Category: Others

The Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP-Nepal) has become the only party that voted against the proposal of implementing the declaration of republic.

When the proposal was put forth for voting, of the 564 members of CA present at the meeting, 560 voted in its favour while four members of RPP-N voted against it.

Although the chairman of the assembly Kul Bahadur Gurung did not allow the RPP-N members to make their case before the voting, its member Chandra Bahadur Gurung later submitted note of dissent expressing dissatisfaction over the republic declaration.

“Though we are aware of the culture of functioning like a robot through remote-control, we have decided to register our note of dissent for the record for the posterity,” said Gurung.

Gurung could not complete reading his party’s statement as the assembly chair barred him from speaking after the allotted two minutes.

Speaking at the post-voting discussion, chief of Rastriya Jana Morcha, Chitra Bahadur KC, expressed dissatisfaction over the move to turn Nepal into federal state.

Meanwhile, some lawyers have pointed at the flaws in the procedures adopted by the CA during its first meeting.

According to a constitutional lawyer Bipin Adhikari, the procedures followed by the Constituent Assembly had three serious flaws.

“First, the House started its proceedings without the 26 nominated members, who should have been present in the House to fulfill the membership requirement of the Assembly under Article 63(3) of the Constitution. The President of the House ignored this requirement, because the Prime Minister was not able to nominate them in consultation with the parties before the meeting kicked off,” said Adhikari, who added that this flaw would make the proceedings of an incomplete House open to challenge.

“Secondly, the motion to abolish monarchy and operationalize Article 159 was not subjected to discussion before the voting on it according to the recognized parliamentary practice. The chair ignored the repeated requests by the opposition group of the RPP-Nepal, the only monarchist voice in the entire Assembly, to allow discussion on the motion, so that they could register their opposition before the voting,” he said, adding, “Thirdly, and lastly, the implementation of the ‘republicanisation plan’ was done without any statutory basis, and certainly without giving any opportunity to the King to explain his case before the sovereign House.”
nepalnews.com

Kathmandu, May 28: Half an hour before the stroke of midnight today, Nepal became a Republic. The transition to “a secular, federal, democratic, republic nation” was formalised with a resolution moved by Home Minister K P Sitaula and right away passed by 560 votes against four by the newly-sworn in Constituent Assembly.

Minutes later, the Royal Standard flying atop the Narayanhiti palace — home to five kings so far — was brought down by palace officials.

The transition to a democracy means abolition of the monarchy and dethronement of King Gyanendra, with all the privileges of the royal family taken away with immediate effect. He will have no rights in social, political, cultural or religious fields more than what any Nepali citizen is entitled to.

However, constitutional experts raised some concern about the speed with which the resolution was passed, without members being allowed to record their objections. “It is unheard of, unacceptable and unconstitutional that such an important resolution was passed in such a shabby manner,” constitutional lawyer Bipin Adhikari told The Indian Express.

Earlier, the meeting of the Constituent Assembly, at the Birendra International Convention Centre, was postponed twice due to late-minute political wrangling. Scheduled to begin at 11 am local time, it began after 9 pm as the ruling parties and Maoists argued over who should be the President of the new Republic.

Ultimately, a consensus was reached that the monarchy would be abolished with immediate effect, and the roles and jurisdiction of the president would be decided later. The resolution was finally moved by the Assembly around 9.45 pm. In a brief speech read out by his Cabinet colleague Ram Chandra Poudel, Prime Minister G P Koirala said Nepal’s new challenges were peace, stability and economic development.

The resolution said that May 28 will be celebrated as the Republic Day of Nepal every year. There will be president who will be the head of the state while the Prime Minister will be the executive head.

Gathered on the streets of Kathmandu, singing and dancing in anticipation of the historic change, the crowds outside the Birendra International Convention Centre grew restive as the wait for the meeting dragged on into the night. Inside, diplomats and representatives of international communities also spent the entire day waiting.

A couple of explosions outside the venue injected further fear and uncertainty. Police said at least one person had been arrested and was being interrogated.

All through the day, top leaders of the Maoists, Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist Leninist shuttled between the centre and the Prime Minister’s residence to sort out last-minute differences.

While the Congress and UML were in favour of a president with emergency powers who would also be the supreme commander of the army, the Maoists preferred the current system in which the Prime Minister also acts as the caretaker president.

When the meeting finally began, pro-tem Speaker K B Gurung of the Congress refused to entertain objections from members over curtailing of members’ right to record their opinion on such an important matter. He said the members would be given a chance to do so after the voting.

• Constituent Assembly votes 560-4, makes history
• King now a commoner, Royal flag brought down
• Concerns over manner in which motion passed

Although the peace process is yet to complete, some political leaders have already started talking about ending the presence of UNMIN

The tenure of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) will not be further extended,” said Maoist leader and chief of international department CP Gajurel addressing a press conference on April 18. “We thank the UNMIN for its support to Nepal’s peace process, which has already taken solid shape. We will integrate the Nepal Army and the People’s Liberation Army to form a national army after making a new constitution. We don’t see any role of the UNMIN in our future process,” he said addressing an interaction program at the Reporters’ Club.”

Two weeks after C.P. Gajurel’s statement, Indian communist leader Sitaram Yechury, who was one of the supporters of international mediation in Nepal’s conflict, backed Gajurel’s point of view. “The presence of UN body will not be required beyond July 23 as the new government will be able to settle the issue of management of arms and armies,” said Yechury.

