Category: Nepal

So, what is the “French model of governance” that the UML is advocating as the “middle-path” between what the NC and the CPN-M are bargaining for ? Is it the best option for Nepal ?

Let’s first discuss on the systems the CPN-M and the NC are strongly proposing.

Westminster system
It is comparable to the British and the Indian systems. The Prime Minister, elected by the parliament, has the executive rights. The head of state, typically a president or a monarch, usually performs ceremonial roles.

Yeas : the NC and Madhesi groups. Nays: the CPN-M .

Pros: As the chief executive (PM) is elected by the parliament, this system rarely gives rise to any sort of dictators. Also, probably suitable in the context of countries like Nepal where the country is bhukka, yet the exercise to bring down the government starts even before the government gets a full shape. As the change in government leadership is fixed within the parliament, taxpayers are less burdened with frequent elections.

Cons: The PM’s policies do not fully reflect the people’s spirits. As the PM is elected by the parliament, she answers more to the parliamentarians and less to the people. Her term is decided by how well she “pleases” the parliamentarians, not by how well she executes for the people. Now, in near-ideal political scenarios, the two are (almost) equivalent. However, in the Nepalese context, all we need to do is look back the political developments of the past twenty years – pajeros, Bangkok trips during no-confidence votes, jumbo government, and extreme corruption, to name a few. Nepal is a perfect ground to abuse this system to the full.

One question comes into mind – Why do the NC and Madheshi groups favor this system ? Is it because they are closer to India in more ways than the rest of the major players are ? If the answer is ‘yes’, that would be merely a sentiment and is not justified. Another way to analyze the scenario would be to consider the political demography of Nepal. The leftists – the major parties being the CPN-M and the CPN-UML, if put together, enjoy a clear majority. Although Nepalese communists are not united even within their individual parties, let alone in the national front, a mutation in this character of theirs at some point in the future (if, by chance, it happens), would seriously challenge the existence of non-leftist parties. So, it sounds natural for non-communists to seriously advocate for a system which requires satisfying (to some level) the minority.

Executive President
Examples would be, the United States (of course), South Korea, Indonesia, and even North Korea, to name a few.

Yeas: the CPN-M. Nays: the NC and the rest.

Pros: As the president is directly elected, her “degree of obligation to answer to the people” is more than in the case of Westminster system. I am talking in a practical sense here. With an all powerful president, we can expect less noise and fewer obstacles from the middle-level politicians. The veto power makes the president further powerful. Thus, it is comparatively easier to implement the voice of the people in a relatively shorter span of time. Choose a disciplined, innovative, and inspiring president and you can expect your country to rise the ladder of social/economical development. This model also favors quick decision-making (and implementing), swift policies, and better regulations.

Cons: With all the power concentrated (almost) solely on one person, it is easier to compromise this system. A democratically elected president can well change into a dictator.

Why does the CPN-M want this system implemented? Is it solely based on the common perception of the communist ideology? If yes, the current the CPN-M party structure itself contradicts with the model they are advocating for. The different factions, one each among the Chairman and the three Vice-Chairmen, with their own individual pockets of members from the grass-root level to the central committee, it will be surprising if this model worked even if the Maoists themselves came to power. Needless to add the fact that the party itself is in the verge of split. Are there other reasons then ? Is it a tool to gain a greater power or a state capture? If that is the case, then we have our answer – no further logical reasons needed.

The French Model
Is this model really the middle-path between the previous two? Is it flawless ? Does it check dictatorship while allowing swift decision-making and implementing ? Above all, does it address the challenges and notoriety Nepalese politics/politicians time and again bring to the system ?

In France, the directly elected President shares executive power with the Prime Minister, her appointee. The PM, however, has to maintain majority support in the parliament. Hence, there is a balance of power between the President and the parliament.

Pros: A power balance between the directly elected president and her appointee PM supported by the parliament. Dictatorship is checked.

Cons: Complex. Is this model really suitable for Nepal ? Is the power sharing possible ? Most common scenario would be – a parliament controlled by the opposition. In such case, and which is very probable considering the present day political make up, there is a huge risk of a political vacuum. Let’s consider the fact that the government-formation clause of the current interim constitution has been changed for already a few number of times, owing to the differences among the political parties. When disunity is the reality even during constitution writing process, when the country is supposed to best unite, this model of governance is sure to invite complications during normal circumstances in the future.

Why is the CPN-UML proposing this model ? Given the UML’s middle-path stance in the path, it is natural to assume its intention as yet another mediation role. Besides, this proposal can also be taken as the UML’s attempt to ensure its own existence in the post CA period. With its rank dropped to No. 3 after the CA elections, the UML’s confidence of solely gaining the executive role has, no doubt, dropped. The system that would best ensure its presence in the post-CA scenario would be the one that requires consensus amongst the political players, and hence, the French model.

The Suitable Path Ahead
Constitution of a country is not something to be written every now and then. It is a very crucial time of the history as it shapes the country for decades (and even centuries). In order to make this constitution an ever-lasting one, it is necessary to look beyond the current political demography.

The primary challenge the post-CA governments have to tackle is the economy. In order to quickly catch up with the heavily tech-oriented world, swift policies need to be implemented. Building infrastructure is another mission. There are countless “to-do”s in the list.

To summarize, Nepal needs a system that best ensures fast decision-making and implementing. That is to say, the Executive President system is the best option. But how can we minimize the risk of the single point of failure of this system? How can we ensure no dictator rises to power ? How can we avoid the North Korean path ?

One method would be to limit the maximum number of terms an individual can serve as the President, as is the case in the US. Next, to be simultaneously implemented, would be to make the judiciary system independent and robust (I mean in practical sense; theoretically, it is usually the case). Also, establishing independent institutions, such as, anti-corruption bodies, secret agencies, etc could also check on any abuse of power.

(Note: The ideas expressed above are solely of the author’s. It is not biased against any political party. And, the discussion on the structure, pros, and cons is made on a general sense.)