Category: Newspaper

(Interview of Dr Bipin Adhikari by Khila Karki of Khabarera Online Nepali Paper)

संविधान जारी भएको एक वर्ष पूरा भएको छ । यसको कार्यान्वयनको पक्षलाई तपार्इंले कसरी मूल्यांकन गर्नुभएको छ ?

जुन गतिमा काम अगाडि बढ्नुपर्ने हो निश्चय पनि त्यो गतिमा छैन । सामान्य रूपमा मात्रै कामकारबाही अगाडि बढेको छ । पूर्ण कार्यान्वयनको जुन समय छ, त्यो समयमा काम सक्नका लागि गति बढाउनुपर्ने देखिन्छ । अब पनि अहिलेकै गतिले अगाडि जाने हो भने त २०७४ माघ ७ को डेटलाइन भेट्टाउन गाह्रो हुन्छ । पहिला त संविधानप्रति तराई मधेसमा देखिएको असन्तुष्टिलाई सम्बोधन गर्नुपर्ने अवस्था देखिन्छ, यो सन्दर्भलाई तपाईंले कसरी हेर्नुभएको छ ? यसको पनि प्रयास भइरहेको छ । सरकारले यसको प्रयास गरिरहेको छ । संविधान संशोधनका लागि एउटा पक्षले मात्र अर्थात् सरकारले मात्र गरेर पनि हुँदैन । सरकार र तराई मधेसमा असन्तुष्टि जनाएको पक्ष मिलेर मात्र पनि संशोधन हुन सक्दैन । संविधान संशोधनका लागि दुई तिहाइ बहुमत चाहिन्छ । त्यस कारणले संविधान संशोधनका विषयलाई सबैले स्वीकार गर्नुपर्छ । यसका लागि सर्वपक्षीय वार्ता र छलफल गरेर सबैले दलगत स्वार्थ छोडेर निकास खोज्नुपर्ने हुन्छ । सरकारले चाहेर वा सरकारलाई बाध्य बनाएर मात्र संविधान संशोधनको प्रस्ताव पास हुन सक्दैन ।

संविधान संशोधन नभई संविधान सर्वस्वीकार्य हुँदैन अनि संविधान सर्वस्वीकार्य नभई पूर्ण रूपले संविधान कार्यान्वयन हुन सक्दैन । यो जानकारी हुँदाहँुदै पनि राजनीतिक दलहरू किन संविधान संशोधनका विषयमा आग्रह र पूर्वाग्रह पालेर बसेका होलान् ?

यसका लागि राजनीति दलहरूका बुझाइमा समस्या देखेको छु । केही राजनीतिक दलहरूको बुझाइ, यो संविधान संशोधन नेपाल र नेपालीको चाहना होइन कहीँ कतैबाट प्रेरित छ भन्ने छ । यो विषयमा सबै पक्षलाई विश्वासमा लिन जरुरी छ । विशेषगरी यो विषय एमाले र राप्रपा नेपालले उठाएका छन् । उनीहरू सहमत नभई संविधान संशोधन सम्भव छैन । त्यही कारणले विपक्षीलाई पनि विश्वासमा लिनु सरकारमा रहेका दलहरूको दायित्व हो । यसो गर्दा मात्र सहज ढंगले संविधान संशोधन हुन सक्छ । यसरी छलफल भएमा सरकारमा रहेका दलहरूमा देखिएको आन्तरिक असन्तुष्टि पनि कम हुन्छ । अन्यथा पार्टीभित्रको आन्तरिक असन्तुष्टिसमेत बाहिर आउन सक्छ । त्यसकारणले अहिले सरकारमा रहेका दलहरूले सबै पक्षलाई मिलाउनका लागि पहल गर्न जरुरी छ । सरकारमा रहेका दलहरू संविधान संशोधनको तयारीमा लागेको भनिएको छ । यो प्रक्रियामा नै असन्तुष्ट दलहरूलाई समावेश गर्न जरुरी छ । राष्ट्रहितका लागि गरिने काम किन लुकाएर गर्ने ? खुल्लेआम सबै राजनीतिक दलहरूलाई राखेर गर्दा नै उत्तम हुन्छ । गलत बाटो अपनाएर संविधान संशोधन गराउँदा संविधानको नै बदनाम हुन्छ । त्यस कारणले राम्रो के हुन्छ भने अहिले भइरहेको वार्तालाई सर्वपक्षीय बनाएर संविधान संशोधनको खाका तयार पार्नुपर्छ । यसो भएन भने संविधान संशोधन हुँदैन । भए पनि कसैले असहमति जनाइराख्छ ।

