On the face of it,a ceremonial president asking an army chief to stay on after being sacked by the prime minister even if arbitrarily cannot be considered healthy in a democracy. While it could spark protests capable of causing serious injury to a nascent republic,it might also create precedents for any head of state in a time of crisis. But the extreme step that President Ram Baran Yadav took in Nepal has a background. Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) has since resigned in protest against the conspiracy that Yadav executed at the instigation of foreign forces; his most trusted colleague,Baburam Bhattarai,identified India as influencing the presidents move. Prachanda in particular,and the Maoists in general,are trying to create a martyrs halo out of it. How tactical is that on the part of the Maoists,or is it real?
A close look at the situation,and at the background behind the stand-off between the Maoists and the Nepal army,shows that things took a turn for the worse when Prachanda sacked Gen Katawal,given that he bulldozed through all cautions and warnings from his partners in the governing coalition,from the opposition,and from President Yadav. In the process,the PM not only undermined the office of the president,but also refused to recognise its existence,as he simply informed Yadav telephonically about the army chiefs sacking and the appointment of his successor denying the president,as supreme commander of the army,the ceremonial role of formalising the change. The presidents role and rights are yet to be defined and articulated in the interim set-up,hence the PMs refusal to recognise his ceremonial role and the presidents retaliation by directly ordering the sacked army chief to continue in his office. After all,the president had at least 20 of the 24 political parties in the country telling him that his failure to undo what Prachanda had done would lead to total capture of power by the Maoists.
So far,all the governments acts fit in with what the tape shows Prachanda telling his commanders. Politicising the judiciary by directly bringing it under executive control the Maoist manifesto says there will be ombudsman watching the judiciary would have been far easier once the politicisation of the army or its takeover was complete.
The dissemination of the videotape coincided with the crisis,and with Prachandas quitting the government in protest against the presidents action. Another example of the apparent game plan,according to the tape: Prachanda says he has been able to get the UN to certify the number of combatants as higher than they actually are; and multiplying them will be easy once we control the political power. All exercises,it seems,towards taking over the state completely.
Destroying democracy and institutions from within is far easier than from without. But the PM miscalculated and what could have been a decisive move suffered a major setback with the president coming in the way. So,it would be a mistake to consider the PM-president row as mainly a constitutional issue. Given the context,the face-off should really be viewed as a political issue.
Many people,and perhaps the international community,questioning the presidents right to veto a prime ministers decision,may feel the need to review their position. After all,Prachanda and the CPN (Maoist) had come to join the peace process and democratic fold after they admitted publicly that they were nowhere near capturing power through the force of arms,and that now they would seek the peoples support through ballots to get there,and that the politics of bullets was over for ever. But by his actions,and according to these videotapes,it is reasonable to claim that Prachanda is playing a clever game to gain the ultimate prize and that lying to the president and supporting political parties,to that end,might well be acceptable. Nepals peace process and democracy are no doubt fragile,and could collapse soon if the Maoists withdraw from it. Prachandas commitment to continue supporting them when he resigned is a positive gesture,but can it be accepted at its face value? The constituent assembly and Nepals political parties have a responsibility to finish writing the constitution by the May 2010 deadline,and the jurisdiction as well as the residual powers of the president could be clearly defined in that,taking into account what happened in the army chiefs case; but accepting Prachandas plea that his government was a victim of conspiracy is not enough,as it is only one part of a complex truth. The challenge,to consolidate and institutionalise democracy,is much bigger and demands transparency,truthfulness,commitment and the absence of duality in what the actors,mainly the rulers of the day,say and do. It cannot be simplified.
yubaraj.ghimire@expressindia.com
