Nepal Needs a Directly Elected PM to Form a Stable Gov with PRM
Prakash Bom
January 27, 2012
People in this time even in a nation like the United Kingdom are filing petitions to elect the Prime Minister through national election. The proponents argue that governing a nation and law making are entirely separate skills. The executive requires managerial skills and generalship. But the legislative is a passion for justice, which requires depth understanding of law and constitution, and of human nature.
There is no question about how appropriate is the Parliamentary form of government for the nation with diverse ethnicity, and how viable it is for forming a coalition or unity government with all-party or some-party consensus. Nonetheless, the traditional form of Parliamentary system as practiced gets the executive intermingled with the legislative, which makes executive less-capable and instable because the legislative body often times unnecessarily challenges the cabinet with the irrelevant political issues.
This has been the case of Nepal, particularly with current Constituent Assembly and the interim constitution. Since the elections of Constituent Assembly Nepal has appointed four Prime Ministers with their own party agenda despite their commitment for peace and Democracy. But, none of them had the sufficient time to execute their managerial skills and generalship without inappropriate political disruptions.
It is clear that the nation is destined to form a coalition or unity government with either some-party or all-party consensus in the future because none of the political party has evolved yet to win the election with the full majority. Besides, the nation has awakened with the active political participation of diverse ethnicity and socio-political representation.
Therefore, it is obvious that the nation needs an executive leader to manage the nation with his or her best skills for the law and order, and development of the nation during his or her full-term. It is a bitter fact that Nepal has one of the most corrupt government and political-party traditions in South Asia. Nation has inherited such practice for over hundred years from bad governance tradition of previous regime. But, none the political leadership has ever been able to challenge the corruption in the government because it needs legislation for a stable system to systematically eradicate the practice.
In my opinion, Nepal ought to have a directly elected Prime Minister for certain term period to form a stable cabinet that can have enough time to transform the government with the legislative discipline under the new constitution. The cabinet can be formed as per the general election results adapting the PRM – ´Proportional Representation Method.´
As per to-day´s political scenario, formation of a coalition or unity government is inevitable. But, without directly elected Prime Minister for certain term period the current Parliamentary practice utterly lacks a method to form a coalition or unity government. However, if the cabinet formation system is legislated, a directly elected Prime Minister for certain term period can form a coalition government to establish consensus among parties using a PRM – ´Proportional Representation Method´ incase his or her party failed to secure the full majority in the Parliament.
The first PR math must be based on the result that the greater the number of representation of a political party in the Parliament the higher the chance of that party to secure the seat in the cabinet. The minimum PR must be set to, for instance ten percent (10%) representation in the Parliament, for a political party to secure a cabinet seat. The political party which secures over, for example, twenty-percent (20%) in the Parliament cannot refrain from sending its representatives to form the cabinet.
Similarly, the distribution of the ministries must be based on how many cabinet seats a party secures. Logically, the greater the number of cabinet seats a party secures the higher the number of ministries it takes over under the administration of the directly elected Prime Minister. In order to secure full ministry under coalition or consensus or unity government, for instance, a political party must have at least thirty-percent (30%) representation in the Parliament.
Political parties will be fully responsible to select skillful and accountable cabinet candidates from among the member of their representatives in the Parliament. Parties are also responsible to discipline or defend their candidates´ action in the government.
On occasion the Prime Minister becomes irresponsible, deceitful, and acts against the national interest, the Parliament can impeach the Prime Minister for a conviction with two-third votes of the Parliament to call either for re-election of the Prime Minister or vote in the Parliament to elect interim Prime Minister until another election date.
The position and responsibility of the President in the directly elected Prime Ministerial Parliamentary system remains the same as generally practiced. The Prime Minister and the Parliament honor the President as head of the state with all the Parliament proceedings and national crises consultations.
In my view, the Prime Minister should be directly elected for at least the term of four years but not exceeding six years´ term the maximum. Since Nepal is one of the poorest developing nations of the world, it must establish a stable Parliamentary system that suits the nation to address its diverse socio-political and ethnic representations for overall development.
