 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
30-April--2008
NEPAL: Problems in Post Election Scenario: Update No. 158
By Dr. S.Chandrasekharan.
Power sharing or Power balance? This is the question that is being discussed by various political parties in the formation of a new government.
While the Maoists take it that it is a mandate for their party to take over administration, others think that it is a fractured verdict and that there should be a balance of power.
The UML leadership which is still smarting on its poor showing and despite having withdrawn from the government is more keen to have a fair share power in the interim period rather than devoting their energy to rebuild and restructure their party. The party is floating a proposal that the three top posts- that of the President, the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Constituent Assembly should be shared among the three top parties.
Prachanda on 21st April conceded that the constituent assembly election was not the mission but only the means to collectively write a new constitution. He added that since the people’s mandate did not give majority to any single party all the parties and the civil society should work together to write a new constitution but it should be under the leadership of the Maoists.
This position was further clarified by Prachanda in the central committee meeting taking place now in Kathmandu. He reiterated that his party will lead the government but all decisions will be based on understanding.
It appears that the Maoists do not want to have parallel power centres and while promising that they will not be dictatorial (Prachanda) they would only agree to power sharing.
The Nepali Congress which came a poor second has realised that the interim constitution has given them a new life and some of the leaders would like G.P.Koirala to continue as the Prime Minister. Whether one agrees with the Maoists that the elections have given them a mandate to lead the government or not, certainly the election is not a mandate for the Nepali Congress to lead the government now!
The problem lies in the interim constitution itself. It has two major laws
One- Every decision and action will have to be based on consensual politics. While the SPA and the Maoists stuck together to see through the CA elections at any cost - with the fractured results, growing distrust and a sense of betrayal from among the seven party alliance have made the latter more cautious and adamant. They understand that if the Maoists are allowed to take over the Prime ministership and lead the government, they cannot be dislodged for the next few years. Hence they are talking of power sharing and would like even the constitution to be amended to remove the two third majority required for any decision when a consensus cannot be reached and instead have a simple majority.
Two: The interim constitution is not an inclusive one- It recognises only the SPA and the Maoists. The Terain parties which will have a sizeable presence in the new CA assembly will not figure at all. So will be the case of other minor parties.
There are other legal problems that were not envisaged at the time of introducing the interim constitution. They are not major ones and can be resolved provided the SPA and the Maoists reach out to other parties that are outside the constitution and arrive at an understanding. These are
1. The interim constitution does not recognise the party with the largest representation. Here, the Maoists.
2. The Prime Minister can continue so long as no consensus is reached for a replacement. Another can be elected only by a two third majority of the members. In the new dispensation Prachanda cannot replace Koirala without a consensus as there is no likelihood of two third of the members electing him. The reverse is also true. Prachanda cannot be displaced without a consensus or a two third majority voting against him. Neither will happen. .
3. The council of ministers cannot be formed without a consensus of the parties- Here political consensus means the Maoists and the seven party alliance. The rest do not matter.
4. The Constitutent Assembly which would meet soon cannot be considered complete until 26 members are added. Technically G.P. Koirala can nominate the members unless he is replaced before the CA meets.
The Maoists having staked their claims publicly will find it embarrassing to withdraw their claim. As recently as on 29th April, C.P. Gajurel declared that his party (CPN-M) will not allow a simple majority to either appoint or oust a prime minister. He added that they should get a chance to lead the government but will work in tandem with other parties.
The Maoists will not be able to run the government and the administration will be brought to a stand still as two third’s majority is unlikely to be obtained on all issues. They cannot use the YCL( some seem to think that they are just like Boy Scouts!) to take to the streets to pressurise the government as the latter will be their own government. But the MJF may apply the same method of being in the government and at the same time go for regular bandhs to bring Terai to a stand still.
It is therefore in the interest of stability and smooth running of a government that the interim constitution is amended so that all decisions can be taken on a simple majority. Already the MJF leader has demanded that the interim constitution should reflect the new realities and that all references to the SPA and the Maoists in the constitution should be removed. Some would say that the interim constitution is too sacrosanct a document to be interfered with. But haven’t they interfered with the constitution and in fact pre empted the constitutional assembly in abolishing the monarchy and declaring a federal structure for the State?
This amendment would also help the hitherto marginalised groups to have their presence felt. It is learnt that Prachanda is already talking to the smaller groups. The support of the Terain groups will be critical as their numbers with the Maoists would make up more than half the number in the assembly.
Indian Role:Now that the period of “hand wringing”, selective leaks to exculpate oneself and bashing of intelligence agencies are over, it is time to have a hard look on Indo Nepal relations on the basis of the 40 point demand made by the Maoists before they started the People’s war in February 1996 and their election manifesto. No doubt they are making the right statements ( though once a while they are caught up in their own ideological mindset- like Bhattarai maintaining that India is still an ‘expansionist power’), it should not be forgotten that in Nepal for too long nationalism has been equated with anti Indianism giving rise to violence ( recall Hrithik Roshan incident).
The Indo Nepal Treaty should be immediately reviewed and already the Nepalese Press in building up a case that India has been foot dragging on this issue. This is also due to some Indian analysts claiming that the treaty benefits Nepal more. There is no doubt it is an unequal treaty and let there be a treaty if there should be one that would be equal and provisions reciprocal. On water resources, except for flood management projects, the initiative for other power projects should come from Nepal and not from India. The Mahakali Treaty is as good as dead and it should be left at that. Let the decision on the recruitment of Gorkhas also be left to the new government.
I recall one former Prime Minister known for his blunt statements said that India does not give anything gracefully and it has to be “kicked” to give. I would suggest- Do not return the kick but do not give.
One witty learned minister of Nepal who is no more, used to tell me that India is “useless to friends and harmless to enemies” I would say continue to be harmless to enemies , but be useful to friends!
Home | Papers | Notes | Forum | Search | Feedback | Links
Copyright © South Asia Analysis Group
All rights reserved. Permission is given to refer this on-line document for use in research papers and articles, provided the source and the author's name are acknowledged. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.