The tenure of UNMIN is going to end on July 23, 2008. Maoist leaders under whose insistence seven parties had agreed to invite the UN mission in Nepal are now leading the debate to end UNMIN presence. The role for UN in the peace process was envisaged in 12 points agreement- which was reportedly mediated by Indian officials – signed in New Delhi in November, 2005.

Gajurel and Yechury were first to press for international observers but now they have joined hands to campaign against UNMIN. At a time when other major political parties are yet to speak about the issue, nobody knows what prompted Gajurel to raise such vital issue. After two weeks, Nepal’s revolutionary communist leaders have found an Indian communist leader as a buyer of their idea.

“The decision will be taken only after the consultations with all the constituents of seven parties,” said CPN-UML leader minister of foreign affairs Sahana Pradhan.

The question now is, which will prevail or the meeting of seven party leaders or the interim constitution or the likes of Gajurel and Yechury? The article 166(3) of Interim Constitution, the Comprehensive Peace Accord concluded between the Government of Nepal and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) on Mangsir 5,2063 ( November 21, 2006), and an agreement relating to “Agreement on the Monitoring of the Management of Arms and Armies” reached on Mangsir 22, 2063 (December 8,2006) are part of schedule 4 of the constitution.

As per the constitutional provisions, the UN monitoring role relates to five areas: the management of arms and armed personnel, the ceasefire arrangements, the elections, human rights and compliance with the Basic Operating Guidelines for the delivery of development and humanitarian assistance.

The question is not whether the UNMIN should go or not go but whether the peace process has been completed or not, for which UNMIN was invited in Nepal under a seven party consensus.

To give legitimate status to the UNMIN, seven political parties have even inserted its position in the interim constitution with a long lasting role.

“The Mission is a special political mission established by the United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1740, to support the peace process in Nepal. The process is still on. It has its importance and usefulness. It is not advisable to shut it down before the process is completed.” said Dr Bipin Adhikari, a lawyer and constitution analyst, who also worked with several United Nations agencies in the past.

According to Adhikari, when the Mission kicked off on 23 January 2007, its mandate included monitoring of the management of arms and armed personnel of the Nepal Army and the Maoist army and assisting the parties through a Joint Monitoring Coordinating Committee in implementing the agreement on the management of arms and armed personnel of both the Nepal Army and the Maoist army. It was also mandated to provide technical assistance to the Election Commission in the planning, preparation and conduct of the election of the Constituent Assembly in a free and fair atmosphere. While the third mandate has been accomplished, the first two need revised framework to work on. The works in these areas are still lagging behind. The Mission could still be useful to deal with the question of settlement of all Maoist combatants.

Leaders of seven political parties and Maoists reached into an understanding and formally invited UNMIN to play a role in Nepal’s peace keeping task, which is yet to be completed.

“Before demilitarizing all Maoist combatants living in cantonments, why there have been so much hectic reactions not only from the one of the constituents of seven party alliance but from an external watchman Yechury, an unofficial facilitator for Nepal’s peace keeping? It shows India, too, is partly against the stay of UNMIN in Nepal,” said an analyst. “The same persons who insisted Nepal to involve UN in its peace keeping task- are now asking UNMIN to pack its bag and leave without completing the tasks. One has to get a convincing answer for such vacillating stand even from a player like Yechury from the neighborhood.”
When UNMIN came to Nepal, there were so many backers. Now when it is under an attack, nobody is defending it.

“People – who are in the frontline of politics of this country- welcome the hegemonic player but don’t have guts to speak for a peace keeping mission like UN,” said the analyst. “Where are those loud speaking persons from so called civil society who demanded involvement of United Nations when United Nations was not much needed? Now when United Nations has started its work and its role is much important, a section of motivated persons are asking it to go back leaving the task unfulfilled and those loud-speaking persons have gone silent.”

For politicians and so called members of civil society, Yechury is more acceptable than anything else. “Nobody in Nepal questions the role of Yechury whose purpose and timing of visit to Nepal is an open secret to all. The country had got rid of the “active leadership” of monarch of Panchayat system. But, now the other “active leadership” has been imposed upon Nepal which no Nepali politician dares to question,” said the political analyst.

As annexure is also inseparable part of constitution, the government needs to amend the constitution in case it wants to contain the role of UN. “It is not difficult to understand why at once there are so many voices against the UNMIN and why some newspapers are suggesting that it should pack up and go. As far as I know I have not seen ordinary people of Nepal asking the Mission to dismantle. Obviously, there are outsiders who think they can pass on without hiccup if the UNMIN vacates its premises from here. The challenge before the Mission is to maintain its independence and avoid being a tool in the hand of any country overtly interested in Nepal. The UN must meet this challenge, or it will find its potential and actual influence ebbing away in other countries. Certainly, this is not in the interest of Nepal,” said Adhikari.

According to Adhikari, the complexity of international life, combined with the reluctance of leading states to act where their national interests are not at risk, will create many occasions when the UN provides the only arena within which an acceptable pattern of response can be fashioned.

“I always advocate advisory roles for the Security Council. In fact, my idea from the very beginning was to have some political advisors from the Security Council to advise the Government on all these issues, rather than deploying a full-fledged political mission doing so many works that Nepalese people otherwise had enough experience of working on. Nepal needed these advisors at Singh Durbar to help it with independent decision making at that time. Such advisors would have given the government, or any peace authority it would have created, necessary Security Council back up to deal with the Maoists. But people who had little ideas on how political missions work prevailed in the decision making, then.”

