Submit your Article

Amid the marathon negotiations among the political parties over the election of Nepal’s third President, it will be worthwhile to turn the pages of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 and check what kind of President it has envisaged. Clause 61 (2) of Article-6 of the charter states: The President shall be the Head of (the) State of Nepal. He or she shall perform his or her functions in accordance with this Constitution and federal law. Clause 61 (3) states that the President shall promote national unity of Nepal, whereas Clause 61 (4) stipulates that the main duty of the President shall be to abide by and protect the Constitution. But have our Presidents been able to defend, protect and abide by the Constitution? Have they been able to be the symbol of national unity by rising above partisan interests? Some soul-searching on the part of our heads of state has indeed become necessary. These questions are not meant to dislodge the office-holders from their high pedestals. Rather, they are meant to make sure that their successors learn from the past and manage to do justice to their role. The role of the President has indeed become significant because the executive organ of the Nepali state often shows tyrannical tendencies like its kith and kin the world over, and there’s no guarantee that it won’t show them in future. The principles of separation of powers and checks and balances notwithstanding, the executive rides roughshod over civil liberties by violating the jurisdictions of two other state organs—the legislature and the judiciary. Our decades-long experience with parliamentary democracy shows that the executive has often imposed its will on the ‘sovereign’ parliament with respective parties cracking their whips on lawmakers from their respective folds and the latter doing their mother parties’ bidding. While submitting to the whip like the hapless beasts of burden instead of casting their votes of conscience, the people’s representatives have, more often than not, done a great disservice to the country and the people. The executive has often targeted the Supreme Court, the final interpreter of the Constitution, for its refusal to do its bidding, delivering injustice to the deliverer of justice. There’s no dearth of experts, who point out that the provision of a parliamentary hearing before the appointment of judges is a bid to ensure the appointment of chosen candidates. While not immune from such transgressions, the permanent opposition—the fourth estate—has time and time again stood against the executive’s tyrannical tendencies. As the protector, defender and the adherent of the Constitution and as the symbol of national unity, the President has a great role to play and ensure the implementation of the charter in its letter and spirit. For all this, the President needs to be more than a rubber stamp. It’s high time for the political parties to choose a candidate that manages to fill in those big shoes that this position demands.

Remember February 13, 2023? We appear to have a very short memory, so asking this question becomes all the more necessary. For those who remember, the day comes as a rude shock. Why wouldn’t it? After all, that was the day when there was a total breakdown of law and order in the Capital, broad daylight. That day, a mob descended at the Gongabu bus park area, vandalized a temporary police beat along with two patrol vans, rampaged and looted a mobile phone store, while transporters were staging a protest against increase in penalty for traffic rule violations and for fulfillment of other ‘cherished’ demands of theirs. Where was the law enforcement while all this mayhem and violence was going on unabated at a nerve center of the country? Or rather, where was our all-powerful state? A state that leaves no stone unturned when it comes to ensuring a very comfy existence for its VIPs and VVIPs by providing pay and perks galore, all with the taxpayer’s hard-earned money. A state that takes the security of this privileged lot quite seriously, whether it’s off the road or on it, with security detail that does not give two hoots to the inconvenience of the commoners. A state that unleashes its brute force even against those, who are on emergency duty, for the sake of ‘security’ of members of our powerful political elite, whizzing past crowded roads on motorcades equipped with security detail. Where on earth was the state on that day? On that day, when the artery called the Ring Road partially shut and strained the Capital’s mass transit system, causing much inconvenience to the public, where was the state? Where was the state when terror reigned supreme? In deep slumber? And what on Earth were all those ride-sharing companies doing by going offline when the public needed them the most? Was it not the state’s duty to ensure that they run their services? For members of the gullible public, who were on the site on that fateful day or who watched the horror unfolding on the screen, this total breakdown of law and order brought back the horrors of a civil war. But it was peacetime, right? Fast forward February 16. Police have arrested a couple of individuals accused of involvement in the incident after orders from the government. What propelled the youths to take the law in their own hands? A culture of impunity, despair or something else? And what exactly happened to the law enforcement’s chain of command? Last but not the least, where was our all-powerful state on that fateful day? The government investigation should find a definitive answer to this question, among others, and make the report public instead of keeping it under wraps.

