Democracy For Nepal: Lesson For Maoists: Rule Of Law

Monday, May 04, 2009

Lesson For Maoists: Rule Of Law

Prachanda's Procedural Flaw

The Maoist failure to oust Katuwal has not been a failure of the principle of civilian supremacy over the military.

The parliament can impeach the president, but not with one third of the vote, which is what the Maoists have. The parliament can impeach the army chief. The majority government had the option to get the parliament to pass a resolution by majority vote saying the civilian government wanted to oust the army chief. There was no effort made in that direction.

A majority government with unanimous voice could have got rid of Katuwal. But the Maoists did not have the support of any of the coalition partners. At that point the right thing to do for Prachanda was to withdraw his intent to oust Katuwal.

But even if the majority government had unanimously decided to oust Katuwal, the president, as the constitutional chief and the titular head of the army, would have had the option to send the decision back to the cabinet for reconsideration, then the cabinet would have had the option to resend it, and at that point the president would have had to pass it on to the army chief. But Prachanda not only did not seek support from his coalition partners, he did not feel the need to forward his decision letter to the president to be forwarded to the army chief. He bypassed the president. Calling him up on the phone to inform does not count.

Decision To Resign, A Good One

Prachanda decided to resign instead of possibly facing a vote of no confidence. That was a good one. His party has filed a case against the president in the Supreme Court. That shows a desire to appreciate the rule of law. But the right political move would have been to try and impeach the president. They must know they don't have the numbers. So they did not even try. And if you have already registered a case against the president with the Supreme Court, whey then plan on street protests? Let the law take its course.

Prachanda's Party Failed Prachanda

His party let him down. They put undue pressure on him. He could not resist the pressure from his party to go relentlessly after the army chief. That cost them power.

Katuwal Not The Impediment To Army Integration

Prachanda and the Maoists have falsely assumed that the army chief stands in the way of army integration. The two armies will be integrated after the six biggest parties in the parliament will agree on a formula for integration. And the other parties will not agree on the idea as long as the YCL keeps misbehaving. The YCL has the option to either disband, or become a purely political organization. They can't walk around like Hitler's Brown Shirts. Civilizing the YCL is the homework the Maoists need to do as a party if they want to make progress on the issue of army integration.

Parliamentary Supremacy

On thorny issues like land reform and army integration the best idea would be to let there be full fledged debates and discussions on the topics in the parliament. Party chiefs are too used to usurping the power of the parliament. Open parliamentary debates have to take the place of smoke filled room politics.

India?

India is not the reason all of his coalition partners deserted Prachanda. They deserted him because they kept telling him he does not have their support to oust the army chief, but he did not listen to them, so they deserted him.