There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the proposed appointment of Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi as the head of the next election government. First, it appeared the four main political forces had unreservedly backed the proposal. But soon widespread disagreements began to emerge from both within Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. On Wednesday, the Chief Justice is believed to have told the top leadership of four forces that he is not interested in the offer unless there is broad political understanding and political parties express their total commitment for timely election.
There have been dissenting voices even within the ruling coalition, while other parties out of the government have already taken to the streets against the ‘unilateral’ proposal, including the breakaway CPN-Maoist. The latest developments are clear indications that the proposal for CJ-led government came without adequate homework. Before agreeing on such a potentially controversial proposal, the political leadership should have tried to take all relevant political actors into confidence.
All along, we have wanted to see a political solution to this political problem. In other words, to date, the best course of action remains choosing a new chief executive from within the party system. We had expressed our support for the CJ-led government because even eight long months after the CA’s dissolution, settlement on a political head of new government looked extremely unlikely. Nor did the main parties appear much interested in exploring the alterative of independent candidates. Since new CA polls offer the only legitimate way out of the current political and constitutional crisis, we are for any candidate who can ensure this outcome.
Since the Chief Justice-led government seemed to be the best bet to break the crisis, we supported the idea. We still do. Yes, ends don’t always justify the means. We are well aware of the potential disturbance to the delicate balance of power between the three organs of the state. We are also mindful that the executive power going out of the hands of the political parties could set a dangerous precedent. This is the reason our support is contingent on establishing broad political consensus for the proposal. Such a consensus, we believe, is important to forestall the appearance of an authoritarian government and to ensure timely and credible CA polls.
That is the ultimate goal. This does not mean that the proposal for CJ as head of government is final. If broad political consensus cannot be established on the sitting chief justice, other alternatives should be explored, without further ado. There is no time to waste. The window of opportunity for CA election within June is steadily narrowing. There are constitutional and legal hurdles to be cleared, which should not take that much time. But the Election Commission needs a substantial amount of time to make necessary preparations. In this situation, if broad consensus can be established on the name of CJ, so much the better. Otherwise, other alternates will have to be explored. The goal, again, is free, fair and timely election. We support any alternative which has the potential to deliver this result.
Related story
‘The Now Now’, Gorillaz