संविधानको पहिलो संशोधन भएको बखत नै सबै राजनीतिक दलहरूका बीचमा सीमांकन हेरफेर पछि गर्ने सहमति भएको थियो किन फेरि अहिले दलहरू फरकफरक बाटोमा लागेका होलान् ?

त्यो बेला संघीयताको सीमांकनसम्बन्धी विषय संघीय आयोगको प्रतिवेदनअनुसार गर्ने भन्ने कुरा भएको थियो । अन्य कुरा पहिलो संशोधनमा गर्ने भन्ने भएको हो । तर संघीय आयोग बनाउने विषयमा काम हुन सकेन । असन्तुष्ट पक्षले पनि सीमांकनसँगै अन्य विषयहरू मागमा राख्न थाले । सीमांकनको विषय पनि आयोगले भन्दा अगावै गर्नुपर्छ भन्न थाले । आयोगलाई पूर्वाधारमात्र तयार गर्ने र रबरस्टाम्प गर्ने भन्नेतर्फ अगाडि बढेको छ । सीमांकनभन्दा बाँकी कुराहरू त पहिलो संशोधनमा समेटिएको छ । यसरी माग बढ्दै जाँदा अझ संविधान संशोधनका लागि समस्या हुन्छ भन्ने मलाई लागेको छ । अर्को कुरा, भर्खरै सरकार परिवर्तन भएको छ । सरकारबाट अलग भएको पक्ष र अहिले सरकारमा भएका दलहरूबीच इगो रहिरह्यो भने संविधान संशोधन सम्भव हुँदैन ।

यस्तै भइराख्यो भने त मुलुक अगाडि बढ्न सक्दैन । यसका लागि कुनकुन दलले के के गर्न जरुरी छ । तपाईंको सुझाव के छ ?

यसमा सबैलाई मिलाउने जिम्मा भनेको त मुलुकको नेतृत्व गरेको कार्यकारी प्रधानमन्त्रीकै हो । ऊ कुनै राजनीतिक पार्टीको होइन मुलुकको नेता र मुलुक चलाउने कार्यकारी व्यक्ति हो । सबैलाई विश्वासमा लिन जरुरी छ । यो संविधान संशोधनका बारेमा उब्जिएको प्रश्नको निवारण पनि उहाँले नै गर्नुपर्छ । यसमा सबै पक्षलाई कुनै आग्रह पूर्वाग्रहका लागि होइन मुलुकमा असल परिणाम ल्याउनका लागि यो संशोधन गर्न खोजिएको हो भनेर सबैलाई विश्वासमा लिन सक्नुपर्छ ।

त्यसैगरी असन्तुष्टि जनाउने पक्षले भनौं या मधेस आन्दोलनमा रहेका राजनीतिक पार्टीका नेताहरूले पनि आफूलाई अरूका लागि पनि स्वीकार्य हुने गरी मध्यमार्गी उपायको खोजीमा लाग्नुपर्छ । मध्यमार्गी उपायमा जाँदा सबै कुरा मिल्न सक्छ । संसद्को अंकगणित एकातिर छ तर मैले भनेको जस्तो नै हुनुपर्छ भनेर हुँदैन । संसद्को अंकगणितलाई पनि मान्न जरुरी छ । अरू कसैको दबाब वा अन्य पार्टीमा विभाजन गराएर जस्ता फोहोरी खेलबाट संविधानको संशोधन गराउनु हुँदैन । सबै मिलेर मध्यमार्गी बाटोको खोजी गर्नुपर्छ । यदि मध्यमार्गी बाटोमा जान सकिँदैन भने अन्तत: जनता भनेका जनार्दन हुन् । राजनीतिक दलहरू आआफ्ना एजेन्डा लिएर जनतामा जानुपर्छ । हामी हाम्रा विषयहरू जनतामा लिएर जान्छांै भन्न सक्नुपर्छ । जनतामा जानका लागि चुनाव छिटो गराउन दबाब दिने हो । कि मध्यमार्गीबाट कि चुनावमा आआफ्ना एजेन्डा लिएर जाने भन्दा अरू कुनै उपाय नै छैन ।

