Kathmandu: Poll or no poll is the question that is boggling the minds of the politicians and the intellectuals these days.
While the political leaders now in agitation summarily reject the poll forwarding the reasons that in this chaotic atmosphere polls can’t be held or even if it is held on phases, the results will not be that free and fair.
The opposing camp says elections must and could be held if the constitutional derailment were to be brought in its track.
The tussle goes on.
The fact is that both the theories appear valid in their own perspectives.
However, what is guaranteed is that the holding of the elections will not be possible until and unless the Maoists are taken into confidence and what this confidence means is any body’s guess.
Questions are also being raised as to why the parliamentary parties who possess democratic credentials been opposing the very idea of the elections? Is it only the fear of not being a free and fair elections if Thapa were to hold the elections? Is it prompted by the supposed threat of the Maoists who could damage the election procedures and even its outcome? Or is it a sublime desire to face the polls only after peace is restored in the country? Last but not the least, or is it that the parliamentary parties basically do not defer with the idea of the election but remain scared about the fate of the results should they be denied seats in the interim arrangement that would conduct the polls?
Interpretations galore.
However, the tradition in Nepal has been that polls are being held only when the contending major parliamentary parties ensure their seats in such a government that has been told to conduct the elections. The fact is that one’s presence in the government ensures required seats in the parliament that is agreed in advance in and among the political parties represented in the cabinet.
This amply speaks as to why the political parties been demanding the formation of a government that is comprised of their representation.
The fact is also that the Thapa government and the parliamentary parties agree on one point despite Himalayan differences politically speaking: formation of an all-party government.
The difference that is in between the two is that while Thapa would wish to give his own government a shape of what his friends in opposition been demanding, then on the other, the men in the opposition would wish to have a government from among the parties now in agitation.
The two differ here.
This means that the prime difference is on who should be the country’s next prime minister who would hold the elections.
Should this mean that if Koirala or for that matter Madhav Nepal were offered this post, will the movement die a natural death? Should this mean that if Koirala or Mr. Nepal were made the prime minister, the King will have corrected his political blunders which is what they have been alleging? Should this mean that it is not the constitutional processes that were undermined supposedly by the King will get a clean chit if the monarch elevated the ranks of either Koirala or Mr. Nepal to the post of the country’s chief executive? Should this finally mean that the politicians continuing struggle with the King is not for the de-linked constitutional procedures, but instead for a Chair in Singh Durbar?
Be that as it may, India once again has reiterated its desire that Nepal sorted out its political problems by forging a consensus in between the parliamentary forces and the constitutional monarchy. Will these Indian suggestions be taken up by the parties concerned?
How the Nepali leaders and the King will digest the Indian remarks which instructs both of them to come to terms at the earliest will have to be watched.
Should this mean that other democratic nations too would follow the Indian suit? Perhaps they should if they really wish to see a democratic Nepal flourishing in peace.