It is unreal because there was no military supremacy over civilian authority in the disputed dismissal and reinstatement of former army chief. The army chief had to obey one of the contending orders from the premier and the president. He obeyed the president’s order instead of the premier’s. In that sense, he figured in the dispute between two civilian authorities but did not exercise any power that could be construed as military authority nullifying the civilian authority. Hence, to charge him defying the civilian authority is wrong. He had, however, the option of choosing between two contradictory orders from his superior civilian masters. The only decision he did was to follow one order and ignore the other one. The question of civilian supremacy would have arisen if he had decided on his own to stay on despite dismissal. That is not how the much talked about incident had taken place. So, there should be no further fuss over this issue.
As far as the president´s move to cancel the premier’s decision is concerned, it is indeed a genuine issue with far-reaching consequences.
As far as the president´s move to cancel the premier’s decision is concerned, it is indeed a genuine issue with far-reaching consequences. The premier is right to claim that it is within the jurisdiction of his executive power to take any action over a government servant, civilian or military. He took recourse to the constitutional provision that vests the executive power on the cabinet. In that sense, he is right to allege the president of unconstitutionally usurping the premier’s executive power.
The president on his part justified his action of retaining the former army chief on the basis of the army regulations that empower the head of the state of appointing and dismissing the chief of the military services. On this score, he is right to take recourse to a legal provision that empowers him to take an action over the chief of a government service of which he is the supreme commander. There is thus a clear constitutional and legal dispute on the issue of dismissal and reinstatement of the former army chief.
There could be three ways of resolving the dispute under the existing political system. First, the Supreme Court (SC), as the ultimate interpreter of the constitution, could settle it. But it has not acted upon it, although a writ petition on this dispute has duly been filed. The political implications grew out of proportion due to judicial delay in considering this case. At this moment, nobody is talking about the urgency with which the judiciary could have or should have moved to give its verdict.
The second way of resolving the dispute was by discussing it in the Constituent Assembly (CA). The Maoists are right in raising this question on the floor of the parliament-legislature by submitting a resolution for discussions. But their adversaries, Nepali Congress and CPN-UML vetoed it, thus treating the president like the king in former times – as a holy cow. The Maoist resolution would have allowed normal discussions on the pros and cons of the presidential and prime ministerial actions for a few days at the most and would have been finally defeated when put on voting. It is not necessary for the president to be physically present in the floor of the CA to defend his action as the combined force of 18 parties who had advised the president for that action are present to defend him and to defeat the Maoist resolution.
The Maoists proved right in objecting to the presidential action in the case of Gen Katawal by alleging that it could establish a precedent violating the present constitution. It was evident when the president asserted his right to have his say in the appointment of Chhatra Man Singh Gurung as the new army chief. However, the fear of the Maoists giving rise to an overriding president is exaggerated, as the precedent cannot remain valid in the new constitution unless it is clearly accepted to this effect. The current exercise among the three leading parties to resolve the dispute this way or that way is commendable to the extent of the success they can achieve.
The third way out of this impasse is a referendum. Since the SC and the CA did not take up the matter under their consideration, it can be referred to the people for final judgment. As it is a time- and resource-consuming measure, it does not look like a feasible solution at the moment. We can, therefore, rule it out as the crisis is leading to serious consequences of halting the financial transactions of the government in absence of parliamentary approval of the annual budget. We have to find out an immediate but political way out.
Political crisis invariably offers political opportunity to address it. In the recent political development, we have observed the Maoists acting more unpredictably than other political parties. Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal is known for springing surprises amid us compared to other top leaders who are seen sticking to their guns. In the midst of heavy fighting between the Maoist rebels and the government forces, Dahal had come out with unanticipated unilateral ceasefire in due respect of the wishes of the people to celebrate festivals or to have a respite from the serious impact of the armed conflicts. Did not he surprise us by resigning from premiership without any inkling? In the same old sportive spirit, he can end the present impasse by suspending the disruption campaign from the street and the floor of the CA for the greater cause of drafting a new constitution and allowing the normal functioning of the government.
People at large will appreciate such a move not as a sign of weakness but as a sign of statesmanship and farsightedness. Without abandoning the issue of presidential violation of the constitution, he can put it on suspension for the greater cause of a new constitution, which is actually his own agenda. After achieving all his agenda – republicanism, federalism, proportional representation, CA, etc. – can’t he afford to give us a bombshell in ending the current crisis and earn credit for it?
If a new constitution is written and subsequent polls held on time, will he not be the top beneficiary? If his party can emerge as the biggest party after 10 years of armed fighting, who will prevent him from winning a clear majority in the next election if he contributes in forestalling yet another fighting, violent or non-violent?
adityaman@hotmail.com
Related story
Everest Premier League’s new season to commence on Dec 8