मध्यमार्गी उपायमा सहमति जुट्दैन भने प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रक्रिया चुनावमा जाने हो । चुनावमा जस्तो मत आउँछ त्यसैअनुरूप संशोधन गर्ने हो । अहिले प्रदेशको सिमाना हेरफेर वा संख्या बढाउने विषयलाई सामान्य रूपमा लिन सकिन्छ । सिमाना हेरफेर र संख्यालाई धेरै महत्व र राजनीतिक स्वार्थसँग गाँस्नु हुँदैन । यसो भएमा समस्या सुल्झिने होइन बल्झिँदै जान्छ । यसलाई खासै महत्व नदिएर छलफलमा जाँदा मध्यमार्गी बाटोमा कुरा मिल्न सक्छ । बाँकी अन्य विषय सामान्य हुन् । अर्को, निर्वाचन क्षेत्रलगायत स्थानीय तहको संख्या र सिमानाको विषय छ । यसलाई पनि जनसंख्यामात्र भन्दा समस्या हुन सक्छ । नेपालमा जनसंख्याको मात्र आधार बनाउनु हुँदैन् । हिमाल, पहाड छन् । ती क्षेत्रमा बस्ने नेपाली जसले अहिलेसम्म पनि सडक देखेका छैनन्, साँच्चैको सभ्यता देख्न पाएका छैनन् । ती नागरिक माथि अन्याय हुन्छ । यसमा कुनै एउटा जातिमात्र होइन सबै जातजाति छन् । हिमाली र पहाडी क्षेत्रमा जनसंख्यामात्र भन्दा ती क्षेत्रको प्रतिनिधित्व कम हुन्छ । यसरी प्रतिनिधित्व कम हुँदा ती क्षेत्रबाट पछि परेका जातजातिको अझै प्रतिनिधित्व शून्य हुन सक्छ । यसो भएमा यो सिस्टम उनीहरूका लागि कामै नलाग्ने हुन सक्छ । उनीहरूको आवाज नीति निर्माण तहमा कहाँबाट आउँछ ? यो विषयलाई ध्यान दिएर बाँकी जनसंख्यालाई आधार मान्दा हुन्छ । यो मध्यमार्गी विषय हुन सक्छ ।

संविधानको संशोधनमा सीमा र संख्याको विषयमात्र हैन नागरिकताको विषय पनि उठेको छ । यो विषय चाहिँ कस्तो हो ?

हेर्नुस् नागरिकताको कुरा के हो भने संविधानमा जे जे लेखेको भए पनि हामी नेपाली हौं । नेपाली जातिको पहिचानको विषय पनि नागरिकतामा उठ्छ । त्यो नेपाली जाति भनेको हिमाल, पहाडमा मात्र होइन तराईमा पनि छ । अहिले सबै विषय संविधानमा नै व्यवस्था गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने छैन । केही विषय ऐनमा लेख्न पनि सकिन्छ । अहिले हाम्रो दक्षिणमा खुल्ला सिमाना छ, दक्षिणको धेरै रहनसहन छिमेकी भारतसँग मिल्छ पनि । तर दुई चार वर्षमा नागरिकता पाउने अनि त्यो फेरि नेपाली जाति बराबर हुने हुनुहँुदैन । यसो भएमा नेपाली जातिको चित्त दुख्छ, त्यो भनेको मधेसमा बस्ने नेपालीको पनि चित्त दुख्छ । प्राविधिक रूपमा मधेसको मान्छे वा पहाडको मान्छे भएका कारणले नागरिकतामा विभेद हुनुहँुदैन । तर राष्ट्रिय स्वार्थ सबैले हेर्नुपर्छ ।

नागरिकता पाउने विषय एउटा होला । अर्को भनेको राष्ट्रपति, प्रदेशको मुख्यमन्त्रीजस्ता विभिन्न १० वटा पदमा चाहिँ अंगीकृत नागरिकता पाए मान्छेहरूलाई बन्देज लगाइएको छ । यसमा विरोध पनि छ, विश्वमा प्रचलन के छ ?

