Prime Minister Oli is very much the part of the problem. Therefore, cannot be part of the solution.
On February 23, Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court gave the verdict that the act of dissolving parliament by Prime Minister K P Oli is unconstitutional and ordered it to be reinstated within 13 days from the day of the order. It would be normal for a politician to resign from his position after having been proved his or her action to be unconstitutional. However, PM Oli is not a normal person to deal with. In the past, he has shown his abnormality many times. While his opponents have demanded immediate resignation on moral ground or even threatened to sack him in parliament, he has vehemently refused to go. So far, ‘my way or highway’ seems to be his approach. He is not going to resign, he would rather face parliament and continue with his decisive fights. He even mocked his opponents—Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ and Madhav Nepal—for celebrating the court verdict by sharing sweets, as an act of frivolity.
During his first term, he refused to go, till the last minute, when he was shown an exit door, filing vote of no-confidence motion in the parliament. He left parliament, accompanied by hundreds of goons in the motorcycles, up to his private residence at Balkot, as if he was having a victory rally. This time also he is determined to have a final bout with his arch enemies.
Even communist veteran like Mohan Bikram Singh is calling for his resignation and giving a way out for smooth peaceful transition. Comrade Bam Dev is requesting Prachanda for Oli’s graceful exit so that much battered and divided Nepal Communist Party (NCP) can be united again. But the problem is: He is not resigning; he has refused to go. PM Oli seems to be having his own ‘moral’ grounds to do so.
First, his moral ground rests on avoiding political uncertainties. His desires to save the country from ensuing political instability that is now going to be triggered by the court verdict. His analysis included intense horse-trading, intimidation and grass-hopping or party defections, similar to the one the country observed during mid-1990s. Earlier, in his written rebuttal to Comrade Prachanda’s accusations, he charged Prachanda for not being able to differentiate between “dynamism” and “instability”. There is a saying, “If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". Probably, this is what PM Oli is scared of. But the fact is: he is very much the part of the problem, therefore, cannot be part of the solution.
Second, ethical ground is his claim, albeit fallacious, that he has achieved a kind of global record on development in Nepal. According to the statistics made available by PM Oli, if earlier, 10 kms of roads were constructed in a year, we are now constructing 5-7 kms per day. Dr Prakash Chandra Lohani, a prominent economist, in satirical terms, suggested PM Oli to be nominated for next Nobel Prize on economics for his unbelievable development feats taking place in Nepal at a time when whole world is being plunged into a crisis by the arrival of global pandemic of Covid-19.
Third moral ground is his immense knowledge mastered, literally, on everything from religion, culture, history, science, philosophy etc. As far as this scribe could recall he had acquired two honorary PhDs from unknown universities, sans higher education. His colleagues remember him rote learning English dictionary, during his days at Nakhu Jail. Remember, when the whole world was struggling with coronavirus, his solution was to “sneeze it away” like a common cold, drinking plenty of hot water mixed with a pinch of turmeric powder.
His fourth moral ground, probably, comes from the Supreme Court refraining from dealing with his malafide intention behind parliament dissolution.I would like to informally translate the last line, on page eight related to point number 4, written in the court verdict: “…..in spite of the availability of other options, the act of dissolving parliament based on one’s wishes and perceived necessity of self-status, ………………….putting financial burden on the people is against the spirit and objective of the constitution, therefore, cannot be said to be performed as per the constitution.” Clearly, reading the meaning between the lines, the verdict is saying that the dissolution of parliament is whimsical, egoistic and financially burdensome to the people and, therefore, unconstitutional to the core.The ethic is all about differentiating between thik-bethik in Nepali, or between what is right and what is wrong. According to US Supreme Court, Judge, Potter Stewart,"ethics is all about knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do." Ethics of Olitics-politics is all about the first part, the court has defined the second part.