Following the Nepali Congress’ decision to expel Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba from the party’s general membership for three years for recommending the dissolution of House of Representatives, party president Girija Prasad Koirala and Deuba are locked in a battle neither is destined to win. Although Deuba’s expulsion cannot change the prime minister’s constitutional status, it could widen differences within the rank and file in the party. The crisis has pushed the Nepali Congress to the brink of a major split. If the past is any guide, however, the party may still be able to avert the worst-case scenario.

By KESHAB POUDEL

Nepali Congress president Girija Prasad Koirala has built a 50-year career in politics on a firm foundation of pragmatism. But that attribute was conspicuously absent from his response to the latest crisis bedevilling the party. The party’s disciplinary committee, dominated by Koirala loyalists, expelled Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba from the party’s general membership for three years on Sunday, May 26, for recommending the dissolution of the lower house of parliament. Had wisdom prevailed, Koirala would not have allowed the panel to take such a potentially suicidal decision.

Deuba (left), Bhattarai (center) and Koirala : Will they reconcile?
Deuba (left), Bhattarai (center) and Koirala : Will they reconcile?
Despite the heated debate and rancorous rhetoric that followed Deuba’s expulsion, a strong political lobby within the Nepali Congress is trying to bring the warring factions together. “I hope the present imbroglio in the party will end within a week and the party will be united again,” said former prime minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, the sole surviving founder member of the Nepali Congress. “Our honorable party president Girija Prasad Koirala will act to unite the party and bury all our differences.”

Other influential leaders are also working to foster a spirit of reconciliation. “Girijababu must withdraw the action taken against Prime Minister Deuba,” said former deputy prime minister Ram Chandra Poudel, a member of the powerful central committee. “If we continue with these rifts, the party will have no future.”

Constitutional Status

Deuba’s expulsion does not change his constitutional status as prime minister. He cannot be replaced until a new premier is elected. At a time when the House of Representatives stands dissolved, Deuba’s position remains unchallenged.

“Constitutionally, Prime Minister Deuba’s legitimacy cannot be challenged even after his expulsion from the party,” said a constitutional lawyer. “He will remain prime minister until the new parliament is constituted and new prime minister is chosen.”

Deuba criticized the disciplinary panel’s decision to expel him, saying the order was against the spirit of the party’s constitution. “I will take my case to the general convention to prove my innocence,” the prime minister told reporters at his official residence in Baluwatar after the Nepali Congress formally announced his expulsion. “I don’t think there is any sense in the leadership. I am a committed Nepali Congress member and I cannot think of working against democracy.”

Suicidal Decision

Koirala is said to be under pressure not to yield ground from, among others, party spokesman Arjun Narsingh KC, general secretary Sushil Koirala, co-general secretary Govinda Raj Joshi, and daughter Sujata Koirala.

House of Representives : For fresh polls
House of Representives : For fresh polls
But what prompted Koirala to take a decision that could prove suicidal to his party and democracy, especially at a time when a newly united communist party is preparing to challenge the Nepali Congress’ political space? “I can’t understand Koirala’s calculations. How could such a firm nationalist and democrat be pushed onto such a wrong track?” asked a political analyst. “The Nepalese people are the ultimate losers from this unnecessary battle.”

History of Expulsions

The Nepali Congress is no stranger to expulsions. As an open and mass-based party, members vigorously trade charges and then bury their differences almost as easily. In 1954, the Nepali Congress expelled then-prime minister Matrika Prasad Koirala following his growing differences with B.P. Koirala. On the issue of national reconciliation, B.P. Koirala was expelled from the party. Deuba is the third senior leader to have been expelled from the party.

Thanks to the wisdom of Bhattarai, G.P. Koirala’s expulsion from the party was averted in 1994 after he announced mid-term polls. Nepali Congress spokesman Arjun Narsingh KC, a leading member of the anti-Deuba camp, was expelled from the party following his decision to join Panchayat politics in 1980. KC rejoined the Nepali Congress in 1991.

Changed Mood

The mood in the Nepali Congress is changing very fast. On Friday, it appeared that the party had put its house in order. In a perfect photo opportunity, Deuba, Koirala and Bhattarai were walking together at the airport as Bhattarai returned from London where he underwent medical treatment. The joint public appearance of Deuba and Koirala – who had spent the week making opposing statements on the decision to order early elections – led many to believe that the Nepal Congress would put an end to the infighting.

