Nepal´s Perverted Consensus Politics
Prakash Bom
May 20, 2009
Had Nepali Congress joined Maoist-led government could that had helped form a consensus government for non-partisan politics to prevail? It is easier to blame Nepali Congress than to really see its likelihood. The current political turmoil is the evidence of partisan politics in real-time power struggle in Nepali politics. But it is certain that if Nepal fails to cherish the rationale of Consensus Democracy at this transition period with all parties´ honest effort, no form of majority government can accomplish the objectives without the support of Maoists.
The original goal of Nepali Congress and UML was to bring Maoists to mainstream politics through consensus. That´s why twelve-point agreement and 2006 peace accord were established. But Maoists won the majority vote of Constituent Assembly elections. Therefore, consensus politics must respect their majority vote in Constituent Assembly. This means if the majority rule is accomplished on consensus basis among all parties the Parliament will normally carry on. But, if the consensus politics fails then Parliament proceedings must advance on differences for resolution. Then and there only Consensus Democracy prevails.
All controversial state of affairs must be brought to the attention of Parliament for Hearing prior to making decision by the cabinet or head of the state. The Parliament is the Supreme legislative power of state in Democracy. No individual head of the state or cabinet members can overrule Parliament in order to make controversial or partisan decisions. The supremacy of the Parliament can only then establish supremacy of the civil government.
It is sure, as vice president Pramananda Jha has recently pointed out, that no majority government can resolve current political turmoil. In vice president Jha´s opinion both the Prime Minister and the President made mistake in regard to conflict that army chief Katawal instigated with the civil government. It is certain no majority rule at this point can force consensus Democracy by dodging scope for forming a consensus government to resolve current political turmoil. The resolution is indispensable for national consensus through Parliament proceedings.
Maoists are responsible for perverting the consensus politics, which succeeded historic April Uprising under the leadership of GP Koirala. The popular doubt persisted because Maoists´ ideological agenda always seemed stand before the aspiration of people for Democracy and peace. Clearly, this has been the Maoist blockade in the pretext of Nepal´s infant Democracy.
Whether Maoist chairman, nom de guerre ´Prachanda´, is the elected demagogue or a first elected Prime Minister committed to the competitive democracy has become in large-scale a political suspicion. Politically, prior to April Uprising he had played a successful role of demagogue to lead 12 years Maoist insurgency – skilled in rhetoric for boosting supporters´ morale with mixed bags of facts and propaganda.
The controversial video release at this point has clearly revealed demagoguery personality of Maoist chairman Prachada that even United Nations Mission in Nepal had to respond on erroneous registration procedure of Maoist combatants. As a matter of fact, it was not the UNMIN that Maoists deluded but Seven-party Alliance, which had inspected verification process. That may be the reason that Maoist-duped Seven-party Alliance could not keep up with the culture of consensus politics.
On ample of occasions, Maoist-led government has overruled the supremacy of Parliament, for example, issuing ordeals in the absence of Parliament. Finally, Maoist-led government decided to lay off army chief Katawal unilaterally because whose clarification on many issues dissatisfied Maoists leaderships.
The decision to fire army chief prior to bringing the issue to the attention of Parliament Commission for Hearing was an act of demagoguery since it is a unilateral decision devoid of support from other alliance in the cabinet. Had Prime Minister have taken issue to Parliament before rushing to the President for endorsement Maoists could have sustained the supremacy of civil government.
As a result, Maoists have lost the political trust at this juncture because their leaders lack in discovering democratic tools to address issue through the Parliamentary proceedings. Similarly, if the President was scrupulous not to depend on the suggestions of party affiliated legal experts he could have redirected cabinet decision on army chief Katawal to Parliament Commission for Hearing to save the nation from current political turmoil.
In everyway consensus politics has been perverted with the partisan politics. Now how a majority government can be formed under UML leadership is the issue that might mislead the Speaker of the Parliament to use his excessive constitutional power as per the suggestion of NC leaderships. But Mr. Speaker Nemwang has made it clear that under the Parliament rule there is no space for both consensus and majority to overrule Parliament proceedings.
Upon this crisis Speaker must protect the Parliament despite the pressure of NC and its 22-party alliance to form a majority government for UML to lead under MK Nepal as Prime Minister without normal Parliament proceedings.
It is a time to record the history that how contemporary Nepali leaders and party affiliated legal experts rush to make suggestions to elected authorities in the government to use their excessive constitutional power untimely. Such attempts are premature in Democracy and seem nothing other than the act of a blind man trying to lead a blind man.
The challenge to people of Nepal is to find out how could an elected government deal with elected demagogue, as Kanak Dixit brought up the question in his article published on Wall Street Journal on May 13, 2009, if Maoist chairman ´Prachand´ is really a demagogue provided Nepal´s democratic leaders, legal experts, Pundits and ruling elites do not rush to suggest authorities to use their excessive constitutional power on issues that can be resolved otherwise.
If the nation is not for ´me´ but ´me´ for the nation as rhetoric then MK Nepal will not let go his Constitutional Committee responsibility as an elected chairperson to become the Prime Minister of NC stimulated majority government. If gaining transitory political power builds the nation for generation to follow up then why not become a Prime Minister of a majority government, which might not last a month without consensus based politics at this point in the history of Nepal.
