Question of Supremacy of Civil Government over Nepal Army
Prakash Bom
April 24, 2009
The conflict between people elected Maoist-led government and Nepal Army establishment is the result of institutional discoordination in regard to dealing with Maoist-led civil government despite Nepal Army´s commitment to Democracy. Had the civil government been led by Nepali Congress, which failed to secure its electoral power in nation´s historic Constituent Assembly elections, the political scenario for Nepal Army under the leadership of army chief General Katawal could have been easy along the line of status quo.
But, at this juncture, Nepal Army´s persistence with the status quo, for example, disobeying the order of ministry of defense on army recruitment was not only the disrepute to people elected Maoist-let civil government but also was disrespect to 2006 peace accord, which cannot be justified in the pretext of pre-programmed institutional obligation.
On the contrary, every government institution of nation has obligation to Democracy and Peace, which can only be accomplished by reconciliation and sacrifice of all self-serving interest for the sake of greater cause. If the Democracy and Peace is not the greater cause or less important than pre-programmed institutional obligation or supremacy of political ideology or power of professional elites or status quo of hierarchy in the politics of nation then of course Nepal and Nepalese are not serious or lack ´self-literacy´ in regard to Democracy, be the military or the revolutionary, politicians or ordinary, privileged or marginalized.
On this there is none to blame except for ourselves in regard to our utter lack of common sense and responsibility. If we do blame others then it is like the one who does not know how to dance but complains about the stage for being crooked. Therefore, the Democracy and Peace is in danger and by firing army Chief General Katawal it cannot be spared. Instead it might make the processes complicated, in view of the most of members of international community.
But without the code of coordination between the civil government and military Democracy cannot be sustained in harmony. Obviously, Democracy in Nepal cannot be institutionalized without democratizing Nepal Army. That means military functions in coordination with the civil government, not just by lip-service but processing itself forward in compliance with all the democratic legislations and changes. Unless Nepal Army establishment completely democratized – politically neutral, democratically inclusive and secular and maintains professional democratic organization– Democracy in Nepal will be at risk.
In this regard, Nepal Army under army Chief General Katawal have failed and with due respect unless General Katawal change his directions in respect to Democracy and Peace process, by self-reconciling with it as greater cause for the nation, Nepal Army will lack in coordination with the civil government in Democracy due to its pre-conditions with the repressive establishment. The position that Nepal Army has taken currently under General Katawal is counterproductive to the democratization of army establishment and process of peace to a logical conclusion.
By no means, a military system of a democratic nation can help Democracy by discoordinating with the people elected civil government – be Maoist-led or Nepali Congress or UML. This is the flaw that Nepal Army leaderships suffer with their military professionalism that gives more importance to the pre-programmed institutional obligation than to process Democracy and Peace in dealing with Maoist-led civil government.
As a matter of fact, Nepal Army has committed the most unethical blunder against 2006 Peace Accord with the pre-programmed institutional obligation for army recruitment in order to disobey Maoist-let civil government´s policy. As a result, it is not helping nation for Peace to reach logical conclusion with the democratic processes that it should have initiated within its establishment. After all, it is the obligation of every Nepali of all political affiliation, if we are serious with Peace and Democracy.
This does not mean that Nepal Army is solely responsible under the leadership of army Chief General Katawal. But, on the contrary, Maoist-led civil government leaderships have fundamentally failed to lead the nation with the consensus based politics for all political parties. Basically, Maoists have tried to lead the Democracy with their underlying ideology of Maoism – extreme communism in terms of grass-root politics and power.
The utter impunity and lawlessness in the nation persist, for instance, due to the Maoist-led government´s failure to take responsibility of a people elected civil government. Formation of Maoist YCL and its forceful intervention in the government institutions is the example of ground reality. Therefore, Maoist-led government has lost the coordination of a civil government to institutionalize Democracy, particularly dealing with Nepal Army in order to integrate Maoist PLA in nation´s security forces or into rehabilitation seeking all-party consensus.
