Grave mistakes around MK Nepal’s premiership and hopes for the future

...so finally our country Nepal has a government. Unfortunately the political events leading to the formation of the current government were intransparent in the least. Right now with an anarchist air blowing through most of the country, having a government no matter in whatever way that has been formed, is an important issue. It is at least as important that our national politics silently realizes what was wrong and makes sure that such things do not be come a culture.
Let us try to analyze what was not very right about the formation of the current government.
The background
Quite frankly the Maoists party had lost grounds to rule. And they at least bowed out gracefully saying that the president’s intervention on the army chief issue (see previous blogs) had created two ruling power centres which should not be in a democracy. Ironically enough, it's the party that was underground for years and was raging an armed war against the state ( of which most politicians of other parties had been a part of in one way or the other for one period or the other) that produced the first example of the willingness to quit power but keep declared values. There has been doubt as to whether the Maoist party of Nepal is actually committed to multiparty democracy but nevertheless their participation in the election means that they were ready to go with multiparty democracy for now and their decision to quit the government has certainly served the sake of democracy.
The Maoists went very strategically- as the president’s controversial moves were challenged in court they decided to disrupt parliamentary proceedings until the president took back his moves. When this did not look like happening they brought in a motion against the president to discuss the issue in the parliament. And finally they gave in after the parliament allowed the then prime minister Prachanda to talk about his issues. Once again the Maoist party’s way of going through with their issue is politically very professional and mature and other parties of the country should not hesitate to learn from them.
Multiple non democratic partices
Now in a transition period where the peace process is very critical and the country has just become a republic in paper finally coming out of the grasps of the monarchy that had actively ruled after brief pauses and therefore still has the state structure well under control, strangely Madhav Kumar Nepal of the UML who had lost the direct election from two constituencies was chosen as the lead candidate for the prime ministers post. Now that is no less than a mockery on the spirit of the republican democracy that bases itself on the constituent assembly election. A consensus had built among most of the parties including the two most experienced parties of the country, the Nepali Congress and the UML. Why would someone who lost popular elections be preferred to lead the nation? All answers escape the thinking of this scribe. And the justification for this, also coming out of the ever power-hungry Girija Koirala's mouth was that Madhav Nepal being the consensus candidate having a majority in the parliament, it was irrelevant whether he had lost popular elections. Now this is a serious thing here. Hypothetically any ex-Panche party or any party that sympathises the king could always make the king a MP and if our ex-Majesty King Gyanendra managed to enter the parliament, I suppose none of us would be willing to bet he could not become prime minister if he wished to. Once in power anything can happen. That’s a very extreme example there but its not impossible. Therefore if the current system of direct and proportional representation of political parties is to stay, there should perhaps be a clause in the constitution saying that the prime minister and the president (and perhaps the ministers too) should have won direct elections. At least they cannot have lost elections.
There have been speculations in the press as to why it had to be Madhav Nepal. Let us not go into guesses. Let us rather go into the way Madhav Nepal was made prime minister. Something shameful happened then too. The parliament actually handed Madhav Nepal a majority outside the parliament. If such practices are to be allowed, why have a parliament building? And a parliament secretariat? And all the staff there? If parliamentarism is to be instutionalised, we need to have opinions and oppositions. That is precisely why we need a parliament. During the process of electing Madhav Nepal from outside the parliament, there was political hooliganism. The Maoists, after being reduced to a minority were not heard at all. That is unfortunate too because all they asked was for the issue of the president’s move to be discussed in the parliament. Now this is an issue that has drawn contradicting responses from various circles. It is therefore a genuine issue to discuss about. Can the head of state president reverse the decision of an executive cabinet? True that there are aspects in it like the cabinet decision wasn’t unanimous etc. But still, it was a decision on cabinet’s paper. Does the president have a right to do what he did? This genuine issue could have been discussed in the parliament and if the non-Maoists in the parliament wanted to support the president they could have and they could either have decided by voting in the parliament or let constitutional experts and the court decide. But in the name of political consensus most of the non-Maoist parties just didn’t let discussions take place in the parliament. This is another big blunder that should not be repeated in the past. There should be room for opposition voices to be heard. And where else to start that if not in the parliament?
Now another blunder is about to happen. The parties in consensus have requested the government to take back the previous governments concerns over the president. How can such things happen? It is simply ridiculous that more mature political parties are trying to go through such ways. It may be justified in the name of consensus but it is against the spirit of democracy. Why is there such a fear about talking about the president’s potential breach of power in the parliament and in court? Why should the president not be held accountable to the people, and therefore the people’s parliament?
A potential confrontation
With politically immature events having taken place and the largest party in the parliament been forced to go for dubious reasons, there is a tension in the air once again. The Maoists are clearly not happy, as no other political party would have been to be in their position right now. With parliamentary parties trying to circumvent the Maoists, it is very likely that the Maoists won’t be willing to accept the current situation. If the so called consensus-parties fail to recognize the Maoists as the largest party in the democratic parliament and give them the respect they deserve, we might well be looking towards a confrontation in the making.
Hope
Let us hope all the parties realize their mistakes and let us hope we all make sure we have learnt from them. Let us hope we all learn to forgive, accept and respect each other, including opposing values and ideals. Let us hope that Nepal prospers. In the name of the poor and the dying let us hope we are all ensured basic needs of life and a safer future for our children.