Top congress leaders : Divided they stand
Top congress leaders : Divided they stand
But the fiery statements of general secretary Sushil Koirala, Joshi and KC published in the following morning’s papers suggested otherwise. Former prime minister Koirala, who had recently pledged to extend his full cooperation to Deuba, blasted the prime minister’s decision to go for fresh elections without consulting the party.

The Koirala camp was evidently hoping that Bhattarai would ask Deuba why his government had rejected the party’s directive to withdraw the motion on extending the emergency. Upon his arrival from London, Bhattarai urged Koirala not to take make hasty decision against Deuba. An hour-long meeting between Bhattarai and Koirala at the former’s residence in Bhainsepati was inconclusive.

Meanwhile, Deuba submitted an explanation to the party on why he had recommended the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Asserting that his move was constitutionally correct, Deuba recalled that Koirala had made a similar recommendation in 1994.

Moderate voices are counseling conciliation in the larger interest of the party. “The party president needs to take his steps very carefully. If we push Prime Minister Deuba into a corner, it might cause greater harm to the party,” Poudel told Koirala. The Nepali Congress supremo was said to be against any kind of action that might split the party. But hard-liners in his camp, such as Joshi, KC and Sushil Koirala, were in favor of punishing Deuba in order to enforce discipline.

Some analysts maintain that the disciplinary action against Deuba is part of Koirala’s plan to bring his daughter Sujata into politics. How the party president could contemplate an auspicious political beginning for his daughter when the party is in such crisis remains unclear.

Others see Koirala, long known for his strong anti-Maoist stance, making efforts to strike an alliance with the rebels in the forthcoming elections. Koirala can spring up surprises when they are least expected. In 1991, he had joined hand with all radical left parties, including the main opposition UML. The Koirala-Deuba stand-off might have been ignored as an internal matter of the party if it had not cast such a long shadow on the military-led operations against the Maoists.

Preparations for Elections

Although the UML and other opposition parties have accepted Deuba’s election duel, the ruling party had not decided until Tuesday how it would face the polls. Koirala and Bhattarai had been holding meetings almost every day since Bhattarai’s return from London.

Koirala, who was said to be infuriated with Deuba during the first couple of days, is believed to have realized the need to uphold the larger interest of the party. “Koirala is a fire-brand leader, who speaks his mind first and then weighs the impact of his words,” said a political analyst who has been closely following the former prime minister. “I don’t think Girijababu will take any hasty decision to split the party.”

Experience has shown that the septuagenarian Koirala is an adept negotiator. B.P. Koirala hailed his youngest brother’s gift for compromise in his memoirs “Atma Britanta”, citing how he held a series of talks with late King Mahendra on securing B.P.’s release from prison. “Girjababu cannot be misled for a long time, as he has the ability to realize the gravity of the situation,” said another analyst. “He has in the past pulled the party from the brink of a split.”

As soon as news of the dissolution of the House of Representatives broke out early last week, it appeared as if the Nepali Congress had already split. The party sought an explanation from Deuba within three days and suspended him from the primary membership of the party. Koirala issued a statement urging all ministers to resign from the Deuba cabinet.

The resignation of three ministers – Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat, Amod Prasad Upadhyaya and Rajendra Kharel – added fuel to the controversy. Many expected Deuba’s ministers to abandon him. But the prime minister won the backing of 33 ministers, who urged the party president to withdraw Deuba’s suspension. Bhattarai’s calculated remarks at Tribhuvan International Airport also indicated that moves were afoot to restore normalcy to the party. The early mood of fighting to finish is gradually fading.

Like in other sectors, politically and administratively Nepal is highly underdeveloped. For theperformance of governmental functions, the country does not have well-established, clearly definedand generally respected institutions. People lack a deep understanding of the roles they are expected to play.

Elections Possible

Had the Nepali Congress not intervened in the executive’s authority to seek the extension of the state of emergency, the government would not have had to go for fresh elections. However, some members of the ruling party say there is little possibility of holding elections at this crucial juncture. If situation was so bad, why did the party order the prime minister not to extend the state of emergency?

