Such belief guides the important faction of the Maoists to usurp power whereas it prevents other factions in the mainstream political parties to strike a deal with them. [break]
The Maoists’ desire to seize power, to implement their vision of proletariat establishment has created a deep mistrust between them and the other political parties of Nepal. Yes, there have been several meetings between the key parties to address this mistrust, but the end results of such meetings often condense into questions such as “Who should be the next prime minister (PM), and how should the parties divide power?”
This race for power has been a problem since the creation of Nepal. The Shahs, Thapas, Ranas, Pandeys and their like all fought and often massacred each other for the sake of power. I doubt the collective psyche of our leaders has evolved significantly from that dark period of Nepal’s history, as the fight is often about who will get the chair next.
Then the factionalism in each party, too – between Baburam and Prachanda, Sher Bahadur and Ram Chandra, or Jhala Nath and Madhav Kumar – is also over position and power. Moreover, the row over the President’s constitutional authority vs. the Prime Minister’s decision-making powers has brought us to this stage. Therefore, it is time to ponder whether the idea of one person as the head of state is the right way for Nepal to move forward. Or is it better for Nepal to have a committee of members, from all major parties, forming a collective head of state? We can take into consideration the political setup at the topmost level in China and Switzerland to reflect on the idea of a collective leadership that ensures direction and legitimacy through an institutional body.
China’s political development has been overshadowed by its evident and phenomenal economic growth. The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) move from a revolutionary party to a governing one is no less of an achievement. Mao established the People’s Republic of China but failed to realize throughout his lifetime that the Communist Party, after exiling Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist party (Kuomintang) to Formosa/Taiwan, was no more a revolutionary party but a governing one. The system of Collective Leadership set up by Deng Xiaoping, the primary architect of moving the Chinese Communist Party from a revolutionary to a governing party, was put in place in 1956-58, notably at the 8th CCP Congress in September 1956. Then, it was a powerful six-member body which took on policymaking, but it was made ineffective by Mao as it challenged his dictatorial tendencies.
In 1980, after attaining power, Deng resurrected the collective leadership work system, which was first installed in the 1956-58 period. He stressed the need to enhance collective leadership and to avoid the “cult of the individual.” Therefore, it was a deliberate design on behalf of two overarching priorities: to keep China’s organizational constituencies in a careful balance to sustain collective decision-making, and to prevent any single bloc – especially the party leaders – from dominating politics. The authority of the politburo was reinforced by new procedures. During Jiang Zemin’s tenure, the politburo had seven members which grew to nine during Hu Jintao’s time. Even though Hu is the current General Secretary of the Party, he is no more powerful than the other members of the Politburo Standing Committee in China, rendering him more appropriately the “first among equals.” Such remarkable institutionalization of power has helped China carve consistent policies, leading to remarkable economic growth to boost legitimize their rule of the Communist Party.
The high-level mechanism created during the late Girija Koirala’s time to tackle the political deadlock could have been such a body in Nepal. Although this institution lost its legitimacy because it was done outside the Constituent Assemble (CA), had it been institutionalized and created with the involvement of CA, it could have replaced the current prime ministerial system, which retains executive powers.
Such an approach, also seen in democratic Switzerland, is exemplary of how a country can retain a democratic system, while utilizing collective leadership. Switzerland is governed by the Swiss Federal Council, a seven-member executive council, which acts as the collective head of state and leads the federal administration of Switzerland. Each federal councilor heads a government ministry, much like our ministers today; however, they are also responsible to monitor and facilitate the work of their colleagues’ departments as well, the conduct of the government, and the federal administration as a whole. Such a process helps the policy dialogue in all areas of development, and avoids the party-wise struggles for the important ministerial portfolios, such as what happens in Nepal currently. The Council’s President and Vice President are elected each year.
Although they have no power above and beyond the other five councilors, in urgent situations, when the Council cannot convene in time to make a decision, he or she can act on behalf of the Council. Such a leadership approach, where not a person but a council comprising various parties is responsible for collective leadership and decision-making, is important to ensure the strong foundation of democracy and cooperation for policymaking.
Throughout its history, one leader assuming executive powers has not worked well in the context of Nepal.
Yes, there are innumerable questions to be discussed if Nepal were to implement such a system of collective leadership. How many members should be in the council? How should they be selected? Will minority parties have their own representation? For this, we will need a CA and a strong judiciary which will handle the selection and ensure accountability of the council members.
But so far, “divide and rule” has been the motto of the political parties. “Unite and lead” needs to be its replacement. Such unification can come if we institutionalize a council of these leaders to share collective leadership and combine their visions of a New Nepal. We need “compromise and cooperation” to become the new political anthem of Nepal.
Related story
Dahal calls on Maoist constituents to unite