Misleading Constitutional Positions Jeopardize Nepal´s Peace Process
Prakash Bom
May 12, 2009
As per Nepal´s legal experts if the excessive use of power in an arbitrary mode, specifically against the unilateral decision of Maoist-led civil government, by the ceremonial president as a commander in-chief of Nepal Army under the Parliamentary system in Democracy is not unconstitutional then it is not questionable to any layperson like me in order to comprehend the current political turmoil.
The legal experts who justify president´s decision as an absolute decree under the provision of Nepal´s interim constitution overrule the role of Parliamentary processes that the president could have called in the first place prior to making his decision. Simply, an executive decree of both president and cabinet bore no complete legitimacy unless it has been scrutinized by the Parliament Hearing.
The current political turmoil is instigated by politically affiliated legal experts to Nepali Congress party, which principal objective is to persecute Maoist party to Democracy, that UML is being used to take the advantage of the situation. The entire political situation is deceitfully self-serving in which the president has risked his constitutional obligation in the wrong place at the wrong time without Parliamentary proceeding.
The world does not need further explanation that Maoist-led government´s unilateral decision in the name of people elect civil government was in the first place unconstitutional. The question before the president was that how a unilateral decision of a Maoist-led cabinet that orders to discharge army chief Katawal can be proved unconstitutional through the scrutiny of the Parliament Hearing prior to making his own executive decision despite the consultation with all legal experts and political parties.
With this political turmoil Democracy has completely derailed through the tracks of current political state of affairs – president excessively using his executive power to keep military supremacy over civil government, civil government failing with its self-serving unilateral decisions and the role of Parliament to process crisis becoming insignificant to major political parties and their leaders, legal experts and ruling elites.
If only Nepali Congress can play honest role to pressure for bringing every issue to Parliament Hearing that will necessitate major political parties to see the effectiveness of systematic Parliamentary Hearing proceeding for scrutiny in Democracy far greater than casual ´all-party-conference´ to establish national consensus or majority rule.
The truth of the matter is that every major political party has its own political stake and none of them are seriously committed to seek national consensus. Therefore, it is fair to say that none of them are serious to institutionalize Democracy for building nation with peace and prosperity.
Mere street talks, podium statements, party meetings and consultation with legal experts cannot necessarily institutionalize Democracy. It is only through systematic Parliamentary processes, which oblige legislators to play an effective role in legislature, then how democratic culture can be initiated to institutionalize Democracy.
If Nepal continue with its current political state of affairs – statesmen who is quick in making decision with the influence of party-affiliated legal experts without giving a chance for Parliamentary Hearing; leading political party in the government making intolerant unilateral decision without the consensus of its other collision partners; and the rest of the political parties randomly following the trend for or against, then that is how political turmoil becomes inevitable.
In Democracy if the Parliament proceedings are neglected due to the major political parties´ stakes in politics the system will be vulnerable to be easily persuaded by party-affiliated experts, political parties and ruling elites. As a result Parliament will never be able to turn over the cabinet and Supreme Court ruling that is influenced and unfair.
It is certain that the formation of a majority government is slim and even if it does it will not function under the leadership of either NC or UML without the support of Maoist party. It is again mistake if government is formed with the signatures of 302 legislators of Constituent Assembly as per the suggestion of Nepali Congress affiliated legal experts. Such an attempt will be a try to justify president Yadav´s excessive use of power.
The best path to democratic solution for resolving current political turmoil (which most of the Nepali Congress affiliated legal experts will object) is to call Parliament Hearing on the fate of army chief Katawal to scrutinize both president´s excessive use of executive power and Maoist-led cabinet´s unilateral decision.
This ought to be a national call for the Parliament to step in and initiate the proceeding for scrutiny in order to resolve current political turmoil that has jeopardize not only the peace process but also derailed institutionalization of Democracy by unnecessarily engaging New Delhi and Beijing and worrying rest of the international community.
It is dangerous for a nation like Nepal with its infant Democracy if statesmen completely rely on party affiliated legal experts in making their critical decision. The experts by law are not accountable for giving misleading suggestions nor are they politically disreputable. But once statesman, such as president is influenced by experts the entire nation unnecessarily suffers as in the current political turmoil. Because the turmoil becomes egotistical and arrogant political process that can drag the nation to the unnecessary conflict for a long period of time unless common sense overcomes the conceit.
