval to reach out non-partisan national consensus.
The question is ´how the non-partisan national consensus can be sought without the Parliamentary Hearing procedures?´ The tradition of political parties of Nepal, which is always bound to call "All Party Conference" that it even renders consensus, is unbinding and a casual democratic practice. Simply, if there is a legitimate Parliament that represents people of all constituencies, should not be avoided for "Parliamentary Hearing" prior to taking decisions such as Nepal´s first president and Maoist-led government have.
Obviously, both president and Maoist-led civil government have ignored people´s Constituent Assembly for Hearing on Nepal Army chief´s defiance to civil government. It is clear that the political mindset of Nepali politicians of all parties and their legal experts on Parliamentary constitution is shortsighted and arbitrary because "Parliamentary Hearing" for them is too cumbersome and not their "piece of cake."
If, for example, Maoist-led civil government has put forward the issue for both discharge of army chief Katawal from his duty and nomination of the new chief for "Parliamentary Hearing" the current political wilderness could have been dealt with less turmoil, no matter how burdensome and time-consuming that could be. This means it is not clear to Nepali politicians that Democracy and prosperity is not instance solution, but a long evolutionary process that primitively feudal and traditionally irrational Nepali society has to go through, if it is discontent with its current state of socio-political and economic conditions.
Similarly, if the president has called for "Parliamentary Hearing" to Constituent Assembly instead of taking ´Unconstitutional decision´ by directing defiant army chief Katawal not to relinquish his duty as per the order of people elected civil government, the professional method to seek national consensus could have been institutionalized. Obviously, Democracy cannot be institutionalized just with the Parliament Building and the representatives, but with the methods of the Parliamentary procedures that the representatives can judiciously fulfill their duty.
Had president´s decision not been "Unconstitutional", which has by all means ignored the democratic method for "Parliamentary Hearing" the European Union and the United States would not have been concerned; United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon would not have been worried; and Civil Society of Nepal would not have taken the trouble to protest.
It is obvious that the decision that the president took is not solely his own but party affiliated, which is disgraceful to democratic process with the misuse of power of a president in the Parliamentary political system, who must observe with the decisions of people elected civil government. Therefore, now it is the responsibility of people to protest nationwide against president´s decision for not to let ever such decision become the trend to Nepal´s infant Democracy under the current political system.
The issue now has become the constitutional crisis, but no longer of army chief firing and hiring. People can no longer rely on major political parties for undoing the damage that has been caused by president´s unconstitutional decision. As a matter of fact, the president has overruled the democratic process for "Parliamentary Hearing" therefore undermined the rights of people´s elected representatives of Constituent Assembly.
It is necessary democratic process for all political parties to disrupt the Parliament until president withdraw his decision and call for "Parliamentary Hearing" on government´s decision to replace the army chief – both on discharge of current army chief Katawal and nomination of a new army chief. Unless president withdraws his decision with such an initiative Civil Society, political parties and people must protest from the Parliament to the street.
Nepali people can let no longer lead their Democracy with such a thoughtless and undemocratic mindset that overrules democratic procedures with the party-affiliated decision. The course must be reversed by calling "Parliamentary Hearing" on government decision for army chief replacement.
The path that major political parties have taken is misleading people with their own version of Parliamentary system of Democracy. The responsibility of the president of the Parliamentary political system is to redirect any undemocratic government courses with the democratic processes such as "Parliamentary Hearing" on national crisis but never to take a thoughtless and party-affiliated decision.
Nepal Army chief Katawal´s disobedience and defiance to people elected civil government reflects the mindset of "feudal regime" that resists people´s aspiration for change. Therefore, President´s decision against the order of civil government not only has reinforced the military supremacy but also has created constitutional crisis, which has undermined the power of civil government over military.
The crisis obviously puts forward an argument for legislative scrutiny in order to render clarity regarding appointment and dismissal of the army chief(s) that in the most of the world´s successful democratic nations process through "Parliamentary Hearing." The arbitrary appointment political tradition of South Asian democratic nations dominated by ruling elites is the issue that ordinary people need to protest against for change to establish fair democratic appointment procedure.
