Broadly speaking there can be two possible outcomes: first, massive street protests through out the country as and when the Maoist Secretariat decides; second, a real consensus to take the nation forward keeping in view the prime minister’s commitment to democracy and peace which he stated during his televised address to the nation on Monday.
Dahal has accused President Dr Ram Baran Yadav of trying to create a parallel power center. That was unwarranted. His government had clearly been reduced to a minority because of the unilateral decision it took to sack the army chief without a legitimate consensus with its partners in the coalition. The president acted only after 18 prime political parties petitioned him to “protect” the constitution.
The Maoist Secretariat’s decision, soon after the PM’s address, to not take part in any political process and to go for street protests and parliament disruptions until the president withdraws his order to reinstate the ‘sacked’ army chief is worrisome.
The president has done no wrong.
It would be worthwhile to take a look at what the Interim Constitution says regarding removal – before end of tenure – of an incumbent army chief.
The Interim Constitution unambiguously spells out that the cabinet has to recommend the president for taking any sort of action against the chief of army staff. The cabinet can only recommend the president to remove the chief and suggest a replacement. It cannot do so bypassing the president’s involvement. But it did, leading to current developments.
We can only hope that better sense will prevail since we have not yet come out of the post-war transition period – either formally nor practically.
Transitional periods invariably demand that each opposing sides in these kinds of domestic conflict need the reassurance that no one will be harmed until a logical conclusion is reached. The Maoists tried to disturb this delicate balance solely for their own interests. That is why this writer argued against its sacking of army chief. As it clearly was not a case of Maoist chairman replacing a commander of his party-controlled PLA.
After the prime minister’s resignation, the question uppermost in our mind is: what next?
The best thing will be a national government led by Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal (or any other leader nominated by that party).
Perhaps some leaders in the Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) may be fancying upon chances to lead the next government. But there are some underlying realities that we cannot ignore. The Maoist-led government was reduced to a minority one, no doubt. They had 245 CA members as opposed to 343 of the 18 parties that were against their unilateral decision to sack chief of army staff Rookmangud Katawal. More than 10 CA members remained undecided. However, the Maoists still have the largest single party in the 601-member Constituent Assembly cum Legislative-Parliament.
It would be unwise to keep them out of the government (if possible at all). The Maoists have money, muscle and motive to paralyze any government that will not consist of them.
At this point my biggest fear is that Nepali Congress, especially its president Girija Prasad Koirala might yet again make moves to lead the government. Just like he did soon after the Constituent Assembly elections concluded, eventually reducing NC to a miserable second position.
We lost four precious months after the elections primarily for four reasons: one, NC president and the then prime minister Koirala was not willing to step down; two, the debate on whether there should be an executive prime minister or president; three, if a simple or two-thirds majority of CA members would suffice to remove a government; and lastly, the Maoists’ game plan to have their man – Ram Raja Prasad Singh as the president.
These past events should guide us as to what we should avoid. Soon after the New Delhi agreement of 2005 which paved way for Maoists and other parties to come together to fight against the then king’s illegitimate rule, grounds had been created for politics of consensus.
The Maoists’ stance after the Constituent Assembly elections was both praiseworthy as well as objectionable. On one hand, they were flexible towards amendment of a provision in the constitution that said the government could only be removed by a two-thirds majority. On the other hand, they were hell bent on getting Singh elected as the head of state. The moves and counter moves of the Nepali Congress and the Maoists at that time effectively broke the politics of consensus making way for politics of arithmetic.
The resignation by Prime Minister Dahal is a golden opportunity to reclaim that lost politics of consensus.
Despite all his faults – which include utter failure of governance in the past nine months by the government of which he was at the helm – Dahal has set an example of upholding democratic norms that very few Nepali politicians have done in the past.
What is heartening to note is that in his address to the nation Dahal said that his party was still committed to the ongoing peace process. He said he was stepping down to end this uncomfortable situation and create a conducive atmosphere for safeguarding endangered democracy and peace process.
Let us hope that that this is not a mere lip service.
damakant@myrepublica.com
Related story
Ishaan Khatter, Tabu and Tanya Maniktala in Mira Nair’s next wo...
