Kathmandu: With Sher Bahadur Deuba’s elevation to the post of the country’s prime minister last week, questions are being raised on how to take his fresh appointment?
Is it the restoration of the sacked Deuba government or a new appointment?
Detractors of Sher Bahadur Deuba have reasons to believe that his appointment was not the restoration of his sacked government but a new government formed under Article 127 and hence, according to them, this establishment was the mere continuation of governments of his predecessors and hence prolongation of the act of regression.
This set forwards the theory that how Deuba’s appointment could be considered as his reinstatement when the monarch has been allowed to act on his own and that the monarch has not taken care of the parliamentary parties?
However, Deuba has different reasons to be happy for his new appointment. He says, ” Look it was article 127 that had been used to sack my establishment. Fortunately, it is the same article that has been used to elevate my ranks to the current post which amply proves that my government has been restored”.
While some political parties out rightly reject Deuba’s self-consoling contention, then on the other, some consider Deuba’s appointment as the nation’s prime minister to have been an act directed at minimizing the act of regression. This set considers that at least a democratically elected prime minister has been selected this time around, which was much better than the governments led by Chand and Thapa.
Nevertheless, there has been a clash of interest in and among the five party alliances in taking the Deuba establishment.
For rival congress led by Girija Prasad Koirala, Deuba’s appointment by the King once again is not a change people wanted to see but an act that have even strengthened the acts of regression. For the congress, the monarch’s fresh action does hint that the King will continue to act in a manner that suits to his political interests under different cover until a new parliament is in existence.
Notably, for the UML and its leaders like Madhav Nepal, Ishwar Pokhrel and more specially K.P.Woli, Deuba’s appointment to the same post does amount to some positive development which is what the five party agitation demanded from the King.
“The constitutional aberrations that had come into being on October 4, have at least been minimized”, opine the UML leaders.
The general impression of the UML leaders is that it would now be futile to continue with the agitation that has lost its steam and direction as well indefinitely. Most of the UML stalwarts now conclude that the opportunity provided to Deuba by the King have got to be utilized by being in the government.
The UML’s penchant to get inducted in the Deuba cabinet is guided more by a sense of teaching President Koirala a memorable lesson for the latter’s treacherous act that did not allow UML leader Madhav Nepal to become a consensus candidate for the prime ministerial post as demanded by the King on a definite time frame. The UML concludes that it was Koirala’s political maneuverings that restricted the FPA members not only to delete Mr. Nepal’s name but even managed the period to lapse for fear of Mr. Nepal being picked up as the nation’s next chief of the executive.
Not only this, the UML leaders now believe that had Madhav’s name been pushed by the FPA on that very specific date, the King could not have denied for understandable constitutional reasons.
The fact is that the King was all set to greet Mr. Nepal as the next prime minister despite the fact that the UML leader by then had to be digested by the West and India as well.
If Deuba’s utterances were to be believed then what has got to be understood is that the King was not that unhappy with Madhav’s candidature which meant that had Madhav been the consensus candidate of the FPA, the King would have no plausible reasons to reject the FPA nominee.
But Koirala’s conspiracy damaged the prospects of Madhav Nepal from becoming the prime minister which made Deuba easier to fit into the shoes of the new prime minister.
The UML knew Koirala’s conspiracy hatched against it, better late than never. It is not surprising therefore that now the UML is all set to support the Deuba set albeit with certain political conditions. Deuba understands UML’s compulsions and would pleasingly wish to satisfy the UML demands, some immediately and the rest at later dates.
What is also important here to ask whether the King by appointing Deuba as the nation’s prime minister has realized his blunder and as a mark to correct his political mistake reappointed Deuba or he has simply brought him to the post that was remaining vacant for so many weeks?
Analysts say, there is both the realization factor and providing the nation with a prime minister. The fact is that the King appears to have realized his political blunder by inviting Deuba to take up the post which was snatched of him some two years ago. The King might differ with what analysts claim. However, the circumstantial events do tell that the victim has been awarded his rightful post.
Should this mean that Deuba’s appointment this time has proven that Deuba is not a lost case but a competent prime minister but not the one as dubbed by the King some two years back?
Well, analysts say, Deuba will have to prove now by his democratic deeds that he is a competent one and not the one as reiterated by the monarch.
Much will also depend on how Koirala and his party behave with Deuba and his new set up