“But now since the Mission is already here, and it has already done part of its assigned works, it should be allowed to achieve what it has been mandated with. It is the time to reassess what still needs to be revamped. The peace process is also the arrangement of the interim constitution. The process will come to an end only after the new constitution is adopted by the Constituent Assembly and promulgated in the name of the people,” said Adhikari.

The UN Mission came to Nepal on the request of the government. Can UNMIN leave its main task unfinished that may lead to resumption of armed conflict?

“As the session of the Constituent Assembly has been summoned for May 28, the issue of the fate of monarchy appears as the crucial agenda for its first meeting. Although many individual Kings have faced trials in Nepal, this is for the first time the institution of monarchy is facing the vote for its existence. The prominent question now is how the newly elected members of CA- supreme body of public trust- will abolish monarchy. For many followers of seven party alliance, it is now just a simple ritual to declare Nepal as a republic. Will CA abolish monarchy through a proclamation in its first meeting as prescribed by previous nominated interim parliament or wait till the promulgation of new constitution? The first decision taken by the newly elected members of CA will have a far reaching consequence to the country”

“King Gyanendra should help us and himself by abdicating and leaving the Royal Palace. We want his graceful and respectful exit. This is also the mandate of the people,” said CPN-Maoist chairman Prachanda. “If he does not do so, the first meeting of CA will decide his fate.”

“Monarchy will be abolished within the month of Jestha (May14-June 14),” said speaker of Legislature Parliament Subas Nembang. “Within that period, the CA will declare the country as a federal republic. I am confident that without any hindrance, the monarchy will be abolished and the country will be declared republic.”

“The best option for King Gyanendra is to abdicate. If he leaves Royal Palace before the proclamation of Constituent Assembly, it will be better for his future. This is the mandate of the people,” said another Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai.

Not only Nepali politicians, political leaders from India- which has the highest security stake in Nepal – too, seem to be determined to abolish monarchy to pave the way for new experiment under the CPN-Maoist party. “Now, we believe that Nepali people will able to establish a democratic republic. Indian people and the government will respect the decision taken by the Nepali people about their political future,” said politburo member of the CPI (M) Sitaram Yechury in his recent visit to Nepal.

All these comments and expressions delivered by political leaders show that abolition of monarchy is their ultimate aim. The interim constitution has been amended in such a way that many people with extreme outlooks think that it is only a ritual now. According to them, the decision has already been taken and what remains to be done is merely to implement it through the parliamentary approval.

Before the monarchy is actually being put into vote, seven party government including the Maoists did everything over the last two years to root out monarchy from the perception of the common man.
According to a lawyer, the intention of putting the monarchy to vote in such a crisis situation is itself an example of how the monarchy is being pushed aside without proper judgment.

“The era of monarchy will come to an end on May 28 when the first meeting of CA will declare Nepal as a republic,” said Krishna Pahadi, a human right activists and member of civil society. “Some may have a ray of hope but I don’t have any doubt about abolition of monarchy and declaration of Nepal as republic.”

In a typical way, like during the period of Cromwell in England when Cromwell and his followers beheaded King Charles- who was put in a stage-managed trial with an aim to remove the monarchy. Like Cromwell and his supporters whose set order was that the King had to die. Their only question was how; by assassination? A discreet poisoning? In the end, they decided to put him to death as per the stage-managed trial.

In a similar way, from Nepali Congress leader Girija Prasad Koirala to Maoist leader Prachanda and CPN-UML leaders Nembang and other leaders of seven party alliances, they have drawn the conclusion that the monarchy must be abolished. Nobody has concern about legitimacy or rule of law.

“Throughout history monarchies have been abolished either through legislative reforms, coups d’etat, or wars. The monarchy is a costly institution to preserve and it has been the subject of considerable controversy since King Birendra and many of the royalties were assassinated in 2001 in a very surprising way,” said Bipin Adhikari, a constitutional commentator.

“In fact, there has been a varying tide of media criticism which has ebbed and flowed prompted by King Gyanendra’s 2005 decision to exercise executive power to deal with Maoist menace, some inappropriate comments and conduct of certain other members of the royal family, and royal pomp and ceremonies. But they are not the reasons behind the abolition of monarchy in Nepal. The reason here is geopolitical. It is happening because the Nepalese monarchs proved for sure that they are not blindly negotiable for money, power and red carpets,” said Adhikari.

“There are many people in Nepal, who think their right to take part in a referendum to decide about the king should have been recognized.”

“Certain things were not possible as long as the monarch stood there as the protector of Nepal’s political independence. This is not to defend the King or his unconstitutional trespasses, but to explain a phenomenon that comes as a challenge of nation building in this country. It is not just the King who is going with a heavy heart. Even the Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, who led the process of the current betrayal to the King, has no choice. The country has no use for him any more,” said Adhikari.

According to the constitutional experts, the interim constitution is unclear regarding the procedure to formally declare Nepal as a republic. Of course, Gyanendra has right to abdicate and personally he can abdicate his kingship but what about the monarchy as an institution?

“Is monarchy a personal property of King Gyanendra? If that is the constitutional logic, personal resignation of CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal from general secretary of CPN-UML or Prachanda’s resignation from his party or G.P. Koirala from his party presidentship could or should abolish their respective parties. Two different standards are being set by our newly incarnated democrats: one for themselves and another for monarchy,” said a former attorney general and constitutional lawyer on condition of anonymity.

Procedural Issues
If political leaders want to remove monarchy, the parties need to amend the article 159 by two third majorities and replace the article 159 and its proviso regarding the monarchy.

