Since 1951, ‘political consensus’ has been a buzzword in Nepali politics. Citing lack of political consensus, three generations of Shah Kings directly or indirectly ruled Nepal in an authoritative way. Currently, Baburam Bhattarai’s coalition government is also ruling the country stating that he would resign the moment political consensus is reached.
Political leaders, instead of working together for institutionalizing democracy, peace and progress, are locked in political wrangling. As a result, we today feel more cautious than enthusiastic, more fearful than confident, more curtailed than free and more corralled than united. It is, therefore, time that we stop such political infighting and create an ambience for political consensus that could help build a new future for Nepal.
After the CPN (Maoist) joined the political mainstream in 2006, many people debated whether the party that had waged a decade-long insurgency would be suited for a democracy. As it turns out, UCPN (Maoist) has been more authoritarian than democratic, and inter alia, has failed to end the crippling corruption and endemic cronyism in the government.
The purpose of the second People’s Movement was to bring peace, prosperity and bridge the economic gap between the rich and the poor. But we have neither been able to achieve minimum political maturity, nor peace, security and economic progress. Instead, our peace has been threatened by continued political acrimony and economic hardships because of inflation that has further compounded inequality. To add insult to injury, radical ethnic-based issues that the UCPN (Maoist) panders to have destroyed the peaceful homogeneous social fabric.
The 2006 movement was lauded across the globe as a victory of democratic forces over tyranny. But in over six years, there has been little to celebrate. For the old tyrannical regime had not collapsed, but had only been reconfigured.
After the sudden demise of the Constituent Assembly, the caretaker Maoist-led government has been receiving flak from both within the party and from the opposition. Despite its caretaker role, the government is becoming more assertive and authoritarian and is trying to rule through ordinances. This adamancy has also led to the party’s estrangement in political circles.
Although there isn’t any consensual definition for a caretaker government, one thing can be said for certain: it can’t continue for a long period. Such a government can only perform day to day administrative functions. But due to the present constitutional void, the Bhattarai government is trying its best to prolong its life.
Given the scenario, President Rambaran Yadav’s recent call to political leaders to seek early solutions to the current imbroglio is seen as a welcome step by many. During the meeting called by the president, Bhattarai reportedly said he would step down as soon as political consensus is reached on contentious issues such as federalism and government system. Other political parties, however, were of the opinion that Bhattarai should first step down to set the tone for political consensus.
The president’s call to all political parties to find a solution is perfectly justified in view of the growing anger and frustration among the people. The current stalemate has also stymied the the country’s economic development. But Bhattarai’s confidants have been busy making frivolous comments on the president’s actions.
The government’s political subterfuge has taken the country hostage. A couple of weeks ago, the hassles of four days of ‘Nepal banda’ for four hours in the morning infuriated the people. Protests take place at some or the other part of the country where even a group of ten protesters are able to disrupt lives of the majority. Such apathy of political leaders towards common people has degraded their public image.
PM Bhattarai wants the president to be his rubber stamp at a time when there is no parliament. But the opposition leaders feel the president should be vigilant and proactive at this critical juncture. The president is normally bound to give his nod to government decisions when there is a legislative body led by the party with a majority. But the present situation is different. There is no legislature and the caretaker government has a limited role. As such, it isn’t obligatory for the president to give his assent on any issue except the bare minimum needed to run the country. Being a custodian of the constitution and guardian of the nation, the president, during this period of constitutional void, has every right to hold or ignore all or any of the government requests which he deems are against public interest.
At a time when there is a void of legislative mechanisms, misunderstandings between the president and the prime minister can only worsen the situation. The government avers that frequent instructions by the president on political matters are beyond his jurisdiction. The UCPN (Maoist) has even alleged that the president is trying to assert power by benefiting from the current fluid political situation with an intention to enjoy executive power. It is, in fact, the prime minister who wants to become an authoritarian power.
Discussions for an amicable political solution between the political stakeholders––UCPN (Maoist), NC, CPN-UML and Madhesi and other parties, have already reached a tipping point. Each party is busy beating its own drums. During a recent round-table meeting convened by CPN (Maoist), major political parties limited their role to expressing their opinions. One party even stated whom it would like to see head the next government, and whom it would not want. Such statements are a reflection of an authoritarian tendency. All such political bickering has been propped up by the absence of political consensus. Let us hope the day when our leaders will arrive at the vaunted ‘political consensus’ will come sooner rather than later.
The author is former foreign secretary
bhagirath_51@live.com
Related story
UML Task Force members to sit again for talks on Wednesday as c...
