Of impulsive leaders, erratic governance and an unstable Nepal

Manoj Karki / Kathmandu: Forms of governance was one of the major contentious issues in course of the almost six-year-long constitution making process that began in Nepal following the 2008 Constituent Assembly elections. The design of the federal units, the judiciary and the electoral system were other sticky points among the major political parties that led to the delay in the constitution making process, originally planned to be completed in the first two years’ term of the Constituent Assembly.

The Constitution of Nepal has already been promulgated, even though the design of the federal units or restructuring of the state continues to be a problem with the Madhesh-based parties calling for a review of the proposed design of dividing the country into seven federal units. As a result, the exact demarcation of the proposed federal units is yet to be done, and there is still a probability of the number or boundary of the proposed provinces being changed.

The debate over the forms of governance though dealt with in the new constitution has once again come into the fore, with the recent turn of events leading to a sudden change in the government leadership in mere nine months in office. As it was discussed in course of the constitution making process, the form of governance has again been blamed for the instability that continues to plague the Prime Minister’s Office in Singha Durbar.

Nepal has so far been practicing the parliamentary system, with the party securing a majority in the parliament getting the opportunity to lead the government. However, no government to date in Nepal has completed a full term, right from the first people’s elected government in the 50s. We have already had eight governments in the past 10 years alone, with the 11th in the making currently.

It is these very points that were raised when the then UCPN (Maoist) and CPN-UML raised their voices for adopting a newer form of governance, that would give Nepal a much-needed political stability, which remains elusive so far. The parties also argued that political stability, most probably in the government of the country was inevitable for Nepal to move ahead towards the path of economic prosperity.

UCPN (Maoist) in fact went to the people seeking for votes in the first as well as the second CA elections for a directly elected president. The Maoist party, as expected, was for a presidential system until last moment of the deal reached to seal the constitution making process. Likewise, the UML, as a communist democratic party, was in favour of a directly elected Prime Minister. It had the same arguments to make about unstable governments to voice for a Prime Minister directly elected by the people and not based on the majority garnered inside the parliament.

Same old system

However, the Nepali Congress was adamant to continuing with the same old parliamentary system that has been practiced in the country so far. The party raised suspicions over autocratic and feudal regimes with the adoption of a directly elected President or Prime Ministers. Hence, when it came down to a compromise among the three major political forces of the country, the forms of governance was agreed at a ‘reformed’ parliamentary system.

To deal with the concerns of unstable governments and instability brought by a majority government, the parties came up with a few provisions that could discourage making and breaking of governments at will. Accordingly, the provision to allow a no-confidence motion against a government only after two years of being elected and the party or group of parties bringing the no-confidence motion to come up with the name of the next prime minister were inserted in the constitution.

As envisaged in the Constitution of Nepal, “Article 100 (4) reads, ‘One-fourth of the total number of the then members of the House of Representatives may table a motion of no-confidence in writing that the House has no confidence in the Prime Minister.

Provided that a motion of no confidence shall not be tabled until the first two years after the appointment of the Prime Minister and until another one year after the date of failure of the motion of no confidence once tabled.

Furthermore, Article 100 (5) states, ‘A motion of no confidence to be tabled under Clause (4) shall also indicate the name of a member proposed for the Prime Minister.’

The above provision would ensure that a government lasts for at least two years. However, the leaders are now taking turns of nine months each to go against the spirit of that provision they agreed on with the objective of giving political stability to the country. As it has come to the fore now, it would also not have allowed our age-old ‘big brother’ and ‘good’ neighbour to work behind doors to bring down governments that dare to stand shoulder to shoulder against one of the ‘largest democracy’ of the world.

The decision however to give KP Oli only nine months in Singha Durbar and then agree on a similar nine months each to Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Sher Bahadur Deuba has been taken benefitting from the transition clause in the new constitution. The new constitution also limits the number of ministries, rightly so, to just 25, but that was ignored by the Oli-led government and will be done so by the new turn-by-turn governments citing the same ‘we are still in transition’ provision.

Hence, despite of the progressive provisions made in the new constitution learning from their own past experiences, it seems unlikely that our leaders will give up their ‘impulse’ of jumping into the Prime Minister’s Chair even knowing that one would serve the same fate as his predecessor. And then there is always our good old neighbour that will make sure that our leaders have that impulsive blood running in their veins, to thereby keep Nepal as unstable as ever. RSS