Dispersing after Assembly

Take the example of the Nepali Congress led by G.P. Koirala. Though his party came a distant second in the elections 8212; it got 100 seats less than the CPN-M 8212; Koirala not only refuses to resign as Prime Minister, he also insists he will quit the top executive8217;s job only if he is made the first president of the Democratic Republic of Nepal.

Then there are the Maoists. Though they emerged as the single largest party, they fell far short of the required two-third majority to head the government. But they are yet to initiate a dialogue with others nor have they tried to solicit support on a common minimum programme.

It8217;s not as if the parties are not negotiating. They are, but all the negotiations are over the distribution of the three plum posts 8212; those of the ceremonial president, the executive prime minister and the speaker of the constituent assembly. With the fear of the King taking over gone, there is no compelling reason for Nepal8217;s political parties to unite and act swiftly. To have decided to throw out the monarchy on the very first meeting of the Constituent Assembly but not to have thought up a plan to elect a head of the state, just shows the short-sightedness of Nepal8217;s leaders.

Politically, the monarchy8217;s ouster was a foregone conclusion. But the constitutional process adopted to do it is full of flaws. It was K.B. Gurung and not G.P. Koirala who is the senior most member of the House, who was in the chair as a pro-term speaker 8212; that clearly went against the interim Constitution8217;s letter, if not spirit.

The 601-member House is meant to have three categories of representatives 8212; 240 seats from first past the post, 335 from the proportional representation system and another 26 as 8216;nominees8217; 8212; but the last category is still missing. And more importantly, the resolution was not only put to vote without any debate, it was moved by a government that should have ceased to exist as soon as the new House was elected.

But then in the past two years the interests of its three parties rather than the rules and norms of democracy have governed the policies of Nepal.

These acts of omissions have largely been overlooked by a large section of the Nepali media, civil society and non-governmental organisations, who were in the forefront of movement that led to Gyanendra handing back power to political parties. They have remained silent on these violations by the new dispensation. For them, the end justified the means. The international community too, including UN bodies, clearly adopted dual standards on norms of democracy and human right issues. They compromised as much as domestic organisations did.

While the country continues to go without a legitimate government, people are growing restless. The dismal law and order situation, fuel scarcity, price hike, a near collapse of the delivery system besides a starvation like condition shadowing large parts of the country are all fuelling discontent.

Defining a model of federalism is definitely a challenge but it8217;s one that Nepal8217;s leaders are not taking up together. But the people may not be prepared to wait much longer. Their frustration is fast transforming into anger, if not outrage, as the country8217;s leaders show that more than anything else power appears to be their guiding principle.

ghimire.yubarajgmail.com