System of governance

There seems to be a great deal of public frustration that the political parties have not yet reached an agreement on the system of governance that the country should adopt in the new constitution. That the parties are on the verge of revising the constitution-drafting calendar to give themselves more time to consider this complex issue has been reviled as incompetence and the parties’ general unwillingness to complete the constitution on time. We disagree. What system of governance we eventually adopt in our new constitution will have long-term implications for the country.



It is, therefore, wise not to rush to any conclusion without having a vigorous debate on the issue, without exhaustive discussions on the pros and cons of each of the systems of governance now under consideration. That, however, doesn’t mean the parties can take an infinite amount of time to settle the issue. They don’t have the luxury of time and they must accelerate the pace of negotiations, bearing in mind that the new constitution must be sealed and promulgated by the end of May, 2012.



By now there seems to be general agreement that we will end up with both a president and a prime minister in our future governmental setup. But differences persist in two areas: First, what should be the process of electing the president and the prime minister, and secondly, how should the two share power. The largest party in the Constituent Assembly (CA), the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), favors a directly-elected executive president with sweeping powers and a parliament-elected nominal prime minister.



But the second largest party in the CA, Nepali Congress, wants a nominal president elected either through an extended electoral college or by parliament, and a powerful prime minister elected and anointed by parliament. Both systems have their own pluses and minuses. For example, a directly-elected president will relieve the country of the burden of chronic instability and frequent changes in government, and it also makes the president directly accountable to the people. But such a system will have less check and balance against the president, leaving open the possibility of an autocratic presidency.



One may argue that if the directly-elected president becomes unpopular for whatever reason or reasons, he or she can be overthrown by the people in the next general election. But that’s easier said than done. In an imperfect democracy where institutions are extremely weak, a dictatorial presidency can manipulate things to influence election results its favor. There is also a risk that if a directly-elected president and a prime minister elected from parliament happen to represent different parties, as is only too likely, it could lead to conflict between the two, rendering the government completely dysfunctional.



A prime minister elected from parliament offers better checks and balances and less chance of conflict with a nominal president, but then it can plunge the country into another phase of unstable governments as in the 1990s. Since we are most likely to adopt an electoral system that will elect half the lawmakers through a First-Past-The-Post System and half on the basis of proportional representation, hung parliaments and a coalition government are to be expected.



We all know through experience how weak and ineffective such a government and its prime minister would be. It will not be easy for the political parties to give up their avowed stances and overlook short-term considerations in the long-term interest of the country. But the choice of system of governance is so extremely important that reaching a decision on it demands nothing less from them. We hope our political parties will rise to the occasion and reach a deal that best suits the country at this particular phase of our democratic experiment.

Related story

Revised interest rate corridor system introduced