Home >> South Asia >> Nepal & Bhutan

     Email   Print 

Political Consensus or Catastrophe

Prakash Bom - 12/6/2007

Nepali Congress could have never reached this far with the democracy had it shouldered itself with the institution of the monarchy based on its principle of national reconciliation. The proposal was originally propounded and constituted in this phrase – "Mine and the monarch's necks are set on the same cutting board" by the prominent South Asian socialist leader and NC founder the honorable late BP Koirla. In fact, this was rather a political tactic more than a principle for NC to follow up with the great expectation that the despotic monarch could include them under the provision of multiparty system. Instead monarch did include NC leaders and cadres individually without altering his one party system or "party-less" politics.

This is how NC suffered party depression with its own self-deceptions and it is still prone to cause trouble more in politics. For example, after successful 'People's Movement First' the Mallik Commission was formed to bring those who committed atrocities against the people during the movement. Instead the impunity was the choice of NC leaderships. Consequently, twelve years democracy defamed by the skyrocketing corruptions without any public justice.

It seems as if the history keeps repeating under NC leaderships – formation of Rayamajhi Commission for justice yet impunity that NC leaderships have chosen. Now what price nation is paying at this juncture is nearing to catastrophe. At this point, the political leaderships that have no regard for people's mandate cannot possibly ask people again to rescue them. In the end, who'll benefit the most from this situation is problematic! If this is what NC leaderships want then they should stop pretending to mislead people with socialist democracy. Because it is even to the most layperson or proletariat democracy delivers justice. But if it doesn't then it is just party monopoly of a political party that has simple majority.

The mandate that successfully proceeded the 'People's Movement Second' was republic. People came to the street (not only in the streets of Nepal but around the world) enthusiastically in support of this mandate. Mandate was not just to scare the monarch to step down for negotiation but to demolish the institution entirely. The mandate though could have been not real for NC leaderships other than just a political tactic to knock the stubborn monarchy down. If not why people had and yet have to continue their struggle to make NC leaderships accept republic.

It is still questionable whether NC leaderships have unanimously accepted the republic setup despite its Mahasamiti's endorsement. If it had NC should have introduced the proposal for declaring republic in the interim Parliament for the constitutional amendment (to set procedural guarantee) in stead of Maoists. The question here is that why people have to force NC leaderships with the street demonstrations to comply with the people's mandate? Disgracefully, NC leaderships like Sujata Koirala even do not take moral or ethical responsibility to the decision of Mahasamiti. If she had then she should have never spoken about the revival of the demolished 1990 constitution.

It is tragic that the people's mandate at its climax turned into political impasse when the former rebel party the Maoists brought the proposal in the Parliament. It is because Maoists brought this proposal became political resent though it took the political momentum. This momentum must have assured the Maoists guarantee of republic as national mandate for political consensus to carry on with CA elections even without declaring Nepal republic.

None the less according to NC legislator Narahari Acharya that NC dominated interim Parliament cannot declare republic. It is clear that majority of NC legislators lack moral or ethical responsibility to the people's mandate for the republic. Perhaps few but dominant number of NC legislators, leaders, cadres and supporters would like to reverse the declaration of secular state and its Mahasamiti's republic decision. The political impasse less or more boils down to this line of NC royalist-lobby.

If, otherwise, Maoists would not have trapped CA elections in the pretext of the republic declaration the proposal could have taken successful political momentum for the declaration. CA elections are mandatory for people of Nepal and the international community to lay the permanent keystone of the federal democratic republic of Nepal. As a matter of fact, the more important proposal than the declaration of republic prior to CA elections should have been the proposal of implementing proportional representation electoral system to accomplish CA elections with the proportional representations of people of Nepal. This proposal as a socialist democratic party NC should have introduced to the nation because the PR electoral system is the system of socialist democracy.

Frankly, the deferral of CA elections at this point is rather more beneficial to people of Nepal than to the political party per se. If CA elections have been balloted under current agreement with fifty percent FPTP and fifty percent PR outcome could have been one party dominated disproportional representations for the majority. Since under the PR electoral system hundred percent of the vote of the electorates counts for all candidates and the parties the majority is formed under the political consensus for the best interest of the nation. As in FPTP one party cannot sweep the majority with only fifty one percent of votes for the term that becomes one party monopoly. For a country like ours political consensus is the better way to manage democracy than one party based monopoly.

Still it is not clear why Maoists have chosen PR electoral system for their party. It is basically anti Maoists current political culture that persists in Nepal. It is because under PR political consensus is mandatory simply because no political party can win hundred percent of the vote of the electorates of a constituency. Similarly, no ethnic group or gender or minority or deprived group of people can win hundred percent of the vote of their electorates in a constituency by representing a political party or as an independent candidate. PR electoral system assembles a political culture of diverse thinking that can embrace a common political consensus. It checks gang like homogeneity of a political party (monopoly) that comes in power with simple majority.

It is obvious why NC does not want full PR system. Because it is with its political practice NC is addicted to the power of monopoly of a majority rule that can only be established through FPTP electoral system. The monopoly allows its leaders and cadres exploit the national recourses and get corrupt. The monopoly allows NC to stick with its status quo of feudal Hindu values that is based on make-belief and superstitions rather than philosophical analysis, rational thinking, and scientific observation. The monopoly gives NC power of impunity to shelter its most corrupt politicians like 'Govinda Raj Joshi'. It is with its party interest and addictions to the political power NC opposes full PR electoral system.

Unless nation moves forward with the political consensus for the CA elections the political gridlock will not be resolved and CA elections will be uncertain. Such a vacuum will inevitably create political catastrophe. The rule of majority in democracy is the rule of political monopoly of a gang that overrules minorities' consensus. The rule of political consensus through the political culture of understanding and dialogue is the rule of modern democracy that counts hundred percent of the vote of the electorates for the proportional representations of all communities. Therefore, even without declaring nation republic prior to CA elections CA elections must be held under the maximum percent of proportional representation electoral system. Any political party that resists political consensus for CA elections will oppose people's mandate for the inclusive democracy.