यो विषयमा अलगअलग देशका समस्या आफ्नै प्रकारका हुन्छन् । समाधान पनि आफ्नै प्रकारका हुन्छन् । नेपाल आज स्थापना भएको मुलुक होइन । त्यही कारणले यो देशका आफ्नै विशेषता छन् । त्यही भएकाले विश्वका अन्य कुनै पनि प्रयोग र प्रचलन यहाँ हुबहु लागू हुन्छन् भन्ने छैन । हामीले यति बेलासम्मका प्रयोग हेर्दा सबै विषयहरू लेनदेनमा सुल्झाएका छौं । यो विषय पनि लेनदेनमा टुंगो लाग्छ । अहिले कुनै जन्मका आधारमा उच्च पद दिने भनेर भनिएको छैन । संविधानमा त के मात्र भनिएको छ भने, वंशजका आधार एउटा पुस्ता बिताएको नागरिकले मात्र राजनीतिमा उपल्लो पद प्राप्त गर्ने भनिएको छ । यो स्वाभाविक पनि हो । यहाँ कसैले चित्त दुखाउनुपर्ने छैन । किनभने आज म कुनै देशको नागरिक हुने अनि भोलि अर्कै देशको राजनीतिको उच्च पदमा पुग्ने भन्ने हुँदैन । राष्ट्रपति बन्नका लागि नेपाली जातिको अधिकार प्राविधिक रूपमा नागरिक बनेरमात्र हुँदैन । यसो हुँदा त नेपाली जातिको चित्त दुख्ने हो । पहिले संविधान जारी गर्ने बेलामा यस्तो प्रकारको राजनीतिक अधिकार उपयोग गर्नका लागि धेरै लामो लिस्ट थियो । पछि सीमित गरिएको हो । अहिले यो छोटो बनाउँदा पनि यो लागू गर्न हुँदैन भन्ने हो भने त नेपालमा नेपाली जातिले नै आफ्नो अधिकार नपाउने भन्ने हुन्छ । यो विषयमा धेरै हल्लाखल्ला गर्नुको अर्थ हुँदैन । परम्परादेखिका नेपाली भनेको पहाड, हिमाल र मधेसमा पनि छन् । नेपाली जातिलाई त यहाँ कुनै भेदभाव त गरेको छैन । खाली नयाँ नागरिक बन्नका लागि एक पुस्ता नेपालमा बसेको हुनुपर्छ र उसले वंशजको नागरिकता लिनुपर्छ भन्ने हो । अहिले तीन जनाले सिफारिस गरेको आधारमा नागरिकता दिइसकेको छ । देश नै मास्छु भनेर भन्नु त भएन नि । राजनीतिक शक्ति देश बुझेकोले सञ्चालन गरोस् भन्ने हो ।

मध्यमार्गी बाटो खोजौं कि नभए निर्वाचनमा जाऔं भन्नुभयो । तपाईंको भनाइको आशय संविधान जारी भएर पनि विवादित भएका विषयलाई जनमतसंग्रहमा लैजाने भन्ने हो ?

जनमतसंग्रहमा जानुपर्ने त हुँदैन नि । जनमतसंग्रह नै किन आवश्यक पर्छ र अहिले संसद्मा ३० भन्दा बढी पार्टी छन् भोलि चुनावमा जाँदा अझै धेरै पार्टी हुन्छन् । यी पार्टीहरूले आआफ्नो एजेन्डा चुनावमा लैजान्छन् नि । निर्वाचनमा जाँदा यी पार्टीहरूले आफ्नो घोषणापत्र लिएर जान्छन् । त्यही घोषणापत्रमा पार्टीहरूले आआफ्नो एजेन्डा लैजाँदा जुन एजेन्डाले जित्छ त्यसैअनुसार संविधानको संशोधन हुन्छ ।

अहिले संविधानमा भएको व्यवस्थाअनुसार त एउटामात्रै राजनीतिक दलको बहुमत आउन समस्या छ । निर्वाचनमा जाँदा पनि कसरी समस्या समाधान हुन्छ त ?