The rabble-rousing press conference by Rabi Lamichhane earlier this week has created a schism in Nepali society regarding its perception of the media. On one side are those who are lapping up Lamichhane’s claim that mainstream media is the enemy of the state, that publishers, editors and journalists are guided by corporate greed and are deep in corruption. And then there are others who see his boisterous condemnation of the press as a mere temper tantrum. It was clear that the leader of Rastriya Swatantra Party was angry at the media for covering the story about the validity of the citizenship he furnished to contest the election of Nov 20 last year. The case landed in the Supreme Court and Lamichhane went on to lose his status as Home Minister and Member of Parliament. It was also clear that his ad hominem diatribe filled with personal gripes and insults was aimed at pandering to his supporters. In doing so, he has sown a seed of distrust against the press. This could have a far-reaching impact on democracy, giving rise to politics of populism, where serious journalism is supplanted by misinformation and disinformation, which is taking hold in different parts of the world. In the age of social media, it is far too easy to distort the truth and bend the narrative. The role of traditional media is to bring out the truth, to report and to scrutinize those in power. Nepali mainstream media has been doing just that, and ever so proudly. If anyone, Lamichhane should know this better as a former member of the media fraternity. His TV show was based on the very concept of scrutinizing the powers that be. He should also know that the very media houses, publishers and journalists that he tried to discredit have always played a role of a bulwark to defend democracy and the rule of law. By delegitimizing the press in a Trumpian fashion, Lamichhane has put democracy in peril. He has also betrayed his own supporters, who, disenchanted by old political parties, voted him to power. People who voted for Lamichhane certainly did not want him to act in such a vindictive and bitter manner. That he had presented invalid citizenship to contest the election is true, and the Supreme Court passed down its judgment accordingly. Meanwhile, the media simply did its job and reported the story. Losing the home ministry and parliament seat should have been least of his concern, what with his widespread support base. But his anger and ego got in the way. Rather than fessing up to his transgression, he went on to play the victim card and portrayed the press as his cruel persecutor. Lamichhane’s attempt at incitement and intimidation is thoroughly condemnable. When a leader tries to undermine the credibility of the press, it creates space for propagandists and authoritarians.

A little over a month since its formation, and the potpourri coalition government of Prime Minister Puspha Kamal Dahal is already hobbling. Home Minister Rabi Lamichhane has resigned over a citizenship controversy, Rastriya Prajatantra Party is talking about Hindu state revival and doing away with federalism, and the coalition linchpin, CPN-UML, is suspicious that Dahal might not support its presidential candidate. Truth be told, there was little expectation from this incongruous coalition. To win public confidence, Dahal and his ministers tried to appear proactive and on the ball soon after taking charge of their respective ministries. The prime minister famously chided the government secretaries for sluggish service delivery and issued a slew of instructions to improve the bureaucracy. Now, here we are. Service delivery in government offices is still the same, mind-numbingly slow, full of red-tape and rigmarole. Meanwhile, the prime minister and his Cabinet members are preoccupied with intra-party and inter-party issues—good governance and progress be damned. Mistrust is growing between Prime Minister Dahal and UML leader KP Sharma Oli over the presidential candidate. Oli wants a UML pick for the job, but Dahal appears disinclined to grant the former’s wish. Then there is a dispute with the RSP, which is insisting that the party has the right to retain the Home Ministry portfolio even after Lamichhane’s departure. This government has lost its bearings, and there are doubts about its longevity. There are also murmurs about the formation of a new coalition between Dahal’s CPN (Maoist Center) and the main opposition, the Nepali Congress. Conflicting messages from the Maoist party regarding the continuation of the current coalition clearly show that Prime Minister Dahal and his party are mired in uncertainty. The prime minister appears uncomfortable about working with Oli in the long run. When the government’s lifespan is in question, no wonder the bureaucracy will brush off its directives. A vacillating prime minister is not helping anyone, certainly not the country and its people. It’s about time Prime Minister Dahal made his position clear about the type of coalition he wants to lead well before the public gives up on him.