Those who claim elections cannot be held have no substantial arguments. The demand of Koirala and main opposition leader Madhav Kumar Nepal to withdraw the state of emergency indicated that the situation was gradually moving toward normalcy. If Koirala and Nepal expected further violence and instability, they would have agreed to the extension. Or did Koirala and Nepal have inside information on the Maoists’ plans?

The government, however, is confident of holding the elections on schedule. “If all political parties cooperate with the government, no one can block the elections,” said Minister of Information and Culture Jaya Prakash Prasad Gupta, who is also the spokesman of the cabinet. “Nobody should have any doubts, as the prime minister has expressed his commitment to hold the elections on schedule.”

It is the duty of the Election Commission to conduct free and fair polls. The commission has said it can conduct the polls on the date set by King Gyanendra. “We can hold the elections on time,” said Chief Election Commissioner Achyut Narayan Rajbhandari.

Skeptics cite the government’s decision to put off this year’s local elections on the ground that it could not ensure proper security. However, the situation may be brought under control by the time parliamentary elections are held.

A similar controversy between the party and government surfaced between 1991 and 1994 during G.P. Koirala’s premiership. The prime minister recommended the dissolution of the House of Representatives in 1994 after the party put too much pressure on the government’s day-to-day work. Although the Nepali Congress contested the elections unitedly, party supremo Ganesh Man Singh quit the organization.

Deuba’s government was trapped in a similar position. As the prime minister is bound by oath to uphold the constitution, he has a greater responsibility to the country than to the party. Although he is elected on the party’s ticket, he is the chief executive of the state.

During the UML’s nine-month government in 1994-95, the party held sway over Prime Minister Man Mohan Adhikary’s council of ministers. But the UML was adhering to communist practice, where the party is regarded as superior to the executive. In democratic countries, the prime minister is the head of the executive and is accountable to the people. His actions and functions are directly responsible to the people. The party does not have clear demarcation over the role of political parties and the institution of executive.

The dispute in the Nepali Congress stems from a clear lack of understanding about the precise roles of the executive and the party. Although Koirala, who served as prime minister for almost eight years between 1991 and 2001, knows this reality, those close to him say he can be very easily misled.

Deuba may have realized that an extension of the emergency was required to quell the Maoist violence at a time when the security forces were making significant battlefield gains. The party’s imposition of its opinion evidently tied the prime minister’s hands. How, then, can Deuba be called a “regressive” leader when he dissolved the house in order to seek a fresh mandate from the people?

Unlike the past, the UML has, for all practical purposes, endorsed the elections. Until the time of going to the press, it was unlikely that a divided Nepali Congress would face a united communist opposition in the November 13 elections.

The climate of reconciliation in the Nepali Congress was conditioned by the intensifying communist agitation. A similar unification of the communists had led rebellious Nepali Congress members to bury their differences. The differences in Congress ranks today are usually like what they were before, and they always cool down after a few days of agitation.

“There are many factors that could work to prevent a split in the Nepali Congress. Be they regional, international or internal powers, nobody wants to see a split in the Nepali Congress,” said a political analyst. “These forces may be activated to help Congress leaders bury the differences.”

The personal interest of Nepali Congress members is another cohesive factor. “All of them know the importance of unity to winning the next election. A divided Nepali Congress will benefit the UML,” the analyst said.

Maoist violence

Many suspect that it would be impossible to conduct the poll at a time when there is virtual anarchy resulting from the Maoist violence. Other believe the announcement of the elections would give a chance to the Maoists to join mainstream politics.

UML leaders have expressed their readiness to mediate between the government and the rebels. This is also an indication of the possibility of ending this phase of violence by bringing the Maoists into the mainstream.

“The elections will give an opportunity to the Maoists to join the mainstream of politics. The government has to take necessary steps to start peace talks with the Maoist,” said Jhalnath Khanal, a politburo member of the UML, who led a party study into the origins and growth of the insurgency.

Despite the Maoist leadership’s predilection for continuing violence, they, too, may be weighing their options. “The elections provide the best opportunity for Maoist leadership to end their campaign of violence. Other communist leaders are pressing the Maoists to join mainstream politics,” said an analyst.