प्रजातान्त्रिक प्रक्रियामा गएपछि अर्थात् निर्वाचनमा गएपछि जनताले विश्वास नगरेको शक्तिले फेरि आफ्ना अडान यथावत् राख्न सक्दैन । उसँगै पराजित भएको आफ्नो एजेन्डा उठाउने नैतिक हैसियत हुँदैन् । आज जो–जोले आआफ्नो अडान राखिरहेका छन् त्यो हिजोको म्यान्डेटका आधारमा भनिरहेका छन् । त्यसकारण नयाँ निर्वाचन पछि आउने शक्तिले आफ्नो हैसियतअनुसारको एजेन्डा अगाडि ल्याउने गर्दछन् । संविधानसभा भनेको संविधानसभा थियो । अहिलेको संसद् भनेको चुनाव गराउने आधार तयार गर्नका लागि रूपान्तरण भएको हो । संसद् भनेको संविधान बनाउन होइन कानुन बनाउनका लागि हो । अहिले राजनीतिक दलहरू संविधानसभाको म्यान्डेटअनुसार माग गरिरहेका छन् । जनताले यी विषयमा सोच बनाएका होलान् । अहिले संविधान बनाएको सभाले पुरानो म्यान्डेटका आधारमा संविधानलाई पटकपटक संशोधन गर्नुलाई प्रजातान्त्रिक विचार भएका कारण सहमत हुन नसकिएला तर चुनाव गराउनेले पनि यो संविधान गलत छ भनेर जनतामा जाने मौका हुन्छ । त्यो एजेन्डा लिएर जाँदा उनीहरूलाई म्यान्डेट लिए भने त फेरि संशोधन गर्दा हुन्छ । मध्यमार्गी बाटो भएन भने, दलहरू सहमत भएनन् भने जनताको अभिमत बुझ्न जरुरी छ ।

संविधानमा तोकिएको २०७४ माघ ७ को मितिलाई मिट गर्नका लागि कुनकुन दलले के के गर्नुपर्छ । यहाँको सुझाव के छ ?

यो सबै प्रक्रियाको नेतृत्व भनेको कार्यकारी प्रधानमन्त्रीले लिने हो । त्यो भनेको सरकारमा रहेका दलहरूले लिने हो । सबैलाई मनाउने सबैलाई विश्वासमा लिने जिम्मा सरकारमा रहेका राजनीतिक दलको हो । अब विपक्षीको दायित्व भनेको पनि राष्ट्रहितको पक्षमा सरकारमा रहेका दलहरूलाई खबरदारी गर्ने हो । विपक्षी भन्ने बित्तिकै सबै विषय अड्काएर मुलुकलाई बन्धक बनाउने होइन । जित र हारभन्दा पनि संविधान संशोधन राष्ट्रका लागि आवश्यक छ कि छैन त्यो हेरेर अगाडि जानुपर्छ । यसलाई आफ्नो पार्टीको गरिमाको विषय बनाउन हुँदैन । साथै विपक्षीले नेपाल र नेपालको हित विपरीत काम गर्न पनि दिनु हुँदैन । असन्तुष्ट जनाउने पार्टीहरूको पनि दायित्व छ । उनीहरूले पनि आफ्ना मागका बारेमा अन्य राजनीतिक दलहरूलाई विश्वासमा लिन सक्नुपर्छ । यदि दलहरूका बीचमा विश्वास हुँदैन भने जनतामा जाँदा भयो । अहिले संविधान संशोधनको पक्षमा भएका राजनीतिक दलहरूको एकता भयो भने त भोलि चुनावमा दुई तिहाइ बहुमत पुग्ने अवस्था भइहाल्छ नि । सरकारमा रहेका दलहरूले विपक्षीलाई आन्दोलनमा रहेका दलहरूलाई विश्वासमा लिन सक्नुपर्छ ।

२०७४ साल माघ ७ गतेको डेटलाई मिट हुन सकेन भने के होला ?

