Over a period of time following the 2006 political changes, several major issues have been hauled into political discourses by major political parties. This in turn has contributed to a long delay in promulgation of the new constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. One particularly contentious issue is the form of governance or state system. The conflict of ideas on this front has been a hurdle to the peace process, in addition to other unresolved issues such as state restructuring, federalism and transitional justice mechanisms. As the clock ticks down to the deadline of May 28, the country might face even harder times, which may further push it deeper into the political quagmire. Let us hope all political parties as well as the Constituent Assembly can find a viable way out of this stalemate through meaningful dialogue without further ado.
AT CROSSROADS
Political parties have different viewpoints and positions on the form of governance, neatly in line with their respective ideologies. To justify their positions they have been referring to different forms of governance from around the world. Since the very beginning, UCPN (Maoist) has been advocating for President as state head, directly elected by adult suffrage. Nepali Congress is still pitching in for the Westminster style Parliamentary Democracy in which the Prime Minister, elected by the House of Representatives, is the executive head of the government; it has also accepted President as the symbolic head of state. CPN-UML pitches for a directly-elected Prime Minister as the executive head, with the President as the emblematic state head. Civil society actors and academia have been equally divided on this crucial question.
We cannot copy any system. The political system should rather be based on ground realities.
These differing positions, I believe, are based on different interpretation of democracy. Hence, political leaders and civil society actors have busy offering ideas they deem best suited to the socio-economic and cultural reality of the country. The State Restructuring Commission was supposed to help settle some important debates. But unfortunately the Commission, through its split verdict, has only added to the confusion.
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
Different countries exercise different forms of political and governance systems, largely based on the wishes of their citizens. Nearly 50 countries in the world today practice Presidential form of government, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Bolivia, Mexico and the US. The Westminster system is mostly adopted by the Commonwealth nations. Likewise, there also exists a Hybrid Model, a system that combines good elements of presidential and parliamentary systems, for example the French model. Nevertheless, on a closer analysis, none of these models are absolutely impeccable. There always exists a danger of power struggle between the President and the Prime Minister, if the executive power is divided between them, as seen in a number of countries with this model.
Implementation of the parliamentary system also differs on whether the government requires the unequivocal endorsement of the parliament or if it has the right to dissolve the parliament. One of the main criticisms of the parliamentary systems is that the head of government is in almost all cases not elected by the people directly. If there is no clear constitutional arrangement for the devolution of power, the likelihood of power struggle will always be there, irrespective of the form of governance.
HARD CHOICES
Experiences and examples from around the world illustrate the fact that the system of governance should be decided by the people and it should be in keeping with fundamental norms, values and principles of democracy and human rights. Every form of governance has its strengths and weaknesses, but the most important thing is whether the system is based on true democratic principles. Hence, in keeping with internationally accepted norms and values of democracy, there should be clearly defined separation of power among the legislature, executive and judiciary. Likewise, independent press, free and fair periodical elections, rule of law, human rights, pluralism, unrestricted civil society and non-discrimination practices should be among the other defining characteristics of a democracy.
In a country like Nepal, where millions of people over the course of time have been systematically deprived and marginalized from its mainstream socio-economic-cultural order and development process, it is an imperative that the state follows principles of social inclusion, people´s participation and decentralization in order to cement the core elements of equality, justice and progress.
THE WAY AHEAD
As a newly established federal democratic republic, Nepal has tremendous opportunity to learn from tried and tested experiences from other countries. But we should not carbon copy any governance or political system for Nepal.
We also need to assess and examine both failures and successes the political systems the country has adopted so far. Therefore, I urge all political parties to let go of their pre-conceived notions on the form of governance and engage in dialogue with a spirit of compromise. They should adopt a political system which is truly democratic, people-oriented and one which can address important issues of the masses. Only then will all forms of discrimination be removed and peace, progress and prosperity ensured in the society. Given the country’s diversity in terms of ethnicity, culture and religion, it is important that these realties be reflected in choosing the form of governance. Equally importantly, such a system needs to have adequate mechanisms to maintain check and balance so that is no space left for any kind of dictatorship.
The writer is commissioner, National Human Right Commission
Related story
The changing face of Nepali Cinema