It is sure that as long as NC stimulated 22-party alliance denies the Parliament Proceeding on Maoists´ resolution bill, the formation of a majority government under the leadership of UML is slim. But if we keep defending President´s decision as supreme leader of the military without the resolution then it is an act of spreading the culture of impunity that will in long run cripple Nepal´s Democracy without justice.
The original goal of Nepali Congress and UML was to bring Maoists to mainstream politics through consensus. That´s why twelve-point agreement and 2006 peace accord were established. But Maoists won the majority vote of Constituent Assembly elections. Therefore, consensus politics must respect their majority vote in Constituent Assembly. This means if the majority rule is accomplished on consensus basis among all parties the Parliament will normally carry on. But, if the consensus politics fails then Parliament proceedings must advance on differences for resolution. Then and there only Consensus Democracy prevails.
All controversial state of affairs must be brought to the attention of Parliament for Hearing prior to making decision by the cabinet or head of the state. The Parliament is the Supreme legislative power of state in Democracy. No individual head of the state or cabinet members can overrule Parliament in order to make controversial or partisan decisions. The supremacy of the Parliament can only then establish supremacy of the civil government.
It is sure, as vice president Pramananda Jha has recently pointed out, that no majority government can resolve current political turmoil. In vice president Jha´s opinion both the Prime Minister and the President made mistake in regard to conflict that army chief Katawal instigated with the civil government. It is certain no majority rule at this point can force consensus Democracy by dodging scope for forming a consensus government to resolve current political turmoil. The resolution is indispensable for national consensus through Parliament proceedings.
Maoists are responsible for perverting the consensus politics, which succeeded historic April Uprising under the leadership of GP Koirala. The popular doubt persisted because Maoists´ ideological agenda always seemed stand before the aspiration of people for Democracy and peace. Clearly, this has been the Maoist blockade in the pretext of Nepal´s infant Democracy.
Whether Maoist chairman, nom de guerre ´Prachanda´, is the elected demagogue or a first elected Prime Minister committed to the competitive democracy has become in large-scale a political suspicion. Politically, prior to April Uprising he had played a successful role of demagogue to lead 12 years Maoist insurgency – skilled in rhetoric for boosting supporters´ morale with mixed bags of facts and propaganda.
The controversial video release at this point has clearly revealed demagoguery personality of Maoist chairman Prachada that even United Nations Mission in Nepal had to respond on erroneous registration procedure of Maoist combatants. As a matter of fact, it was not the UNMIN that Maoists deluded but Seven-party Alliance, which had inspected verification process. That may be the reason that Maoist-duped Seven-party Alliance could not keep up with the culture of consensus politics.
On ample of occasions, Maoist-led government has overruled the supremacy of Parliament, for example, issuing ordeals in the absence of Parliament. Finally, Maoist-led government decided to lay off army chief Katawal unilaterally because whose clarification on many issues dissatisfied Maoists leaderships.
The decision to fire army chief prior to bringing the issue to the attention of Parliament Commission for Hearing was an act of demagoguery since it is a unilateral decision devoid of support from other alliance in the cabinet. Had Prime Minister have taken issue to Parliament before rushing to the President for endorsement Maoists could have sustained the supremacy of civil government.
As a result, Maoists have lost the political trust at this juncture because their leaders lack in discovering democratic tools to address issue through the Parliamentary proceedings. Similarly, if the President was scrupulous not to depend on the suggestions of party affiliated legal experts he could have redirected cabinet decision on army chief Katawal to Parliament Commission for Hearing to save the nation from current political turmoil.
In everyway consensus politics has been perverted with the partisan politics. Now how a majority government can be formed under UML leadership is the issue that might mislead the Speaker of the Parliament to use his excessive constitutional power as per the suggestion of NC leaderships. But Mr. Speaker Nemwang has made it clear that under the Parliament rule there is no space for both consensus and majority to overrule Parliament proceedings.
Upon this crisis Speaker must protect the Parliament despite the pressure of NC and its 22-party alliance to form a majority government for UML to lead under MK Nepal as Prime Minister without normal Parliament proceedings.
It is a time to record the history that how contemporary Nepali leaders and party affiliated legal experts rush to make suggestions to elected authorities in the government to use their excessive constitutional power untimely. Such attempts are premature in Democracy and seem nothing other than the act of a blind man trying to lead a blind man.
The challenge to people of Nepal is to find out how could an elected government deal with elected demagogue, as Kanak Dixit brought up the question in his article published on Wall Street Journal on May 13, 2009, if Maoist chairman ´Prachand´ is really a demagogue provided Nepal´s democratic leaders, legal experts, Pundits and ruling elites do not rush to suggest authorities to use their excessive constitutional power on issues that can be resolved otherwise.
If the nation is not for ´me´ but ´me´ for the nation as rhetoric then MK Nepal will not let go his Constitutional Committee responsibility as an elected chairperson to become the Prime Minister of NC stimulated majority government. If gaining transitory political power builds the nation for generation to follow up then why not become a Prime Minister of a majority government, which might not last a month without consensus based politics at this point in the history of Nepal.
It is sure that as long as NC stimulated 22-party alliance denies the Parliament Proceeding on Maoists´ resolution bill, the formation of a majority government under the leadership of UML is slim. But if we keep defending President´s decision as supreme leader of the military without the resolution then it is an act of spreading the culture of impunity that will in long run cripple Nepal´s Democracy without justice.
Print
Email