“The Maoist leadership must announce a unilateral cease-fire and show a willingness to join mainstream politics, so that other communist forces can compel the government to initiate negotiations,” said Narayan Man Bijukchhe, president of Nepal Workers and Peasants Party.

Deuba’s Trouble

After completing successful visits to the United States and Britain, Deuba arrived home to confront new political trouble. The Koirala camp had prepared a no-confidence motion and were planning to introduce it in the parliamentary party. Deuba felt Koirala was using a host of other means to harass him.

Although Koirala and Deuba have been fighting for the party’s leadership for some time, they seem to be representing other factions this time. The rapid and unexpected turn of events within the past few weeks can be attributed to this extraneous influence.

Following his arrival home, Deuba had to confront his party and the opposition on extending the state of emergency. When the party ran out of ways of humiliating him, Deuba was finally asked to withdraw the extension proposal from parliament.

Deuba, who has not been able to get the party to officially endorse the fresh polls, knows that unity would brighten the Nepali Congress’ prospects. It is also in Deuba’s interest to see that differences are resolved before the central working committee, because his rivals are strong there.

At the least, the committee could pass a resolution, which could embarrass Deuba. Koirala supporters also dominate the party’s parliamentary board, which grants election tickets. On the other hand, Koirala supporters are apprehensive of Deuba’s hold on the administration. They fear he might use that influence to sabotage their elections prospects.

Kathmandu-based diplomats, too, have been warning of the costs of chronic political bickering. “Infighting in the Nepali Congress would only exacerbate the country’s political instability,” said a western diplomat on condition of anonymity. “And political instability would be bad for the Nepalese people.”

Such pleas for conciliation have buoyed the hopes of so-called “middle roaders” in the Nepali Congress like Poudel. Although Koirala has made no public comment on the nature of the action that should be taken against the prime minister, his lieutenants have been making every effort to push Deuba into a corner. “The question is of trust. The party president says one thing, but his followers give completely different signals,” said Minister Gupta. “Their attacks on us through various media speak of their real intentions.”

If a divided Nepali Congress goes to the polls, the main beneficiaries would be the united communists. If political forces within and outside the Nepali Congress consider the communists their best allies, no one might be able to prevent a split in the Congress. In the end, the future of Deuba and the Nepali Congress would depend on where these forces throw their weight.

DEUBA’S DECISION
Right Response

Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba did what the chief executive had to do to uphold the right of the elected authority

By KESHAB POUDEL

A few hours after Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba made a submission to King Gyanendra to dissolve the House of Representatives and call fresh elections on November 13, the palace came out with a formal statement. The 11 PM news bulletin of Radio Nepal on Wednesday, May 22 carried the formal announcement that Nepal’s third House of Representatives since the restoration of multiparty democracy in 1991 had ceased to exist.

PM Deuba : In offensive mood
PM Deuba : In offensive mood
In every democracy, when unconstitutional non-elected bodies challenge the right of the elected authority, it is the obligation of the prime minister to go back to people for a fresh mandate. Deuba did what his predecessor, Girija Prasad Koirala, had done in 1994. Although he is elected on a party ticket, the prime minister has wider constitutional obligations that he is under oath to uphold.

The prime minister is constitutionally responsible for finalizing decisions and formulating policies. When Deuba considered extending the state of emergency for six months to facilitate the security operations against the Maoist rebels, the ruling Nepali Congress central committee ordered him to withdraw the extension motion from parliament. In the midst of this clash between his responsibilities to the party and to the country, Deuba had no alternative to going back to the people.

“I have decided to exercise my constitutional authority and call fresh elections following my party’s rejection of my proposal to extend the state of emergency. I had proposed the extension in order to boost the morale of the security forces, who have achieved tremendous successes in curbing the Maoist insurgency,” Deuba said in a televised address to nation a day after dissolving the lower house.

“An election is called to resolve conflicts, to determine succession and to register legitimacy,” said a constitutional lawyer. “Deuba’s decision to seek a fresh mandate is constitutionally correct.”

When Deuba’s authority to extend the state of emergency came under scrutiny from the party, it was his constitutional duty to determine how the people viewed the decision. Had he accepted the directive of the party, Deuba would have set a very bad precedent in parliamentary governance. “This is not a party system of government but a prime ministerial system, where he can exercise almost all executive authority. Article 35(2) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal clearly points to this reality,” the lawyer said.

