The NEXT PM, a voters manifesto
RUDRA PANGENI
In India, the world’s largest democracy, Congress (I) and Bharatiya
Janata Party have put forth Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi respectively
as their PM candidates for the general election to be held next year.
Gandhi is the son of Congress (I) chair Sonia Gandhi, and Modi has a
proven record of accomplishment, having been a successful chief
minister of Gujarat.
The question is: Why do political parties here in Nepal hesitate to
project candidates for the post of Prime Minister in parliamentary
elections?
Republica
It is obvious that the fresh constituent Assembly election is more
important for political parties in terms of power gain rather than
constitution promulgation. In the political parties’ ongoing door to
door campaign for votes, even voters gave little priority to statute
writing, expressing their expectations of development and good
governance instead.
Though we are going into a CA election, general people have little or
no interest in forms of governance, federal structure, and delineation
of federal units. Their concern is development, economic prosperity and
stability.
Nepalis have voted in five parliamentary elections in 33 years of
democratic practice since 1951. It’s unfortunate that they have been
deprived of full-term governments in the long history of parliamentary
practice. One of the major reasons for this is the practice of
political parties not picking a leader beforehand, who will execute the
commitments and pledges made before the election.
A projection of leadership can make more difference than mere
commitments and pledges without a person to translate the same into
action. But our political parties are hesitant to do so. Announcing a
candidate for the next PM is sure to breed a culture of transparency.
Our history is proof that a leader at Singhadurbar is more relevant to
overall national progress than any particular leader voted in from a
constituency. Our country needs a statesman to bail it out from
protracted uncertainties and to meet peoples’ expectations for
progress.
During the democratic practice in the country, people have felt a
dearth of political stability, which is directly related to any
particular party gaining a clear majority in the elections. This time,
political cadres and leaders are busy trying to woo people for a clear
majority, but people are not given any real statesman figure who can
change their lives. It seems the parties are not confident enough about
their leaders, which is the reason they have maintained their silence
in this regard.
For the upcoming election, UCPN (Maoist) has placed a glamorous photo
of Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal on the back cover of a 53-page political
manifesto, labeling him ‘leader of nation’. However, there is no clear
statement on whether he is the party’s candidate for would-be PM. Other
parties are completely silent in this regard.
Parties display double standards here. They do not declare their
party’s prime ministerial candidate when they can, and later
participate in shameful blame-game about foreign interference in
choosing a PM. A prime ministerial candidate from each party can easily
avert such foreign intervention.
Why don’t our parties consider choosing a leader to run the government?
The disappointing revelation comes to fore that they are merely a loose
alliance of political people, not an institution of unity and firm
structure. Intra-party rifts and factionalism are common features of
almost all parties.
Some major party leaders are of the view that it’s hard to project a
single candidate with consensus. They agree that it has given aliens
the opportunity to fish in murky waters.
In Nepal, it is an open secret that foreign intervention is a powerful
kingmaker. If the parties announce their prime ministerial candidate,
thereby allowing the people to directly cast a vote for the prime
minister, the game of king-making would come to an end.
The tricky game of choosing a PM was in full swing after the first CA
election. Influential forces were hesitant to hand over the post of the
country’s executive head to the Maoist party, even though it had gained
the biggest bloc of votes in the parliament. As a result, it took over
three months for Pushpa Kamal Dahal to be the head of the government.
To discourage the practice, which was repeated several times, parties
should soul-search to find a candidate for prime minister before the
election itself.
A declared candidate will directly go to Singhadurbar to lead the
government, and CA members won’t have to linger on government
formation. The CA hall will instead reverberate with the much-needed
discussion on constitution drafting. It will ensure that there will be
no malpractices of the kind evident in the first CA, and four-party
meetings won’t shadow the performance of CA hall.
Otherwise, the fresh CA election may be no difference than the first
one that gave birth to four prime ministers during its four year term,
wasting much time and energy on changing governments.
In the history of Nepal, there is only one instance of the declaration
of would-be PM before the election, and he too became a victim of foul
play. In the general election of 1999, erstwhile President of Nepali
Congress Girija Prasad Koirala projected the party’s founding member
Krishna Prashad Bhattarai as a PM candidate. The party gained a clear
majority in the election. Bhattarai became the prime minister, but
Koirala himself acted to remove Bhattarai from the government less than
a year later. Koirala’s move also resulted in a party spilt.
In Nepal, elections are not primary, the appointment of the PM takes a
place of importance, and often renders people’s votes secondary. The
parties must project their prime ministerial candidates to make the
people’s votes primary, institutionalize democracy, and discourage
foreign interference.
The author is a
correspondent at Republica’s Business Bureau
rudra.pangeni@gmail.com
@ http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=64445