Article 159(2) says the implementation of (transition to) the republic shall be made at the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly. Provided that the Legislature Parliament may implement the republic prior to the elections to the constituent Assembly if the king creates a serious obstacle to the Constituent Assembly Elections, by a motion in the regard passed by at least a two-thirds majority of the existing members of the Legislature-Parliament. Such a motion shall be presented before the Legislature-Parliament in accordance with a decision of the Council of Ministers of the Government of Nepal.

“The proviso cannot override the main provision of the main article 159. To implement the proviso, you need two third majority of CA. However, to implant the main clause, you are saying that no voting is required and simple declaration will do it. What a constitutional logic?,” argued former attorney general. “It is unclear what procedure the first meeting of CA will follow in case of declaring Nepal as a republic.”

As a non-elected body, monarchy is based upon its age old tradition, rules and customs. It is a hereditary institution in which successor is not appointed by his merits but by virtue of a birth in the family. That way a king can decide over his own fate but he cannot deprive his successor from inheriting the throne. As long as monarchy is there in Nepal, this is a valid practice to be observed.

“A democratic society is just society and a democratic government is just government and justice is needed for all. As long as monarchy is there, it also needs justice particularly in the situation like present,” said a political analyst.

Nepal has a long history of monarchy of over two thousand years. Institution of monarchy has been in continuity. Of course, forms and dynasties have changed time to time but it continued. Shah Kings have been ruling since 237 years but before there were Mallas, Lichhivis, Thakuris and Kirats.

Monarchy for Stability
Although politicians and human rights activists have been advocating the removal of monarchy to create new Nepal, they ignore the fact that the monarchy has played its role in stabilizing the society. There are many instances in Asia and other parts of the region where the removal of monarchy brought perennial political instability and devastation.

“It is just a myth that the monarchy will protect Nepal’s integrity and sovereignty,” said senior Maoist leader Ram Bahadur Badal. “The monarchy will meeting of CA.” be buried in the first

The politicians who reached gentlemen’s agreement regarding the role of monarchy betrayed one after another. Whether political leaders betrayed the king, people don’t know. When Girija Prasad Koirala and King Gyanendra reach an agreement on April 22, 2006, there was no agenda in priority to make Nepal as republic. Even highly publicized 12-points agreement didn’t mention abolishing the monarchy.

The prime minister was appointed by the King and he took oath of allegiance in the Royal Palace. “People were, by implication, assured to have continuity with change – continuity of the institution of monarchy and change according to the wishes of the people expressed through CA. Following the dictation from unseen center, Nepal has been pushed into whirlwind of political instability. One does not know where it will lead all the seen and unseen players,” said the political analyst.

Changing Regional Dynamics
Removal of monarchy will not only change the internal dynamics of Nepal but it will also change the dynamics in Nepal’s neighborhood. “After removal of monarchy, India and China will have to see face to face. There will be no safeguard for them,” observed a foreign diplomat based in Kathmandu.

Journalist Sudhir Sharma in his recent news analysis in Nepal weekly predicts emergence of a new situation in which Maoists may be in a position to play Nepal’s two neighbors once they are in power. “After growing Tibetan activities in Nepal, China is desperately searching a new political force which can defend its interest. With the abolition of monarchy, there are no other strong forces other than Maoists to protect Chinese interests,” writes Sharma.

The case of Afghanistan is there where a mistake committed by former Soviet Union in removing the monarchical system finally ruined it. The prolonged political instability and political disorder forced Soviet Union to send its troops to stabilize Afghanistan prompting the entry of American power through Pakistan. Till Jahir Shaha ruled Afghanistan, it had played the role of a perfect buffer state with rise of moderation.

“The mistake which Soviet Union committed by involving itself in Afghanistan brought devastating results for it. India is inclined to commit a same mistake in Nepal which may unfortunately bring similar consequences,” said a political analyst. “If one undermines the stabilizing factor of Nepal, it must be prepared to face the consequences. Nepal’s peace and stability is not only for Nepal but it ensures the peace in the region too.”

Nepal’s position vis-à-vis China and India is like an unalterable logic of geography as described by Sri Lankan president Jayewardene regarding the relations between India and Sri Lanka.

“One is free to do anything but one has to face the consequences also. This applies to the states also howsoever powerful they are,” said the analyst.

King’s Move
As the day is coming closer, King Gyanendra is busy attending marriage ceremonies, receptions and worshipping the gods and goddesses. King Gyanendra worshipped Dakshinkali on Monday.

The monarch is very clear in his commitments to abide by the verdict of the people. Verdict is yet to come by proper means and ways through the CA. “The king is relaxed and not in a hurry of any kind,” said leader of RPP-Nepal Kamal Thapa. “The king abides by the verdict of the people.”

In the beginning, all political leaders were committed to abide by the CA about the fate of monarchy. Later on they deviated from their original stand and declared that the CA will abide what they will say. That way they turned CA as jut a formality to fulfill their political command. “By getting a strong political backing from an unseen center, politicians have taken for granted the popular verdict,” said the analyst.

“Many countries have followed their own way to decide on the fate of monarchy. For example, Australia recognized the right of Australians to take part in a referendum as to the status of the British Queen in Australia. The first question in the 1999 Australian referendum was whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament, a bi-partisan appointment model which had previously been decided at a Constitutional Convention in February 1998. The second question, generally deemed to be far less important politically, asked whether Australia should alter the constitution to insert a preamble. Neither of the proposed amendments passed. It is not the time of Oliver Cromwell of 1649 who overthrew the English monarchy through the Parliament of England. Neither it is 1792 when the French monarchy was abolished (and later restored several times until 1871). We are in the 21st century. If there is democracy and the rule of law for the common people; they decide the turn of events for sure. If not, then it is the outsiders who take the decision. The political institutions of a subservient state, heavily influenced and mesmerized under a planned process, only rubber-stamp what they have been told to do,” said Adhikari.

