UCPN (Maoist) Chief Prachanda’s newfound fatalism signals a bizarre turn of character. More accustomed to the role of protagonist, it appears that the onetime guerrilla leader and author of the ‘Prachanda Path’ is happy to blame elements he cannot control for his protracted grasp on power. Indeed, maybe ‘climatic or natural calamities’ will prevent the holding of elections by June. Of course, two days ago it was apparent that unforeseen legal issues would delay polls until ‘May of 2014’. Whilst it is possible that both natural and political conspiracies will thwart the UCPN (Maoist)’s earnest desire for elections, far more likely is their contrivance in creating the said conspiracies.
The ongoing Chief Justice (CJ) debacle is a case in point.
PHOTO: FILE PHOTO
With more than a hint of triumphalism, on February 8 Prachanda staked the turf upon which future political games would be played. Claiming that the CJ was the only candidate fit to hold executive power heading to the polls, the UCPN (Maoist) put into motion a masterful piece of political brinksmanship. In doing so, they exposed the painfully opportunistic nature of opposition parties: political mischief, it seems, is highly contagious.
Whilst international observers have hailed the proposal as a ‘breakthrough’ in Nepal’s transitional process, it is becoming increasingly clear that nothing of the sort has occurred. Rather than hastening Nepal’s transition toward a stable and functioning democracy, the move is likely to entrench the rule of the UCPN (Maoist) through protracted legal wrangling, as well as to compromise both the Interim Constitution and the judiciary itself. Though international supporters have highlighted its potential to transcend the poisonous ‘partyocratic’ culture dogging Nepali politics, the prospect of a CJ-led government has in fact done the opposite, reinforcing a brand of politics that is deeply irresponsible.
Nonetheless, to acknowledge the Machiavellian genius of the maneuver is to understand the hand it leaves its opponents.
Outright hostility on behalf of opposition parties would have been met with derision by UCPN (Maoist) cadres, and quite possibly, external players. There is a very clear reason why the proposal was slated by Prachanda (who still clings to some credibility as a mediator and pragmatist) rather than Bhattarai, whose stock is now irreparably damaged due to a woeful term in office. The potential for the UML and Nepali Congress to be seen as the ‘spoilers’ of the process was, apparently, too great for them to counter with an argument that could have retained their democratic integrity. This was all the less likely given that factions within the opposition would do almost anything to see Bhattarai’s demise. Ironically, the only party in consistent opposition has been Baidya’s habitually thuggish CPN-Maoist, who (truth be told) have very little to lose by their obstinacy.
Had the UML and NC responded with reservations, the affair would have been elaborately and artfully drawn-out. That much we can be sure of. Whilst the UCPN (Maoist) has attempted to display a conciliatory and transparent role in the media, the zero sum nature of the proposal cannot be hidden. Chief Justice Regmi has reinforced this intent through his now explicit consent to the proposal, rendering opposition within the UML and NC obstructive. The fact that the Supreme Court was considering Regmi’s contempt underlines both the integrity of the broader legal fraternity, as well as the difficulty of negotiating a deeply flawed proposal in an orderly manner. That the Nepal Bar Association (NBA) is being labeled ‘irresponsible’ for its principled stand on the matter is indicative of the pressure being marshaled on behalf of the proposal’s supporters.
The demure acceptance of Prachanda’s prime thrust by Messrs Koirala, Poudel, Khanal and Oli has already had significant negative consequences. The NBA has laid waste to the moral capacity of the highest legal authority whilst the prospect of elections does not seem any closer: indeed quite the opposite. Likewise, the basic principles upon which democracy rests are being threatened in favor of gross political opportunism on all sides. If current proceedings are anything to go by, the prospect of a CJ-led election government offers little practical help in solving Nepal’s transitional woes. As Prachanda reiterated on Thursday though, ‘there is no other option’.
But is this fatalism warranted?
Increased rumblings in the rank and file of opposition parties would argue not. Although it would serve as a damning indictment on the judgment of senior leaders (with a few notable exceptions), there is still ample time for them to withdraw their obeisance. Given the case against Chief Justice Regmi’s government leadership at the Supreme Court, the time to do so and retain some credibility would be now. (Indeed, at this juncture it may even be possible to profit from such a move).
Rather than hastening Nepal’s transition toward a stable and functioning democracy, the move is likely to entrench Maoist rule.
Regardless of the bruised egos and frayed temperaments, it is crucial that the current proposal does not proceed unamended. The dangers of merging the executive and the judiciary are too acute to warrant the risk. Moreover, the changes needed to avert this risk are relatively small: have the CJ resign from his judicial post before accepting a role in the executive. Indeed, so simple is this amendment that is beggars belief as to how it has not formed the lynchpin of UML and Congress strategy to date.
The greatest challenge to this seemingly obvious parley will be in recasting Prachanda’s zero sum advances and creating a space for legitimate debate. If handled successfully, the move has the potential to reframe the discussion and cast serious doubt on the motivations behind the proposal. The deliberate obstruction of democratically sound initiatives would then be clear for all to see. Despite the obscurantism of some, the matter is, actually, remarkably straightforward.
Whilst democracy has been referred to as the ‘least worst form of government’, it should nonetheless (and once again) inspire the kind of optimism that was the bread and butter of the Jana Andolan. The strength of Nepal’s civil society and its democratic acumen cannot, and must not, be sidelined by intractable ‘solutions’ that debase the foundations of this system. Arguably, it is only the raw optimism that democracy has inspired that can combat the fatalism now stalking Nepali politics.
The author is a Visiting Researcher at Kathmandu School of Law
Related story
NCP leader picks flaw in Nepal Trust white paper