Even by securing two-third electoral majority Maoists cannot impose PLA supremacy over the democratization processes of Nepal Army in order to establish national army. It is the responsibility of Nepal Army at this transition period to initiate such changes within its establishment for resolving PLA integration in overall national security systems.
It is obvious that the current political crisis between Maoist-led civil government and Nepal Army leadership is the result of such a discoordination in the nation building processes at this transition period and for sure none of the other political parties such as Nepali Congress is sensible to resolve this crisis. Instead all the opposition is fueling crisis even by dragging President into the conflict for intervention as a supreme leader of Nepal Army.
It seems the culture of Nepali politics, particularly homegrown within Nepali Congress party, is composed of big-mouth-reactions– taking antagonistic position on issues by siding one party in the pretext of Democracy and opposing other beyond reasoning and scrutiny, which might strengthen democratic processes. As a matter of fact, it is a constitutional obligation of Maoist-led civil government to seek clarification from army Chief General Katawal, if he had disobeyed government policy thus is responsible for creating discoordination between Nepal Army and Maoist-led civil government.
In fact, government´s inquiry upon army chief has fortified the democratic process. This must be the first incidence in the history of Nepal that army establishment never had to deal with in last two-hundred fifty years´ feudal rule alike people elected civil government´s inquiry. Despite the concern of the international community and the attempt of main opposition party and India in support of army Chief General Katawal, Maoist-led government has courageously implemented its constitutional right in the history of Nepal and strengthened democratic process that has enforced the supremacy of people elected civil government.
The best for Maoist-led civil government at this point in history is to let army Chief General Katawal go through natural retirement process of Nepal Army establishment. But, the appointment of the next army chief must go through the nomination process for the scrutiny of the Parliament hearing in order to confirm the cabinet appointment with the votes of the Constituent Assembly as the outcome of this crisis.
The change would be historic and is fundamental to democratic process. Such a Parliamentary process for the army chief is the normal process of the most of the democratic nations and army chief that have gone through such scrutiny will naturally maintain the coordination with the civil government. This is the only way Nepal can avoid such conflict, political intervention and foreign lobby with the dignity of sovereign democratic nation.
But, at this juncture, Nepal Army´s persistence with the status quo, for example, disobeying the order of ministry of defense on army recruitment was not only the disrepute to people elected Maoist-let civil government but also was disrespect to 2006 peace accord, which cannot be justified in the pretext of pre-programmed institutional obligation.
On the contrary, every government institution of nation has obligation to Democracy and Peace, which can only be accomplished by reconciliation and sacrifice of all self-serving interest for the sake of greater cause. If the Democracy and Peace is not the greater cause or less important than pre-programmed institutional obligation or supremacy of political ideology or power of professional elites or status quo of hierarchy in the politics of nation then of course Nepal and Nepalese are not serious or lack ´self-literacy´ in regard to Democracy, be the military or the revolutionary, politicians or ordinary, privileged or marginalized.
On this there is none to blame except for ourselves in regard to our utter lack of common sense and responsibility. If we do blame others then it is like the one who does not know how to dance but complains about the stage for being crooked. Therefore, the Democracy and Peace is in danger and by firing army Chief General Katawal it cannot be spared. Instead it might make the processes complicated, in view of the most of members of international community.
But without the code of coordination between the civil government and military Democracy cannot be sustained in harmony. Obviously, Democracy in Nepal cannot be institutionalized without democratizing Nepal Army. That means military functions in coordination with the civil government, not just by lip-service but processing itself forward in compliance with all the democratic legislations and changes. Unless Nepal Army establishment completely democratized – politically neutral, democratically inclusive and secular and maintains professional democratic organization– Democracy in Nepal will be at risk.