As such, if leaders of political parties prevail, Nepal’s republic will be under command at any moment since the ground has already prepared for such move.

“Wining majority from out of 240 seats allotted for first-past -post system, the CPN-Maoist, which is yet to receive global recognition as a mainstream party, has turned Nepal, a back water of world’s largest democratic country, into a red field. Although the counting of votes for another 335 seats allotted for the proportional representative system is yet to complete, it is almost certain that CPN-Maoist is going to emerge as the single largest party in the Constituent Assembly Elections 2008. The result is inexplicable but CPN-Maoist, a party which fought a decade long violent insurgency – got the mandate in an election which international observers described as free and fair. In a country where a minority government of CPN-UML collapsed in nine months, how long another government led by a radical Maoist will be watched with great interest”

“The results of the present election were unexpected. We had not imagined that our party will win such a large number of seats,” said CPN-Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai to The Kathmandu Post.

“This result surprised us as our candidates have suffered badly,” said CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal, who resigned just a few days back following the election results.

“How the Maoists won the election in so many places is surprising,” said Nepali Congress leader Sher Bahadur Deuba, after his victory in two constituencies in far western districts.

Prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala, who was congratulated by international observers including former American president Jimmy Carter, too, is shocked by the results. “I didn’t imagine that our party will be rooted out in such a manner. Just wait for few more days before deciding to quit the government,” prime minister Koirala told his colleagues who had gone to meet him at his residence in Baluwatar on Monday.

Not only the top leaders, common people in the streets, too, are very surprised to see the outcome. This is the reason there is no jubilation and happiness despite the wave of victory in favor of the Maoists and there is no spontaneous support and jubilant mass of the people. The only persons participating in the election rallies are the party cadres.

Constitutional Provisions
With the elections to the Constituent Assembly accomplished, the focus of political debate in Nepal has at once shifted from the electoral issues to the issues involving formation of a new government according to the fresh mandate.

“But in the absence of a clear direction under the Constitution, which suffers from many deliberate lacunas and caveats, a very constitutional process is about to be handled in a very controversial way. It is giving the impression that even after housing 601 assemblymen, freshly elected and nominated, the culture of ad hocism does not intend to disappear,” said Dr Bipin Adhikari, lawyer and constitutional analyst.

According to Article 38(1) of the Interim Constitution, the Prime Minister is to be appointed on the basis of political consensus. “There is no provision in the Constitution as to who should initiate the process; how it should be done; and whether there are standards of conduct to get it done. Political consensus is the rule even if there is a majority party in the House. Although the Council of Ministers is to be formed under the Prime Minister’s chairmanship, the Council itself is to be the product of political consensus. In this jurisprudence of consensus, the difference between those who have more popular support, and those who have barely survived, is not constitutionally recognized. So, essentially, a majority Prime Minister has no majoritarian power, even if that means disregard to the voters, and the fresh mandate the voters have conferred on the Prime Minister,” said Dr. Adhikari.

The Constitution clearly states that if consensus cannot be reached as above, the Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Constituent Assembly. Even if this provision is rationalised as a stimulant towards consensual process of constitution making, it does not stand out as an acceptable rule of law.

According to Dr. Adhikari, a unicameral house of 601 person is a very loud arrangement. It is impracticable also because the interim Constitution has not provided any mini-legislature within the Constituent Assembly to work on legislative and policy issues so that these jobs are done professionally, and through a deliberative process. It is too much for all 601 assembly men to work in the Constituent Assembly as legislators, and in a meaningful way.

The present result of first-past-post system is just one of the forms decided to elect the members for Constituent Assembly as there is just 240 seats allotted under this system. According to article 63 of the Interim Constitution, the constituent assembly consists of 601 members. Under the proportional representation system there will be 335 members, 240 under the first-past-post system and 26 are nominated on the recommendation of the cabinet.

For the purpose of this constitution “political consensus” means the political consensus reached between the seven political parties- Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (UML), Janmoracha Nepal, Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandadevi), Nepal Majdur Kishan Party, Samyukta Janmorcha and Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

After 1995 when CPN-UML formed a government as a single largest party, this is first time in the history of Nepal when communist party with radical ideology has won such a large seats in the election held under the observation of more than one thousand observers led by former US president Jimmy Carter and United Nations Mission to Nepal.

Despite monitoring by international observers, the election was full of violence and threats. From daughter of prime minister Koirala, Sujata Koirala to many other NC leaders who lost the elections lost due to intimidation and threat.

Even many goons came from across the border to terrorize the voters of Sujata Koirala in her constituency 3 of Sunsari. One of Sujata’s workers died in cross firing in the bordering polling booth.

“Don’t ask me about election. I cried for help from all sides. I did not receive any support. EC was one sided and administration was not concerned about mass rigging,” said Koirala.

Though Nepali voters are hailed as a peaceful and conscious voters, Nepalese have tendencies to back one extreme to another without knowing its fall out. When King dissolved the elected parliament in 2002, people welcomed it by lighting the lamps. In similar way, people welcomed the move of February 1,2006 action of the King. They welcomed the interim government led by Koirala and all its actions without any resentment. In the election, they voted radical communist outfit to power without knowing its implications on their life like in CPN-UML in 1992 elections.