The legal experts who justify president´s decision as an absolute decree under the provision of Nepal´s interim constitution overrule the role of Parliamentary processes that the president could have called in the first place prior to making his decision. Simply, an executive decree of both president and cabinet bore no complete legitimacy unless it has been scrutinized by the Parliament Hearing.
The current political turmoil is instigated by politically affiliated legal experts to Nepali Congress party, which principal objective is to persecute Maoist party to Democracy, that UML is being used to take the advantage of the situation. The entire political situation is deceitfully self-serving in which the president has risked his constitutional obligation in the wrong place at the wrong time without Parliamentary proceeding.
The world does not need further explanation that Maoist-led government´s unilateral decision in the name of people elect civil government was in the first place unconstitutional. The question before the president was that how a unilateral decision of a Maoist-led cabinet that orders to discharge army chief Katawal can be proved unconstitutional through the scrutiny of the Parliament Hearing prior to making his own executive decision despite the consultation with all legal experts and political parties.
With this political turmoil Democracy has completely derailed through the tracks of current political state of affairs – president excessively using his executive power to keep military supremacy over civil government, civil government failing with its self-serving unilateral decisions and the role of Parliament to process crisis becoming insignificant to major political parties and their leaders, legal experts and ruling elites.
If only Nepali Congress can play honest role to pressure for bringing every issue to Parliament Hearing that will necessitate major political parties to see the effectiveness of systematic Parliamentary Hearing proceeding for scrutiny in Democracy far greater than casual ´all-party-conference´ to establish national consensus or majority rule.
The truth of the matter is that every major political party has its own political stake and none of them are seriously committed to seek national consensus. Therefore, it is fair to say that none of them are serious to institutionalize Democracy for building nation with peace and prosperity.
Mere street talks, podium statements, party meetings and consultation with legal experts cannot necessarily institutionalize Democracy. It is only through systematic Parliamentary processes, which oblige legislators to play an effective role in legislature, then how democratic culture can be initiated to institutionalize Democracy.
If Nepal continue with its current political state of affairs – statesmen who is quick in making decision with the influence of party-affiliated legal experts without giving a chance for Parliamentary Hearing; leading political party in the government making intolerant unilateral decision without the consensus of its other collision partners; and the rest of the political parties randomly following the trend for or against, then that is how political turmoil becomes inevitable.
In Democracy if the Parliament proceedings are neglected due to the major political parties´ stakes in politics the system will be vulnerable to be easily persuaded by party-affiliated experts, political parties and ruling elites. As a result Parliament will never be able to turn over the cabinet and Supreme Court ruling that is influenced and unfair.
It is certain that the formation of a majority government is slim and even if it does it will not function under the leadership of either NC or UML without the support of Maoist party. It is again mistake if government is formed with the signatures of 302 legislators of Constituent Assembly as per the suggestion of Nepali Congress affiliated legal experts. Such an attempt will be a try to justify president Yadav´s excessive use of power.
The best path to democratic solution for resolving current political turmoil (which most of the Nepali Congress affiliated legal experts will object) is to call Parliament Hearing on the fate of army chief Katawal to scrutinize both president´s excessive use of executive power and Maoist-led cabinet´s unilateral decision.
This ought to be a national call for the Parliament to step in and initiate the proceeding for scrutiny in order to resolve current political turmoil that has jeopardize not only the peace process but also derailed institutionalization of Democracy by unnecessarily engaging New Delhi and Beijing and worrying rest of the international community.
It is dangerous for a nation like Nepal with its infant Democracy if statesmen completely rely on party affiliated legal experts in making their critical decision. The experts by law are not accountable for giving misleading suggestions nor are they politically disreputable. But once statesman, such as president is influenced by experts the entire nation unnecessarily suffers as in the current political turmoil. Because the turmoil becomes egotistical and arrogant political process that can drag the nation to the unnecessary conflict for a long period of time unless common sense overcomes the conceit.
Print
Email