In democracies like Britain and India, no political party interferes with the constitutional authority of the prime minister. When someone tries to encroach upon the powers of the elected authority, the head of such an authority moves swiftly to protect his constitutional obligations.

During his previous tenure as prime minister five years ago, Deuba chose to resign after he lost a vote of confidence in the lower house. Instead of punishing the two MPs whose absence triggered the fall of his government, Deuba quit. He also rejected Koirala’s advice to go for fresh elections. So what prompted the prime minister to recommend the dissolution of the house this time?

Deuba was said to have made up his mind after he felt humiliated by members of the rival camp during a meeting of the party’s central working committee. At a meeting of the parliamentary party later in the day, the prime minister provided no hint that he would recommend dissolution of the house.

“I found out that the house had been dissolved from Nepal Television’s news bulletin the following morning,” Minister of Education and Sports Amod Upadhyaya told reporters. He joined Minister of Finance Dr. Ram Sharan Mahat and Minister of Women, Children and Social Welfare Rajendra Kharel in resigning from the council of ministers, citing disagreements over the prime minister’s decision to dissolve the lower house. At a press conference announcing their decision to quit, the three ministers criticized Deuba for not consulting them.

According to former British prime minister Sir Anthony Eden, a prime minister is still nominally primus inter pares, but in fact his authority is stronger than that. The right to choose his colleagues, to ask for a dissolution of parliament and, if he is a conservative, to appoint the chairman of the party organization, add up to a formidable total of power.

Changes in the status of the prime minister in the course of British history led some to believe that parliamentary government turned into cabinet government, which has now become prime ministerial government. In practice, the prime minister cannot take decisions by inviting a limited number of ministers.

“We feel compelled to resign on moral grounds because we were not consulted by Mr. Deuba before he took such a major decision,” said Dr. Mahat, a prominent leader of the ruling Nepali Congress. “The prime minister flouted the practice of collective responsibility of the cabinet,” he said.

A prime minister is the keystone of the cabinet arch. “Although in cabinet all its members stand on an equal voice, and, on the rare occasions when a division is taken, are counted on the fraternal principles of one man, one vote, yet the head of the cabinet is primus inter pares, and occupies a position which so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional and peculiar authority,” said Lord Morley in “The Life of Walpole”.

Suspense had gripped the nation on May 22 after the Nepali Congress central committee directed the prime minister to withdraw the motion to extend the emergency from parliament. Citing the moral imperatives that arose from the directive, Deuba recommended the dissolution of the house to protect the prerogative of the executive.

The decision set the precedent that a prime minister can dissolve the house if he feels that his authority and constitutional obligations are under threat. The Supreme Court’s last three decisions clearly point out the authority of prime minister to dissolve the house provided he does not face any hindrance. Deuba’s position is clear, as he was heading a majority government and did not face a no-confidence motion or a call for a special session of parliament.

The development, quite naturally, caught the opposition and a section of the ruling party off-guard.And now, in a fit of political defeat, they have begun to defend the indefensible. They argue that early polls were unwarranted, as there were other constitutional avenues that remained unexplored to resolve the crisis.

“Deuba should be expelled from the party,” said Arjun Narsingh KC, spokesman of the Nepali Congress. “Deuba’s decision has only encouraged rightist forces in the party and will weaken the democratic system.” The assertion of a party claiming to be synonymous with democracy that elections would weaken democracy carried a perceptible ring of irony.Regardless of what his party colleagues said, Deuba’s decision was constitutionally and politically correct. It is now up to the people to make the final judgment. Deuba’s challenge is to work toward holding the elections on schedule by bringing all political parties together.

Constitutional Provision

Except otherwise expressly provided as to be exercised exclusively by His Majesty at the discretion or on the recommendation of any institution or official, the powers of His Majesty under this constitution shall be exercised upon the recommendation, advice and consent of the council of ministers. Such recommendation, advice and consent shall be submitted through the Prime Minister. -Article 35(2)

His Majesty may dissolve the House of Representatives on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. His Majesty shall, when so dissolving the House of Representatives, specify a date, to be within six months, for new elections to the House of Representatives.-Article 53(4).