Reasons Behind Election Debacle
Several reasons work for the debacle of two parties. One of the main reasons of debacle of Nepali Congress and CPN-UML is their long negative list. Those who had negative views against those two parties voted Maoists as a next choice.

The second important reason was that voters decided to give a chance to fresh players. At a time when there is no plus point in favor of CPN-UML and Nepali Congress –which followed the Maoist line – people saw the Maoists as better alternative.

Nepali Congress has lost a big monarchist vote bank and people disliked CPN-UML because of its feeble stands on political issues. CPN-UML leader Madhav Kumar Nepal- who was also a member of constitution drafting committee in 1990, proved to be inconsistent.

Along with others, CPN-UML also gave up its stand on nationalism. CPN-UML was completely silent over the citizenship Act, water resources treaty and other such sentimental issues. Except anti-monarchy posturing, nothing was left to Nepali Congress and CPN-UML to compete with Maoists. However, the Maoists established itself as an anti-monarchical force long before them. At the last minute, Maoist even issued statement urging Royalist to vote for them.

People have seen Nepali Congress and CPN-UML’s role in the government turn by turn. However, among three players, Maoists were untested. This also prompted voters to vote for Maoists.

Other major reason for Maoist victory is deep rooted fear psychology. Rural people decided not to take the risk of voting other parties. When there was a wide spread rumor in the rural areas about Maoist threat and intimidation, no one could dare to risk their life by not voting the Maoists.

Even in his last leg of political campaign, CPN-Maoist leader Prachanda urged his cadres to behave as Gandhiji for seven days. That means they would continue to use drastic methods after the election.

“One of the main reasons behind our devastation is our failure to convince the rural voters that they will be safe after the election for CA,” said senior CPN-UML leader Pradeep Nepal.

In an indication of how the Maoists would behave in coming days, on Monday (April 14) Maoists attacked finance minister Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat and his convoy when he was on his way home after winning election in Nuwakot

Because of guarantee of security in urban areas and presence of huge international observers, the population in urban areas did not feel any threat. However, the situation in rural Nepal was very difficult. By winning from a constituency in Rautahat district, a wanted man Babban Singh showed how threat works in rural areas.

The role of unseen power was the most significant to notice. “Maoists have been used for first phase of destabilization in Nepal from 1996-2007 by this unseen power. Now, Maoists can be used for second phase of operation in Nepal to have upper hand in Nepal security,” said a political analyst.

International Response
International response to the Maoist victory is positive now. India which has backed Maoists and seven party alliance since November 2006 permitting them to ink the 12 point agreement in New Delhi has already expressed satisfaction. From Indian point of view, this is a great success as they have covertly backed parties and Maoist up to the present point.

Indian ambassador to Nepal Shiv Shanker Mukherjee has already met Maoist leader Prachanda and congratulated him for the success of his party in the election. ” India has taken the Maoist victory in constituent assembly elections in Nepal as a positive development,” said Indian foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee. “We support the Maoist victory in the April 10 Constituent Assembly election in Nepal and view it as a positive development. The Maoists have successfully taken part in the democratic process. It will now be easier to India to work with the democratically elected government of Nepal.”

The United States – which still tags Maoists in its terrorist watch list – has mumbled few words of congratulations for conducting election. For Europeans, they were in constant touch with the Maoist leadership.

Nepal’s other neighbor China also expressed satisfaction over the way the constituent assembly election was held.

Lessons For Nepali Congress
Nepali Congress legendary leader B.P. Koirala often said that Nepali Congress has no utility if it gives up the policy of national reconciliation. “If we give up national reconciliation, which is based on nationalism and democracy, our role will diminish. We must understand that we will lose our identity in case we give up national reconciliation,” said Koirala in his book King, Nationalism and Politics (Raja, Rastriyata and Rajniti).

“National unity cannot be achieved in vacuum. Which means that the people factor and the monarchy must combine, that there must be total understanding between these two elements of national life. The alternative to this is ruin. That is what I feel and, therefore, I do not contemplate any alternative to this,” said B.P. Koirala in his interview to Bhola Chatterji, an Indian journalist in 1979.

However, joining hands with extremists and following their ideology, Nepali Congress has badly suffered in the election. Although he is regarded as a hero by international community, prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala is completely a loser at his end of political carrier. He pushed Nepali Congress from largest party with majority to nowhere.

Challenges For Newly Elected body
The greatest challenge for the elected representatives of the people is to realize their responsibility as trustee of the people – the sovereign. “In no way, this elected body would be under a bondage to follow the diktat of the dubious power centers of the party or elsewhere. Though it was an avoidable game of populism, the CA is a reality. It will have to take up every issue in the constitution making in accordance with the fresh mandate of the people. It is under no compulsion to endorse the ruling or decisions of the previous nominated house of legislators,” said the analyst. “The greatest challenge to Nepal at present is a question of survival as a truly independent, democratic and prosperous nation.”

“We will bring peace, stability and prosperity to the people. We will work to protect our independence and sovereignty,” said Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda in his victory rally.

While taking about these consensus issues, national unity is the first and foremost task ahead. “It requires a caliber in the leadership, a long term vision and accommodative attitude. People of Nepal have always been supportive of the political ideals of broadest unity between different sections of the people. B.P. Koirala is all the time remembered by different ideological groups of Nepal mainly because of his politics of reconciliation based upon a long term vision,” said the political analyst.