अहिले नै के होला भन्ने होइन । अहिले त २०७४ माघलाई टार्गेट बनाउनुपर्छ । सवै राजनीतिक दलहरू एक ठाउँमा आउँदा २०७४ माघको मिति मिट गर्न सकिन्छ । यस्तो गरेर अहिलेका राजनीतिक दलका नेताहरूले धेरै पटक चुनाव गराउनुभएको छ । अनिश्चित भएको संविधानसभाको चुनाव पनि दोस्रो पटक भयो । जबकि त्यतिबेला संविधानसभाको औचित्य समाप्त भयो भनिएको थियो । तर संविधानसभाले संविधान जारी गर्‍यो । फेरि अहिले २०७४ माघमा के होला भनिँदैछ । केही हुँदैन । दलहरू मिलेर केही न केही निकास निकाल्छन् । यो संघीय संविधान हो । अधिकारहरूको बाँडफाँट गरिएको छ । त्यही कारणले यसलाई १६ महिनाको सक्षमता पूर्व उपयोग गरी निर्वाचन कानुन बनाउने, निर्वाचन आयोगलाई निर्वाचन गराउने व्यवस्था गर्नेतर्फ लाग्न जरुरी छ । सबै मान्छे मिलेर अहिलेको परिवर्तनलाई रोक्न तयार धेरै भएका छन् । देश यो परिवर्तन स्वीकार गर्न तयार छन् तर राजनीतिक दलहरूले यो कार्यान्वयनमा ध्यान दिन जरुरी छ ।

The tussle between the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee (PHSC) and the Judicial Council (JC) regarding the hearing for eight controversial nominees for Supreme Court justices has progressed to a new level. Initially, the Council argued that the House had overstepped its jurisdiction by summoning its members for clarification while the latter argued that it had the right to do so. The hearings of the nominees, however, ended on Sunday. In this context, Pranab Kharel and Darshan Karki spoke to constitutional expert and Dean of Kathmandu University’s School of Law, Bipin Adhikari, about the constitutional underpinnings of the dispute, ways to address the problem and what this controversy means for the independence of the judiciary and the notion of separation of powers.

How do you see the ongoing controversy regarding the eight nominees for positions as Supreme Court justices?

The Judicial Council was created to deal with all issues regarding appointments, transfers and disciplinary action regarding judges. Before that, this power, one way or the other, was handled by the government, which raised many questions about the independence of the judiciary. So during the 1990s, an autonomous body was created, where the judiciary was given enough power to handle all appointments itself but was subject to confirmation by other stakeholders, including the law minister who represented the government. The idea was that the Chief Justice (CJ) should exercise all powers regarding appointments and taking disciplinary action but that he should do so only after consultations with the law minister and other members of the JC. Once the Council started working, it delivered well. However, with the emergence of partisan politics in the country, the JC became an instrument used by its members to divide their share in the appointments and transfers.

Does this state of affairs bring into question the relevance of the Council?

I think the Council has its relevance. This is the best anybody can do. If we go through the options in other parliamentary democracies, Nepal’s JC has even been a model for some countries. Our problem is basically with the leadership. The CJ was expected to take the lead to ensure that there is a proper identification process for the appointment of judges. It was expected that qualified people would be appointed by keeping the history of legal experts in mind and their performance in the law profession as well as the rest of the judiciary. But the Chief Justice could not deliver and instead, he began sharing the number of seats with other members, what we call bhagbhanda. The CJ was not able to assert himself and perform in a way that would have allowed meritocracy to prevail and also to make sure that competent people were selected and recommended.

Given the tussle we have witnessed between the Parliamentary Hearing Special Committee and the JC, how do see the practice of parliamentary hearing in our context?

This kind of parliamentary hearing does not exist anywhere in the same form. The Interim Constitution created this provision even though it hardly had any backup in terms of theories and principles and even real life experiences on how parliamentary hearings should work in a parliamentary democracy as far as judges were concerned. We are speaking here of the Parliament and how to make sure that the independence of the judiciary is upheld. The constitutional provision only says that the Parliament can conduct hearings on recommended judges. But it does not say how it should pursue this cause and whether the Parliament has the right to withdraw the recommendations made. Instead, it says that a law will be enacted, which has not happened so far. So the way the Parliament is currently exercising its jurisdiction does not have any legal basis. There is no legitimacy to anything that it has done.

But the constitution does mandate parliamentary confirmation for certain constitutional bodies.

