I have been making a case that House revival is not possible. And it is not desirable in the first place. The argument being put forth by some in the seven party coalition is that the House is not to be revived by the king or the Supreme Court, and so it is not a matter of legality. Instead a people's movement will revive the House through a political decision.
Lilamani Pokharel For Continuous Movement
Phone Talk With Madhav Nepal, Hridayesh Tripathy
Logistics To Bring Down The Regime
Ways To Cut The Gordian Knot
Now I intend to argue that the political reasons for reviving the House are even flimsier than the legal ones.
(1) Either the 1990 constitution is dead or it is alive. I think it died the day the king appointed Chand as Prime Minister. Almost all democrats think it died on 2/1. If it is dead, it is not possible the 1999 House is still alive, hibernating somewhere, because that House can only exist within the framework of the 1990 constitution. And if you argue the 1990 constitution is still alive, then you are saying 2/1 was not an anti-constitutional move. And if 2/1 was a constitutional move, then the constitution that made it possible is in an obvious clash with the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights and hence is an undemocratic constitution that deserves to die if it is not dead already.
(2) It took a 2/1 and 12,000 deaths for the Nepali Congress and the UML to come around to the idea of a constituent assembly. The Nepali Congress has been dragging its feet on the issue forever. As recently as last week Sushil Koirala gave an interview saying the House is to be revived, and then if the need be felt, the country might also go to a constituent assembly. That shows all those who are for House revival secretly hope they can kill the idea of a constituent assembly down the line. How could they kill the idea? Say the House is revived. As soon as the House is revived, the international community will no longer feel an absence of democracy in the country. They evaporate off the political scene. And if the NC and the UML manage to amend the constitution, which they can, they could bring the army under the parliament. After that happens, the king gets reduced to being a figurehead. At that point if the Maoists resume the civil war, the global community will fully support the government and the army. And thus the Bahuns get to kill the idea of a constituent assembly. And all this could happen within a month of House revival. I smell fish.
(3) If you are in Janakpur, and you intend to go to Birgunj, why do you insist on first going 50 miles in the direction of Biratnagar? The constituent assembly idea is Birgunj. The House revival idea is Biratnagar. If you are so insistent on first going 50 miles towards Biratnagar, it is so obvious you want to increase the distance between yourself and Birgunj as much as possible. To me it looks like that is so because you dislike Birgunj.
(4) After the vertical split of the Nepali Congress, the UML is the largest party in the country. So if the NC is on one side, and the other six parties are on the other side, then the NC is maybe 25% of the weight of the coalition, if that. On their own all six parties are against the House revival idea. They have come around to it for the sake of Girija and the Congress only. But if there were to be a vote on the issue, the NC clearly loses. To not allow such a vote is undemocratic. This fight is not just for democracy in the country but also a fight for democracy inside the parties. A struggle for democracy itself has to be democratic. So if Girija will not let the seven party coalition to vote on the issue, this is an autocrat. An autocrat can not lead a democracy movement.
(5) But first the Nepali Congress central committee has to meet and discuss and decide on this issue. That is the democratic way. If Girija does not allow such a debate, he is an autocrat.
(6) The constituent assembly has been the only real meeting ground for the Maoists and the seven parties. If the seven parties were to abandon that plank, civil war will restart tomorrow. On the other hand, if the king were to honestly come around to it, peace and democracy get established. So this NC dishonesty on the assembly question is to play with fire.
(7) If the honest goal of the seven party coalition is a constituent assembly, that honesty would ask that the coalition seek the shortest route to that assembly. The shortest route is not a House. The shortest route is an interim constitution and an interim government with both legislative and executive powers, and an interim prime minister who is Commander In Chief of the army.
(8) There is nothing a revived House can achieve that an interim constitution and an interim government can not better achieve.
(9) Girija Koirala has never stopped mistreating the Deuba Congress. First it kept it at bay, and that made it possible for the king to align with Deuba before 2/1. Now Koirala makes sure the NC(D) gets treated like a lesser member within the seven party coalition. That is wrong. That also shows the biggest reason Girija wants the House revived is so he can sqeeze the NC(D) to the max. The whole country wants democracy, Girija's concern is vendetta. Such are misplaced priorities.
(10) The king came out for a constituent assembly idea right after 2/1. He came out for an all party government right after October 2, 2002. The Maoists are for both those ideas. So why will the seven party coalition also not come around to those two ideas? Because as soon as it does, things speed up, and the country gets a constituent assembly sooner rather than later.
(11) Instead of focusing on the all party government and a constituent assembly on which we do have common ground with the king and the Maoists, why would we insist on House revival on which we have common ground with neither?
(12) Most important, it is the Nepali people who are dead against the idea of a House revival. Less than 5% support the idea. That is the biggest political reason why the idea has to be dropped.
(13) After October 2, 2002 when a democratic Prime Minister legitimately dissolved the House, an all party government had to be formed, and that all party government had to take the country through a constituent assembly. But at that point neither the NC nor the UML were for a constituent assembly yet. That is the real story. Instead Girija put forth his idiotic House revival stance. And that is what made all the horror afterwards possible.
(14) Seeking common ground with the king on the all party government and a constituent assembly is also the best way to ensure a smooth transfer of authority over the state army from the king to the people.
(15) The House revival stance is the biggest reason the movement has not taken off like it should have. The 1999 House reminds people of many things that were wrong in the 1990s.
(16) In the entire world history there is not one example of a mass movement, a revolution that got organized to revive a House. And there is a good reason why not. The House revival stance is bizarre.
(17) Dropping the House revival makes the endgame simpler and clearer. Then we are less dependent on the king's goodwill. A revolution can establish an interim government, but not a House.
So drop it, folks. Allow the movement to take off.
No comments:
Post a Comment