Issue of Monarchy
Although article 159(2) of the interim constitution declares that the implementation of transition to republic shall be made at the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly, the parties are yet to make new decision on it. The newly elected body has to discuss over the utility of institution of monarchy in its first session. Since time immemorial, it has been the most significant continuity from the past. The newly elected body has to balance the pros and cons of its utility and legislate about its fate.

“This legislative body is not going to be a rubber stamp of any past decision. As it represents the sovereignty of the people with its fresh mandate, it cannot remain under duress from the seen and unseen centers of powers or irrational decisions of the past,” said the analyst. “As it is going to consider things in a long term perspective, it has to evaluate the role of traditional institution maintaining traditional faith of the people as a stabling factor.”

The election results showed that it was neither about the king against the people or upper cast Vs lower cast or Madhes Vs Pahad. Many members who actively took part in King’s direct rule have won the election and some of them are contesting the election through proportional representation. Former regional administrator under King’s direct rule Mrigendra Kumar Singh Yadav and former assistant minister under his direct rule Govinda Chaudhari won the election as candidates of Terai Madhesh Loktantrick Party and Bijaya Kumar Gachhedar – who was reportedly soft about King’s direct rule – also secured victory from two constituencies in the election as a candidate of MJF.

Many people of hilly origin won seats from Madhesh contesting as candidates of major parties Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and CPN-Maoist. They won seats in all 22 districts of plain, which Madhesi parties wanted as a separate federal state. In some districts like Bardiya, Kailali, Kanchapur, Jhapa, andUdayapur, these parties swept the polls.

Similarly, many republicans including CPN-UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal, Home minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula and Dr. Shekhar Koirala, Mahesh Acharya also lost the elections. Republican leader Narahari Acharya won the election but at the cost of Nepali Congress which was virtually uprooted in many places.

The Pandora’s Box of Constituent Assembly is now reality for Nepal and the country needs a sobriety in the decision making process on the part of the legislators as well as the political parties.

Governance and political economy analysis has a crucial part to play in enhancing the effectiveness of development. Across the World Bank, there is a widely shared perception that we need to gain a better understanding of the environments in which Bank operations are taking place and seek to promote progressive change (IEG 2006, 2008). This coincides with an increasing recognition that governance and political economy (GPE) factors play a powerful role not only in a country’s overall development path, but also for shaping policies in various sectors and the way they are being implemented. Moreover, an analytic approach to governance and political economy is essential to making progress in addressing governance to unlock development, as committed to in the 2007 GAC Strategy and subsequent Implementation Plan. The objective of this good practice framework is to systematize approaches to governance and political economy analysis and to provide readily available orientation for World Bank task team leaders (TTLs) and teams.

[pdf-embedder url=”http://bipinadhikari.com.np/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/PGPEbook121509.pdf”]

In recent years the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Embassies have made considerable progress in analysing the governance climate in partner countries. The Strategic Governance And Corruption Analysis (SGACA) is designed as a tool to build on and enhance those efforts, by facilitating a more strategic approach to analysing the context for governance and anti-corruption for each partner country. The Clingendael Institute has developed the SGACA to assist Embassies in implementing this approach, tailored to country circumstances. It is a practical guide to help structure and analyse existing information – a ‘quick-scan’ – that focuses on formal and informal aspects of governance in a particular context. Different tools and processes, such as the Track Record and the current Multi Annual Strategic Plan generate important information for this purpose. The SGACA is complementary to these instruments and seeks to deepen the countryspecific understanding of governance and corruption.

Minister Hridesh Tripathy of the Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandi) was in an understandably exultant mood the other day. Then, speaking at a public forum, he confidently predicted that the House of Representatives (HoR) would unanimously approve the draft bill on citizenship that the government adopted and intends to table with a view to amending the Citizenship Act 1964.

Tripathy proclaimed that when that happened “everyone” would acquire citizenship, thereby solving the citizenship problem once and for all. He explained to his audience that the HoR would immediately nullify Article 8 and 9 of the present Constitution that hinders the passage of a new law that would in effect provide the right of citizenship to a teeming mass of individuals in the Terai, estimated at around 4 million.

To be noted, too, is that the party, among others, desires that new citizenship certificates be distributed in the Terai with such dispatch that all would have it in their hands – before the proposed elections for the constituent assembly the date for which has not been announced, thus far.

In other words, here is a case of double jeopardy: first sweepingly liberal criteria matched with certificates dished out with super-express speed!

EXULTANT
Since the Sadbhavana Party has been amongst the most vocal in demanding a revision in citizenship laws to empower the 4 million or so it claims has been unrightfully denied, it is easy to understand Tripathy’s sense of political victory.

Other voices, however, are not quite as upbeat. For, among other things, they argue –rightly, in my opinion – that the new criteria for eligibility would open a floodgate. That would result in not only a drastic transformation in the basic demographic character of Nepal but could, in a few short decades, even render genuine Nepalese a minority in their own land.

Who doesn’t know that it has become something of a national sport to flay the panchayat era’s reservations with respect to granting en masse citizenship especially in the Terai that shares a long open border with India? Yet, very much less is said of the fact that the several democratic governments that followed in the wake of the 1990 Change did nothing about fundamentally altering the panchayat-era situation, in that regard. One however suspects that there must have been good reasons for their caution in the first decade of multi-party governance.

Before going any further into this discourse, it may now be recalled that under extraneous pressure – need one be more explicit and mention the source? – a Nepali Congress government in 2000 attempted to overturn the status quo on the Terai citizenship front.