In this regard, Nepal Army under army Chief General Katawal have failed and with due respect unless General Katawal change his directions in respect to Democracy and Peace process, by self-reconciling with it as greater cause for the nation, Nepal Army will lack in coordination with the civil government in Democracy due to its pre-conditions with the repressive establishment. The position that Nepal Army has taken currently under General Katawal is counterproductive to the democratization of army establishment and process of peace to a logical conclusion.
By no means, a military system of a democratic nation can help Democracy by discoordinating with the people elected civil government – be Maoist-led or Nepali Congress or UML. This is the flaw that Nepal Army leaderships suffer with their military professionalism that gives more importance to the pre-programmed institutional obligation than to process Democracy and Peace in dealing with Maoist-led civil government.
As a matter of fact, Nepal Army has committed the most unethical blunder against 2006 Peace Accord with the pre-programmed institutional obligation for army recruitment in order to disobey Maoist-let civil government´s policy. As a result, it is not helping nation for Peace to reach logical conclusion with the democratic processes that it should have initiated within its establishment. After all, it is the obligation of every Nepali of all political affiliation, if we are serious with Peace and Democracy.
This does not mean that Nepal Army is solely responsible under the leadership of army Chief General Katawal. But, on the contrary, Maoist-led civil government leaderships have fundamentally failed to lead the nation with the consensus based politics for all political parties. Basically, Maoists have tried to lead the Democracy with their underlying ideology of Maoism – extreme communism in terms of grass-root politics and power.
The utter impunity and lawlessness in the nation persist, for instance, due to the Maoist-led government´s failure to take responsibility of a people elected civil government. Formation of Maoist YCL and its forceful intervention in the government institutions is the example of ground reality. Therefore, Maoist-led government has lost the coordination of a civil government to institutionalize Democracy, particularly dealing with Nepal Army in order to integrate Maoist PLA in nation´s security forces or into rehabilitation seeking all-party consensus.
Even by securing two-third electoral majority Maoists cannot impose PLA supremacy over the democratization processes of Nepal Army in order to establish national army. It is the responsibility of Nepal Army at this transition period to initiate such changes within its establishment for resolving PLA integration in overall national security systems.
It is obvious that the current political crisis between Maoist-led civil government and Nepal Army leadership is the result of such a discoordination in the nation building processes at this transition period and for sure none of the other political parties such as Nepali Congress is sensible to resolve this crisis. Instead all the opposition is fueling crisis even by dragging President into the conflict for intervention as a supreme leader of Nepal Army.
It seems the culture of Nepali politics, particularly homegrown within Nepali Congress party, is composed of big-mouth-reactions– taking antagonistic position on issues by siding one party in the pretext of Democracy and opposing other beyond reasoning and scrutiny, which might strengthen democratic processes. As a matter of fact, it is a constitutional obligation of Maoist-led civil government to seek clarification from army Chief General Katawal, if he had disobeyed government policy thus is responsible for creating discoordination between Nepal Army and Maoist-led civil government.
In fact, government´s inquiry upon army chief has fortified the democratic process. This must be the first incidence in the history of Nepal that army establishment never had to deal with in last two-hundred fifty years´ feudal rule alike people elected civil government´s inquiry. Despite the concern of the international community and the attempt of main opposition party and India in support of army Chief General Katawal, Maoist-led government has courageously implemented its constitutional right in the history of Nepal and strengthened democratic process that has enforced the supremacy of people elected civil government.
The best for Maoist-led civil government at this point in history is to let army Chief General Katawal go through natural retirement process of Nepal Army establishment. But, the appointment of the next army chief must go through the nomination process for the scrutiny of the Parliament hearing in order to confirm the cabinet appointment with the votes of the Constituent Assembly as the outcome of this crisis.
The change would be historic and is fundamental to democratic process. Such a Parliamentary process for the army chief is the normal process of the most of the democratic nations and army chief that have gone through such scrutiny will naturally maintain the coordination with the civil government. This is the only way Nepal can avoid such conflict, political intervention and foreign lobby with the dignity of sovereign democratic nation.
Print
Email