That´s why Nepal needs a directly elected Prime Ministerial Parliamentary form of government to set the example in South Asia for a stable and accountable government system to control (with the rule of law) the tradition of corruption and impunity that South Asian nations have inherited for centuries through socio-political nepotism of family-lineage, political-partisan, and caste-system.
There is no question about how appropriate is the Parliamentary form of government for the nation with diverse ethnicity, and how viable it is for forming a coalition or unity government with all-party or some-party consensus. Nonetheless, the traditional form of Parliamentary system as practiced gets the executive intermingled with the legislative, which makes executive less-capable and instable because the legislative body often times unnecessarily challenges the cabinet with the irrelevant political issues.
This has been the case of Nepal, particularly with current Constituent Assembly and the interim constitution. Since the elections of Constituent Assembly Nepal has appointed four Prime Ministers with their own party agenda despite their commitment for peace and Democracy. But, none of them had the sufficient time to execute their managerial skills and generalship without inappropriate political disruptions.
It is clear that the nation is destined to form a coalition or unity government with either some-party or all-party consensus in the future because none of the political party has evolved yet to win the election with the full majority. Besides, the nation has awakened with the active political participation of diverse ethnicity and socio-political representation.
Therefore, it is obvious that the nation needs an executive leader to manage the nation with his or her best skills for the law and order, and development of the nation during his or her full-term. It is a bitter fact that Nepal has one of the most corrupt government and political-party traditions in South Asia. Nation has inherited such practice for over hundred years from bad governance tradition of previous regime. But, none the political leadership has ever been able to challenge the corruption in the government because it needs legislation for a stable system to systematically eradicate the practice.
In my opinion, Nepal ought to have a directly elected Prime Minister for certain term period to form a stable cabinet that can have enough time to transform the government with the legislative discipline under the new constitution. The cabinet can be formed as per the general election results adapting the PRM – ´Proportional Representation Method.´
As per to-day´s political scenario, formation of a coalition or unity government is inevitable. But, without directly elected Prime Minister for certain term period the current Parliamentary practice utterly lacks a method to form a coalition or unity government. However, if the cabinet formation system is legislated, a directly elected Prime Minister for certain term period can form a coalition government to establish consensus among parties using a PRM – ´Proportional Representation Method´ incase his or her party failed to secure the full majority in the Parliament.
The first PR math must be based on the result that the greater the number of representation of a political party in the Parliament the higher the chance of that party to secure the seat in the cabinet. The minimum PR must be set to, for instance ten percent (10%) representation in the Parliament, for a political party to secure a cabinet seat. The political party which secures over, for example, twenty-percent (20%) in the Parliament cannot refrain from sending its representatives to form the cabinet.
Similarly, the distribution of the ministries must be based on how many cabinet seats a party secures. Logically, the greater the number of cabinet seats a party secures the higher the number of ministries it takes over under the administration of the directly elected Prime Minister. In order to secure full ministry under coalition or consensus or unity government, for instance, a political party must have at least thirty-percent (30%) representation in the Parliament.
Political parties will be fully responsible to select skillful and accountable cabinet candidates from among the member of their representatives in the Parliament. Parties are also responsible to discipline or defend their candidates´ action in the government.
On occasion the Prime Minister becomes irresponsible, deceitful, and acts against the national interest, the Parliament can impeach the Prime Minister for a conviction with two-third votes of the Parliament to call either for re-election of the Prime Minister or vote in the Parliament to elect interim Prime Minister until another election date.
The position and responsibility of the President in the directly elected Prime Ministerial Parliamentary system remains the same as generally practiced. The Prime Minister and the Parliament honor the President as head of the state with all the Parliament proceedings and national crises consultations.
In my view, the Prime Minister should be directly elected for at least the term of four years but not exceeding six years´ term the maximum. Since Nepal is one of the poorest developing nations of the world, it must establish a stable Parliamentary system that suits the nation to address its diverse socio-political and ethnic representations for overall development.
That´s why Nepal needs a directly elected Prime Ministerial Parliamentary form of government to set the example in South Asia for a stable and accountable government system to control (with the rule of law) the tradition of corruption and impunity that South Asian nations have inherited for centuries through socio-political nepotism of family-lineage, political-partisan, and caste-system.
Print
Email
