Why commitment proposal?

If the Maoists are so cocksure that the president’s move to reinstate the sacked Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) was unconstitutional, why don’t they dare to come up with an impeachment motion? Why are they pushing for a commitment proposal (sankalpa prastab)? This is the latest stand taken against the Maoists by none other than Prime Minster (PM) Madhav Kumar Nepal himself. Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal is reported to have said that his party is ready to opt for such a move if CPN-UML is there to collaborate.

However, Dr Baburam Bhattarai brushed aside UML’s impeachment challenge. Maoist sympathizers say that when it is so hard to table a simple proposal like the commitment proposal to debate and discuss the matter in the House, presenting an impeachment motion is next to impossible. It looks like we are gearing up for another round of political tirade.

The intention behind the Maoists’ commitment proposal is to “expose” the political parties. With outright voting, even when the Maoists are sure of defeat, the stand taken by the parties will expose them to the outside world.

In order to get through an impeachment motion, one needs to garner at least two-third majority. For a party that does not even command a simple majority, garnering two-third majority is definitely a huge ask. If the Maoists do not have a simple majority, why are they stubbornly insisting on a commitment proposal? The proposal can be very easily turned down. What is the politics behind this commitment proposal?

If the Maoists do not even have a simple majority, by the same reasoning, why are other political parties hell bent on blocking the move? What is wrong in tabling the proposal and resolving the same through a normal voting procedure? What is so sacred about this proposal? What is the politics behind it? Let us try to unravel them. The claim that the issue is sub-judice is now immaterial. Given the row between Vice President Parmananda Jha and the Supreme Court (SC) over his oath-taking in Hindi or the government’s decision to reinstate the eight retiring army generals, what can and cannot be debated in the House seems immaterial now. “In his reply to the SC, the president himself had written that it was a political case. We have (a) tradition of holding debates on political issues in the parliament,” claims Maoist leader Barsha Man Pun.

Maoists also have a readymade answer to the question on not opting for an impeachment motion. First, they say, they don’t have anything personal against President Dr Ram Baran Yadav. They claim that they want to correct the system, establish a principle, avoid political confrontations and draw a line of demarcation between the figurehead president and an all-powerful executive over each other’s prerogatives. If necessary, they are ready to amend the constitution. Probably, the Maoists do not want to see the first president of the country to be humiliated to such an extent. They take the commitment proposal as a middle ground to solve the existing political stalemate.

For the Maoists, impeachment motion is a final move – a weapon of last resort. Opting for an impeachment motion to correct the president’s move will be like using cannon to kill a gnat. Maoists say that a simple apology from the president or a move to “correct the mistake” by the 18 political parties is enough to pacify them. Since the principle “king can do no wrong” is still applicable in Nepal, asking the president for an apology is tantamount to asking for his resignation in a roundabout way. Nepali Congress is clear on this issue. UML is simply buying time, using evasive words. Earlier, it played with “theoretical consent to fire CoAS”, having failed to convince the Maoists with their one-month truce to “search for options to get consensus among political parties”. Now, it has come up with an idea of “a possible debate”. Maoists must have been extremely irritated by UML’s response that the one-month truce was for “searching options for consensus”; it was never meant for “getting consensus”. There is a saying that “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

The real intention behind the Maoists’ commitment proposal is to “expose” the political parties. With outright voting, even when the Maoists are sure of defeat, the respective stand taken by the political parties will expose them to the outside world. This is the reason why other political parties are hell bent on blocking the proposal from parliamentary debate and discussion and subsequent voting. Remember how earlier the Maoists meticulously planned and pushed, inch by inch, the idea of republic with the political parties. First they came with a proposal to “declare republic”. This was followed by another proposal to “implement the republic”, which was swapped with UML’s proposal for a proportional representation system. Like a proverbial camel, they managed to sneak into the master’s tent, moving inch by inch, finally pushing the master out of the tent.

With Madhesi People’s Rights Forum (MPRF) in disarray, the voting pattern in the House is pretty unsure. Maoists are sure to cash on to this politically uncertain and volatile situation. It is far safer to play with a commitment proposal than an impeachment proposal that will not at all be tabled. The government may have the backing of 18 political parties but, in reality, it is surviving on a wafer-thin majority. PM Nepal is not even sure of the required backing from his own political party, forget about others. This could also be the reason why he is challenging the Maoists to come with an impeachment motion.

Earlier, I predicted of major political shifts in Nepali politics by the end of the first week of August. Things may have got delayed but I still stand by it; the inevitable political big bang is waiting to happen.