Nepal is declared according to the proposal statement an independent, indivisible, inclusive, secular federal democratic republic with the sovereignty and state authority vested in people. What state authority is other than the controlling-electoral-mechanism by the elected people´s representatives as per the norms and principle of multi-party democracy? This means neither the constitutional president nor the prime minister and its government cabinet of a political party in majority as per the constitutional provision or a coalition government cabinet without majority can bypass the electoral rights of people´s representatives in Constituent Assembly or the Parliament for any legislation or government decision including the state of emergency without their vote. The declaration as first amendment needs annotation for each statement for clarity.
As per the declaration the constitutional president is the head of the state and supreme commander in chief of the army who can impose the emergency as per the recommendation of the government cabinet. It has to be clear to the people that a government cabinet cannot recommend emergency nor propose to mobilize the army prior to the Parliamentary hearing and vote of people´s representatives. If such electoral democratic processes are either ignored or repressed then people´s controlling-electoral-mechanism or state authority as declared will have no significance in the practice of democracy. This simply means the people´s representatives are nothing but puppets of their respective political parties without the dignity and responsibility of their own to people and democracy. It will as such without the scrutiny be disgraceful to people´s representatives in democracy.
Of course, people´s representatives have the state authority or the power of controlling-electoral mechanism under the first amendment of the constitution to remove the constitutional president who does not abide by the constitution as patron with the two-third vote of majority. Therefore, under this provision only representatives of Constituent Assembly have right to appoint the president with their vote. Neither the interim cabinet nor any political party has the right to appoint the president. However, if major three political parties – Maoist, NC and UML bypass the Assembly vote and appoint the president the provision will have no importance in new constitution.
On the other hand, the amendment has not yet set the criteria such as how can the constitutional president be selected and who can be the candidate. But the nation needs the president to form a new government. The resolution must be established with the minimal political crisis in short period of time through the processes of the competitive electoral democratic practice – elected by the vote of the representatives of Constituent Assembly. On the contrary, if the president appointed by the major three political parties – Maoist, NC and UML without the vote of the people´s representatives there can be political unrest throughout the nation because it will instigate the politics of double standard by undermining the provisions of declaration. At this transition period only the candidate who is morally corrupt will accept the party appointment.
It is standard that only he or she can be the constitutional president of the federal democratic republic who has no affiliation with any political party that is vested with his or her self-interest for power. On the contrary, if politically affiliated candidate is elected the chance for political conflict is greater. In that case Maoist chairman´s reasoning is justifiable that if GP Koirala as a president of NC is nominated then chance for parallel political power in the nation is obvious due the large populations of corrupt NC political leaderships and cadres in the party organization. Therefore, if GP Koirala is to be nominated for the president for Constituent Assembly to cast vote on him then he must resign from his party and have no affiliation with its organization as transcended statesman. It will be the same prerequisites for the rest of other major parties´ candidate – Maoist or UML.
Why do major political parties are jumping like fleas – aphanipteras on the issue of selecting the president? It is because the second amendment of the interim constitution for the declaration of federal democratic republic is missing its footnote on these criteria. Perhaps the political parties have deliberately done it with their own party´s vested interest for power or it is in alacrity political leaderships, people´s representatives and constitutional experts failed to be scrupulous for its paradigm. That´s why Maoist party has evolved their idea from making their chairman the first president to a member of civil society. Then again Maoist central committee meeting has more complicated the criteria with double standard that a president must be independent but can represent small political party. It seems as if Maoist party´s vested interest for the position is more ambitious then of the proposal of NC to make GP Koirala the first president of the federal democratic republic of Nepal, if only GP Koirala can honestly retire from his party politics.
However, Maoist chairman´s certain remarks on GP Koirala were rather condescending particularly on his health and responsibility in regard to the position of the president. For sure it is absolutely necessary for GP Koirala to renounce his party´s ordinary membership to be the first elect president of the federal democratic republic. Of course any politician who is vested with his or her immense political power within his or her political party cannot be the candidate for the president. Therefore the later development of the Maoist central committee´s criteria for the candidate who can be the politician but not the political party leader is the resemblance of option of the first president of India Rajendra Prasad, the independent activist and later member of Congress party. However, the criteria for the position of the constitutional president of federal democratic republic of Nepal with the consensus of the major political parties and Constituent Assemb ly vote must be set to resolve the election of president.
The tag of war for the election of the president seems as if we are trying to build a castle with the sand. Because as usual by default political leaderships, the ruling elites, the legal experts and rest of us know well how to declare and legislate, however we do not think that declaration and legislation have their developmental phases for its implementations. Therefore their implementation criteria and materials are perhaps more important than their conceptions. If not then they are prone to cause conflicts for political disparity and lawlessness. If we are serious for radically changing our political behavior as political leaderships, ruling elites and legal experts we ought to think scrupulously if not as rationally as human and as analytically as scientist. Personally, I think that particularly a political leader and a legal expert who has no basis for thinking from the perspective human rationality and scientific thinking is prone to mislead people and democracy. Democracy by virtue can only be sustained with socio-political and economic developments by the rule of law that has footnotes or manuals or criteria for implementation and materials for the enforcement.
Prakash Bom
Astoria, New York
June 9, 2008
