Print ArticleIt is a political question if the provision of interim constitution permits a political party to nominate individuals from its party leaderships or celebrities who are other than the current members of Parliament, then what electoral democratic culture such a nomination will set? Obviously, it will set the option for the party leaders not to compete the general elections as long as they are influential in their party organization. In that case, what is the reason of electing the rest of the Constituent Assembly members if a political party overrules electoral mandate of people?
The raison d'ętre of such a constitutional provision can be tolerable if the cabinet member nomination list includes at least over 75% current members of Constituent Assembly to prevent party supremacy over people´s Parliament. On the contrary, if the nomination that is devoid of people´s representative is accepted for granted then it will be outright misuse of constitutional provision that permits such power to a political party. Therefore, it becomes necessary that such a constitutional provision must have certain conditions for a political party to nominate individual who is not the current member of Parliament. It is because the chance for political parties to override electoral mandate of people with an open-end constitutional provision as such is greater.
If it is the intention of all political parties to overrule people´s mandate for inclusive electoral democracy with an open-end constitutional provision then it is the people and their elected Constituent Assembly members who will have to oppose such provision that encourages anti-electoral democratic practice. If the constitutional provision that permits political parties to be above the electoral rights of sovereign people of Nepal then such provision is indeed anti-democratic.
It would be fair if UML cabinet member-nomination-list could have all Constituent Assembly members of its party except for Mr. Bam Dev Gautam to lead UML cabinet members. But to include 90% UML cabinet members who aren´t the member of current Constituent Assembly is against the spirit of electoral democratic culture. Again for UML to secure Second-in-Power status in Maoist led government, it must first honor the people´s mandate for the inclusive electoral democracy. That is to say in its cabinet member nomination-list UML must include over 75% of its party representatives from Constituent Assembly. If not then its party representatives in Constituent Assembly become nothing but the rubberstamp, which is outright disgraceful to electorates of constituent who have elected them.
Now it has become the challenge for Maoist leaderships and it all depends on how they are going to respond – honor the people´s electoral mandate or the party supremacy over the elected members of Constituent Assembly. If Maoist leaderships believe in people and see their effective role in electoral democracy for the federal government system then it will insist on the maximum people elected Constituent Assembly representatives in the cabinet. The choice will shape the future of Maoist not just for immediate success of Maoist led government but for days to come in the politics of a new democratic Nepal.
However, if Maoist demands that UML needs to include over 75% in its cabinet member nomination list from its representatives in Constituent Assembly in order to simply respecting people´s electoral mandate, UML will be furious. But it is an ethical responsibility in democratic practice to respect people´s electoral mandate not by overriding so obviously with the outright party supremacy.
It is shame on so called mainstream democratic parties like UML which like to see Maoists comply fully with democratic norms and principle yet not observing it carefully one´s own political behavior. This sort of party politics that UML is playing in and out of its own party organization is counter productive. UML party at this point in democratic development of the nation should let its elected party members of Constituent Assembly play their role in the intra-party decision making process.
Those central committee members who lost Constituent Assembly elections as the veterans and comrades should take moral responsibility not to be too ambitious for power at their loss. But as experts if they have to lead then they must not ride alone themselves excluding completely elected party members of Constituent Assembly. As a matter of fact, their representation in the cabinet must be over 90% to respect the electoral mandate of people of Nepal. If so then, of course, why not UML should be honored with second-in-power in Maoist led government.
As a matter of fact, if political parties such as UML comply strictly with the electoral mandate of people then the role of opposition parties such as NC will be supportive. The political decision of a ruling party that is infused with the anti-democratic elements such as UML´S cabinet nomination-list that is far less in number of members of Parliament or Constituent Assembly will not only be the subject of oppositions´ criticism but also won´t deserve respect from people. Moreover, for Maoist let government to last long its cabinet must be formed with over 90% of members of Constituent Assembly.
The raison d'ętre of such a constitutional provision can be tolerable if the cabinet member nomination list includes at least over 75% current members of Constituent Assembly to prevent party supremacy over people´s Parliament. On the contrary, if the nomination that is devoid of people´s representative is accepted for granted then it will be outright misuse of constitutional provision that permits such power to a political party. Therefore, it becomes necessary that such a constitutional provision must have certain conditions for a political party to nominate individual who is not the current member of Parliament. It is because the chance for political parties to override electoral mandate of people with an open-end constitutional provision as such is greater.
If it is the intention of all political parties to overrule people´s mandate for inclusive electoral democracy with an open-end constitutional provision then it is the people and their elected Constituent Assembly members who will have to oppose such provision that encourages anti-electoral democratic practice. If the constitutional provision that permits political parties to be above the electoral rights of sovereign people of Nepal then such provision is indeed anti-democratic.
It would be fair if UML cabinet member-nomination-list could have all Constituent Assembly members of its party except for Mr. Bam Dev Gautam to lead UML cabinet members. But to include 90% UML cabinet members who aren´t the member of current Constituent Assembly is against the spirit of electoral democratic culture. Again for UML to secure Second-in-Power status in Maoist led government, it must first honor the people´s mandate for the inclusive electoral democracy. That is to say in its cabinet member nomination-list UML must include over 75% of its party representatives from Constituent Assembly. If not then its party representatives in Constituent Assembly become nothing but the rubberstamp, which is outright disgraceful to electorates of constituent who have elected them.
Now it has become the challenge for Maoist leaderships and it all depends on how they are going to respond – honor the people´s electoral mandate or the party supremacy over the elected members of Constituent Assembly. If Maoist leaderships believe in people and see their effective role in electoral democracy for the federal government system then it will insist on the maximum people elected Constituent Assembly representatives in the cabinet. The choice will shape the future of Maoist not just for immediate success of Maoist led government but for days to come in the politics of a new democratic Nepal.
However, if Maoist demands that UML needs to include over 75% in its cabinet member nomination list from its representatives in Constituent Assembly in order to simply respecting people´s electoral mandate, UML will be furious. But it is an ethical responsibility in democratic practice to respect people´s electoral mandate not by overriding so obviously with the outright party supremacy.
It is shame on so called mainstream democratic parties like UML which like to see Maoists comply fully with democratic norms and principle yet not observing it carefully one´s own political behavior. This sort of party politics that UML is playing in and out of its own party organization is counter productive. UML party at this point in democratic development of the nation should let its elected party members of Constituent Assembly play their role in the intra-party decision making process.
Those central committee members who lost Constituent Assembly elections as the veterans and comrades should take moral responsibility not to be too ambitious for power at their loss. But as experts if they have to lead then they must not ride alone themselves excluding completely elected party members of Constituent Assembly. As a matter of fact, their representation in the cabinet must be over 90% to respect the electoral mandate of people of Nepal. If so then, of course, why not UML should be honored with second-in-power in Maoist led government.
As a matter of fact, if political parties such as UML comply strictly with the electoral mandate of people then the role of opposition parties such as NC will be supportive. The political decision of a ruling party that is infused with the anti-democratic elements such as UML´S cabinet nomination-list that is far less in number of members of Parliament or Constituent Assembly will not only be the subject of oppositions´ criticism but also won´t deserve respect from people. Moreover, for Maoist let government to last long its cabinet must be formed with over 90% of members of Constituent Assembly.
view author's RSS feed
