Mahabir Paudyal caught up with political analyst and executive chairman of Nepal Center for Contemporary Studies Lokraj Baral to get a picture of the political course post November 19. [break]
Political prediction is a dangerous business. Nonetheless, can you hazard a guess at the composition of the new Constituent Assembly?
It’s very difficult to make a definite prediction. But I presume the new composition will be different from the old one. Major parties will be dominant but ethnic and regional parties and breakaway factions from different parties will also get their fair share. The party split could affect UCPN (Maoist)’s electoral outcome, yet it is still likely to have a strong position in the new CA.
Keshav Thoker
Many believe the new mandate will be more diverse and fractured.
There could be diversity in parties’ representation in the CA, but in terms of issues it won’t be much fractured. Most contentious issues of the old CA have been more or less thrashed out. So it should be relatively easier for the new body to promulgate the statute. I see the issue of delineation of federal borders generating the most disputes.
Election manifestoes of major parties suggest they are still bitterly divided over system of governance and federal model.
What’s the use of having a new CA if the parties already agree on these vital issues? All the major parties have agreed that they will work to promulgate the statute within a year of CA’s formation. I believe they will be able to walk the talk this time; they now seem more committed to constitution drafting and ending the stalemate.
But aren’t the parties still deeply polarized on federalism?
The issue is still on the table. NC has proposed seven provinces but has kept 13-province option open. UML is for seven province and UCPN (Maoist) for 11. But they will come to a kind of compromise on ten or eleven provinces in the end. More than the number of provinces, the names and federal boundaries will be more contentious in new CA.
How about the system of governance? The parties don’t seem to see eye to eye on this as well.
The parties are flexible even on this issue. Although the Maoists pushed for directly elected executive president in the beginning, they had accepted a mixed semi-presidential and semi-parliamentary system in the last CA.
How do you evaluate CPN-UML’s proposal of directly elected prime minister?
UML’s position is unlikely to be accepted by other parties. I don’t see any rationale for directly elected executive prime minister. If you elect a PM, why do you need a ceremonial president who is above the PM? If we need a directly elected executive why not go for a directly elected president who will be both the head of the state as well as the head of the government?
The concern is that such a president could turn dictatorial.
That concern is not genuine. If political parties fail to deliver, if people are deeply dissatisfied and frustrated with the parties, there is always a chance of dictatorship. But the people have the power to remove the directly elected president if he turns into a dictator. Abolition of monarchy is evidence of this fact. People abolished the 240-year old monarchy through street protests. They will do the same with the President if he turns dictatorial.
What sort of governance will be suitable for our country?
Whether any system works or not depends on political parties and the political culture they have established. Rising crimes, corruption, violence, daily demonstrations and strikes, lawlessness and absence of state have become the hallmarks of our political culture. If these things are not corrected, no system can function well.
Yet I don’t think parliamentary system is suitable for our country. We need a system of fixed executive head directly elected by the people and someone who cannot be removed by the parliament before his term ends. This is because the mixed system like the one in France is also fraught with problems. There can be conflict in the exercise of power between the prime minister and the president. You should understand that nobody wants to be confined to a ceremonial status in this country.
Take President Ram Baran Yadav. If he had the power he would have dismissed Baburam Bhattarai government. Did he not play an active role in the reinstatement of Army Chief Rookmangud Katuwal, whom the Pushpa Kamal Dahal government had decided to dismiss? This was in clear breach of principles of parliamentary system.
Have you heard of the British queen rejecting the prime minister’s recommendation? Even king Birendra would endorse the recommendation of the prime minister. My point is that nobody wants to remain ceremonial in this country. This is the reason we need fixed executive head with both ceremonial and executive powers. But there should be strong mechanisms to check the abuse of power.
Are you confident that new CA will draft a new statute within a year?
I am. A lot of positive changes are taking place across the country. The parties are trying to moderate their stands. Even holding of the new CA election is a positive development toward drafting the statute. People have become much more conscious and media are exerting pressure on parties to complete constitution drafting. I don’t think parties will be able to withstand this pressure.
Isn’t it necessary for the parties to come to some kind of consensus on contentious issues before the election?
You have to understand that democracy is a crisis-ridden system. Crises make the parties in democracy more sensitive and vibrant. Contentious issues remain, but I believe the parties will be able to settle them.
Some political outfits have taken strong exception to the country being declared a secular republic and are pushing for the reinstatement of Hindu state under monarchy. Is this viable?
I do not believe monarchy will ever be restored in Nepal. It is not 17th century England. As regards secularism, ours is already a country with high level of religious tolerance. Even the Hindus are liberal here.
Should secularism and federalism be put up for referendum?
Referendum on secularism and federalism will create a lot of problems. Minority religious groups like Buddhists, Christians and Muslims will feel hurt by this decision and they could launch a movement against the state. As regards federalism, it is a mechanism to ensure greater participation and empowerment of people at all levels; it’s a means to devolve power from the center to the grassroots. Since major parties are already committed to federalism, unless all of them decide to do without it with convincing reasons, there is no going back. Even if they do so, Madhesis and Janajati groups will revolt; the country will be pushed toward another conflict. We should try this system and see how it works. After all, federalism is also an evolutionary process; it’s not a rigid formula. The notion that federalism will disintegrate the country is wrong.
Some say since the old CA failed to deliver, there should not be another CA election.
I admit that second CA election is very rare. But we cannot compare our situation with other countries. Yes, the old CA should not have failed; the political parties should have acted responsibly. Yet the new election can be a tool to correct past mistakes. The best thing is that the parties have not deviated from the agenda of constitution drafting through a sovereign people’s body. This is a positive development.
Do you see a way of bringing agitating parties into the election process even now?
It all depends on mainstream parties. If they reschedule election date and convince the agitating forces to come to the election process, it is possible that anti-poll parties will come around. But Baidya-led forces do not seem to believe in the election process at all.
It is said that we won’t have a constitution unless both India and China can agree on one.
That’s our inferiority complex speaking. China and India have pledged complete support for election and constitution writing. Besides, except for Mohan Baidya alliance, all national and international actors are supporting this process.
What about India? What does it really want in Nepal?
India wants peace, progress and political stability. It is concerned that Nepal should not be used as a playground against India’s vital security interests. That is the only concern India has about Nepal.
What if the new CA also fails to draft the constitution?
I do not doubt that the new CA will draft the statute. I am more worried about the post-constitution situation. If the new dispensation doesn’t address people’s aspirations, deliver stability and development, the country will suffer again. It could create a fertile ground for dictatorship.
Related story
Civic leaders for addressing Madhes issues before elections