It does not say anything about a confirmation hearing. There is a difference in terminology. This is not similar to the US where there is a senate hearing for judges recommended by the President. Our interim constitution only says that the Parliament can conduct hearings in the context of all political appointees in constitutional bodies. Apparently, the Parliament should have given effect to legislation on this regard and worked out how this should be pursued. So the provision is very clear and nowhere does it state that the Parliament can make remarks on recommended judges and undo the recommendations of the JC.

Can you elaborate on the problems with the way the Parliament is doing things?

While enacting the internal rules of procedure of the Parliament, it created two substantial provisions—that it can reject the recommendations made and that this matter will be decided upon by a two-thirds majority. These are entirely new requirements. These are not procedural matters but substantial constitutional rules. If this is what needs to be done, then the constitution should be amended. So irrespective of the fact that we have problems with some of the judges who have been recommended, this way the Parliament is trying to correct it is a very offending process. It does not help the independence of the judiciary. Rather than empowering the JC or creating additional institutions within it to make the appointment process more transparent so that only those properly trained and with the necessary integrity and character are appointed, the Parliament started conducting some sort of trial. They are not trying to reform the process. Rather, they are overturning the appointment. So the objective of the parliamentary hearing, interpreted this way, will be to empower the government to take judicial decisions through its own mercenary judges.

You say that the Parliament’s recent steps are unconstitutional but doesn’t the JC’s controversial nominations shed light on problems with the Council too?

Some of these judges have been implicated for improper conduct, including compromising their judicial decision-making powers. These issues should be taken up by the JC. The Council has all the powers, even the power to conduct hearings if it desires. So why is the Parliament not insisting that the Council conduct such hearings? Why is it not saying that upon review of the procedure, it found that there were certain faults and that certain compromises had been made? They could have sent such concerns to the JC by way of recommendation or if necessary, ask the government to change the law or propose another legislation. In any case, it should not transfer the particular powers given to the JC to itself, whether by a two-thirds majority or by unanimity. Even if unanimous, as long as this is the constitution we have, the Parliament does not have the powers it is exercising now.

What we have witnessed in the last seven to eight years is that the whole idea of separation of powers has been muddled. There is no clear distinction, so much so that executive authority has gradually been transferred to unelected institutions.

I think that’s true. When elected representatives do not perform well while exercising their democratic powers, this sort of tendency arises. In many developing countries, the people rely more on the judiciary than on elected representatives because experience shows that when judges are empowered, they are less dangerous to democracy than politicians. When you talk of restraining power in the scheme of constitutionalism, it is important to have a check on elected representatives. These checks do not work unless the people doing the checking are capable and the media is powerful and independent. Some scholars think that the judiciary should exercise self-restraint and only settle disputes without influencing political agendas. But we cannot say that giving power to the JC is antagonistic to the power of the Parliament. After all, the JC is not elected by unelected people. The law minister is part of the JC and he represents the government—the elected power of the country. Similarly, the government has its own appointees and two other appointees are people are politically known to the government. They are there to serve as checks to the decision made by the Chief Justice, which they have so far not done. Similarly, we have another Supreme Court judge who helps the Chief Justice make a decision on potential appointees. This system is not authoritarian and orthodox.

How will the partisan positions taken by the parties in Parliament on appointing judges affect the judiciary?

Irrespective of whether the recent list of recommended judges is confirmed or not, the worst damage has already been done to the Supreme Court. That is why I have been saying that this incident is being modeled in such a way that showing that most of the people who have been recommended are not competent directs the gun towards the Supreme Court. It has affected the overall status of the apex court without changing the constitution. Now the Court will have to look at the Parliament, what sort of bipartisan politics there are, worry whether the government will be supportive of its role and make decisions by making political calculations not based on merit.

How will this affect constitution writing?

In Nepal, mostly the left forces—though there are some opposing voices within the CPN-UML—are united in their opinion that judicial powers, as far as appointment of the judges and disciplinary action against them is concerned, should be left to the parliamentary committee. The Maoists have been championing this cause. So the opposition forces will try to make sure that there is a right case for such a provision, even while drafting the constitution. People will argue that the same system should be written in the new constitution. It will not help democracy. It is a very dangerous orientation.