For example, in the United States whenever the President as the commander in chief and head of the government requires to appoint an army chief general he or she has to nominate the candidate from with the army ranks for Congressional Hearing. The procedure for discharge of an army chief who defies government orders, such as in the case of Nepal Army chief Katawal, needs Congressional approval to reach out non-partisan national consensus.
The question is ´how the non-partisan national consensus can be sought without the Parliamentary Hearing procedures?´ The tradition of political parties of Nepal, which is always bound to call "All Party Conference" that it even renders consensus, is unbinding and a casual democratic practice. Simply, if there is a legitimate Parliament that represents people of all constituencies, should not be avoided for "Parliamentary Hearing" prior to taking decisions such as Nepal´s first president and Maoist-led government have.
Obviously, both president and Maoist-led civil government have ignored people´s Constituent Assembly for Hearing on Nepal Army chief´s defiance to civil government. It is clear that the political mindset of Nepali politicians of all parties and their legal experts on Parliamentary constitution is shortsighted and arbitrary because "Parliamentary Hearing" for them is too cumbersome and not their "piece of cake."
If, for example, Maoist-led civil government has put forward the issue for both discharge of army chief Katawal from his duty and nomination of the new chief for "Parliamentary Hearing" the current political wilderness could have been dealt with less turmoil, no matter how burdensome and time-consuming that could be. This means it is not clear to Nepali politicians that Democracy and prosperity is not instance solution, but a long evolutionary process that primitively feudal and traditionally irrational Nepali society has to go through, if it is discontent with its current state of socio-political and economic conditions.
Similarly, if the president has called for "Parliamentary Hearing" to Constituent Assembly instead of taking ´Unconstitutional decision´ by directing defiant army chief Katawal not to relinquish his duty as per the order of people elected civil government, the professional method to seek national consensus could have been institutionalized. Obviously, Democracy cannot be institutionalized just with the Parliament Building and the representatives, but with the methods of the Parliamentary procedures that the representatives can judiciously fulfill their duty.
Had president´s decision not been "Unconstitutional", which has by all means ignored the democratic method for "Parliamentary Hearing" the European Union and the United States would not have been concerned; United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon would not have been worried; and Civil Society of Nepal would not have taken the trouble to protest.
It is obvious that the decision that the president took is not solely his own but party affiliated, which is disgraceful to democratic process with the misuse of power of a president in the Parliamentary political system, who must observe with the decisions of people elected civil government. Therefore, now it is the responsibility of people to protest nationwide against president´s decision for not to let ever such decision become the trend to Nepal´s infant Democracy under the current political system.
The issue now has become the constitutional crisis, but no longer of army chief firing and hiring. People can no longer rely on major political parties for undoing the damage that has been caused by president´s unconstitutional decision. As a matter of fact, the president has overruled the democratic process for "Parliamentary Hearing" therefore undermined the rights of people´s elected representatives of Constituent Assembly.
It is necessary democratic process for all political parties to disrupt the Parliament until president withdraw his decision and call for "Parliamentary Hearing" on government´s decision to replace the army chief – both on discharge of current army chief Katawal and nomination of a new army chief. Unless president withdraws his decision with such an initiative Civil Society, political parties and people must protest from the Parliament to the street.
Nepali people can let no longer lead their Democracy with such a thoughtless and undemocratic mindset that overrules democratic procedures with the party-affiliated decision. The course must be reversed by calling "Parliamentary Hearing" on government decision for army chief replacement.
The path that major political parties have taken is misleading people with their own version of Parliamentary system of Democracy. The responsibility of the president of the Parliamentary political system is to redirect any undemocratic government courses with the democratic processes such as "Parliamentary Hearing" on national crisis but never to take a thoughtless and party-affiliated decision.
Print
Email