It is salutary to remind ourselves that when they went down that slippery path, they did so by attempting to make desired changes embedded or camouflaged in a finance bill.

Though it was passed by the HoR it was roundly rejected in the Upper House. In those circumstances the late King Birendra had no constitutional option but to refer it to the Supreme Court which in turn stymied the government’s attempt to alter the existing citizenship laws through in such a fashion.

What seems to have changed in the interregnum is that the Maoist insurgency provided the momentum to the lurch towards en masse citizenship rights in the Terai. That it did, among other things, by encouraging political groupings in the Terai to work for an autonomous region.

Against the backdrop of envisaged elections for a constituency assembly to write a new constitution, it would now appear that the government has attempted to pull the rug from under the Maoists’ feet by being more revolutionary than the rebels.

To be noted is that the bill approved by the government and now being readied for passage in parliament has been timed BEFORE the Maoists join an interim government. In other words, it would clearly seem that the intention of the constituent parties forming the government is to claim credit for the same – and hopefully translate the expected satisfaction among the newly enfranchised citizens of the Terai into valuable votes for their respective parties.

Even without going into the nitty-gritty of the proposed law, it is shocking that there is a provision that, in the absence of relevant documents proving birth in Nepal or residence since 15 April 1989 or even being including in electoral rolls, acquiring three bonafide Nepalese citizens’ recommendations in that regard would be adequate!

It hardly requires any great imagination to assume that anyone, not merely an Indian national, could easily coax/bribe his/her way into citizenship.

The above is not, of course, to argue that genuine cases for citizenship – whether in the Terai or elsewhere in the country – should not get their due right to citizenship without hassles.

It is merely to point out that, one, it is simply suicidal to adopt a blanket policy of citizenship, merely for the asking, not least given the geo-political setting of the Terai, cheek-by-jowl to the open Nepal-India border and the fact that, over the years, there has been a constant flow of immigrants from India into Nepal, particularly in the Terai.

For another, one can hardly forget not merely that India has the world’s second largest population but also that the Nepal Terai borders Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, the two most populous states in India.

Sometimes, smug arguments are heard about liberal immigration policies in countries, say, such as the United States and Canada which are huge territorially, have small populations as compared to their expanse, a low birth rate but whose appetite for cheap labour is virtually boundless. Is Nepal is such a position?

On the other hand, let us not forget that there are countries such as Japan, much admired around the world, which does not grant citizenship even to those born in Japan, if the mother is married to a non-Japanese. As the Himalayan Times stated in a recent editorial (surprise, surprise): “if all the Nepalis emigrated southwards, or northwards, the population increase would be just about two percent but if only two percent of the population of either poured into Nepal, its population would double, creating a demographic upheaval.

FLAWED CRITERIA
Besides, since none can guarantee the accuracy of electoral rolls, citizenship should not be granted merely on that basis. After all, as Bipin Adhikari reminds us in an opinion piece in the Kathmandu Post, the anti-foreigner campaign in India’s state of Assam during the late 1970s and early 1980s protested the presence of hundreds of thousands of illegal Bangaldeshis in electoral rolls in Assam.

If that was the sorry state of affairs in Assam then, why should one assume it is different here now, not least given the endemic corruption, less than robust policing capabilities and a weak or non-existent documentation system?

To quote another example from Adhikari’s write-up, recall that the Indian Supreme Court issued an order in April 2002 that maintains that “foreigners may not claim the right of Indian citizenship on the ground that they are enrolled in voter lists, have ration cards and that they have been living in India for a long time.”

If Nepal is not to be swamped with a deluge of foreigners armed with Nepalese citizenship certificates in the near future, the fine print and the haste with which the government has apparently bulldozed through must be thoroughly debated before genuine Nepalese are placed on the endangered species list.

Incidentally, the same irrational haste and lack of proper study comes across in the Kathmandu Post’s editorial lauding the government decision which – in that paper’s learned view – would bring a “great sigh of relief for over 40 million” (repeat, forty million) as the “historic decision to embrace the 40 million people (again, the same figure) will definitely make them to take part in reconsolidating the national integrity and unity.”

Need one remind the Post that with Nepal’s current population estimated at around 25 million, an infusion of “40 million” with dubious claims to citizenship is hardly likely to reconsolidate either national integrity or national unity.

Its unseemly rush to please the powers that be has, like that of the government, been severely blemished by a blatant disregard of the demographic and other facts on the ground.

But, then, such is the very essence of today’s “loktantrik” Nepal!

Democracy and the United Nations – PDF file (A Publication of United Nations)
Democracy is one of the universal and indivisible core values and principles of the United Nations. It is based on the freely expressed will of people and closely linked to the rule of law and exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Although the United Nations Charter includes no mention of the word “democracy”, the opening words of the Charter, “We the Peoples”, reflect the fundamental principle of democracy, that the will of the people is the source of legitimacy of sovereign states and therefore of the United Nations as a whole.

Critical Path Analysis (CPA) is a project management tool that sets out all the individual activities that make up a larger project; shows the order in which activities have to be undertaken; shows which activities can only taken place once other activities have been completed; shows which activities can be undertaken simultaneously, thereby reducing the overall time taken to complete the whole project; shows when certain resources will be needed. This process determines which activities are “critical” (i.e., on the longest path) and which have “total float” (i.e., can be delayed without making the project longer). This is a suitable project management tool for legal reform projects as well.
(http://tutor2u.net/business/production/critical-path-analysis.htm)