So does this issue come down to a debate about parliamentary supremacy and constitutional supremacy?

I think parliamentary supremacy has been the standard notion, but within the confines of the constitutional law. The Parliament is supreme within the range of authorities created by the constitution but the supremacy of the constitution is fundamental. The constitution, as it stands now, treats judiciary as one of its engrained strengths. When you take away judicial powers by way of JC appointments, then the parliamentary hearing will take away those powers and transfer it to the PHSC. So the original balance of power has been affected.

Bipin Adhikari is a constitutional expert. His opinions in the field of constitutional law, human rights, legal reforms and democratization process are widely reported. A Doctor of Constitutional Law, Adhikari is working as a freelance lawyer supporting the ongoing constitution making process in Nepal. Recently, Adhikari spoke to SPOTLIGHT about the controversies regarding the form of government that Nepal should adopt through the Constituent Assembly. Excerpts:

Why do you consider the Westminster model of the parliamentary system as still the best choice for Nepal?
The history of democracy in Nepal is the history of parliamentary democracy. In particular, the1990 constitution, based on the outstanding ability of all political forces, was able to take democracy to every household in far flung villages. Almost every adult in this country knows the basics of the system after all these years. They know how it operates. It is already rooted in the conscience of the people. For most of the people, democracy means parliamentary democracy and nothing else. The greatest advantage is that most of the politically active people know where the shoe pinches, and what should be on the agenda of constitutional reform to fix the shoe and make it smooth. There is no reason why they should be offered something that will require another 50 years of experimentation. Moreover, it is the parliamentary system which can facilitate diversity, social inclusion and multiple leadership more than any other alternative before the nation.

Is the American system bad?
I don’t say that. Americans have one of the best political systems in the world. It has worked for them so well. However, this does not prove anything for Nepal. We operate in different conditions. We have different mindsets. We don’t have good accountability culture.

So …?
So, in this scenario, there are potential dangers in their replication here. Many executive presidents have developed dictatorial tendency, and spoiled the democratic system. The winner-take-all character of the office is also a problem. It is for the same reason that I have said the system of the directly elected prime minister within the set up of unicameral legislature is also risky.

In principle, one can compensate for this by devising a proper electoral system, presidential powers, and legislative organization and procedures. There are ways to structure the decision-making process in presidential democracies so as to neutralize most of the centrifugal forces that may operate in these regimes.

But then this means we will have to try everything anew. This means starting a new experiment once again. The question is should we start everything afresh – or try to learn from our own experience?

Does it make a case for continuation of the parliamentary system? If you go by recent history, you will find that parliamentary democracies are doing a lot better than presidential democracies. This is what the Freedom House political index generally shows.

It is true in the case of the developing countries as well. India is a very strong example. There are countries like Botswana and Papua New Guinea showing encouraging records. They all are now institutionalized. But most of the new presidential democracies have suffered some form of breakdown. Overall, parliamentary systems have three times the rate of survival over presidential systems.

But there is a debate in India as to the need of switching over to the presidential system?
Yes, we find references about it now and then. Many constitutional experts have suggested a changeover to the American system. Some want small, professional administration, which doesn’t depend on parliament. Other experts go further – and suggest Washington-style presidency. B ut the country’s main political parties remain divided on the most suitable form of government. The truth is they have been learning from their own experience. And they are doing very well. Our problem is we pick up only bad examples from India, not the most encouraging ones.

Why did the parliamentary system fail in Nepal then?
Certainly a wide range of factors come into play, and it would be unwise to generalise too starkly from macro data.

The problem of Nepal was not the defective constitution for sure. It was not the low levels of income per capita either. At this level of interference from outside, any form of government will come to its knee. A change in the government system doesn’t mean waving a magic wand and healing the problems and ills of our region.

Why parties like Maoists and MJF have been advocating for presidentail system? Even UML and a section of Congress people have been arguing for the directly elected prime ministerial system? There must be some reasons.

It is very funny. Maybe personal ambitions; or they don’t care at all. Maoists in particular have strange thoughts. I have not seen any political party in Nepal ever researching on what form of government might suit this country, or taking any intellectual feed back from one of the available academic institutions. They seem to be oblivious of the multi-ethnic character of Nepal, and so much of politicisation in the country.