Frankly Speaking
A Decade of Parliamentary Democracy
Nepal and Bangladesh
Ever since the 1994 general elections in Nepal, the country's politics has hardly seen a dull moment. The 205-member House of Representatives, as the Lower House of the Parliament is called, has produced six coalition governments in four years, in varying permutations and combinations of political parties and personalities. The latest in this game of political musical chairs is the government formed by Girija Prasad Koirala of the Nepal Congress, in coalition with the United Marxist-Leninist Party. Prime Minister Koirala had also headed the preceding government, in coalition with the other Communist faction in the parliament, that calls itself merely the Marxist-Leninist Party (not United!). He had to resign when that communist faction withdrew its support and he consequently lost his majority in the parliament. However, it did not need the Prime Minister too much of time and effort to enlist the support of the eager and ready present coalition partners. Ideological differences, if any, between these two communist factions are not certainly visible to the naked political eyes! The name of the game is to be in power.
Though geographically Nepal and Bangladesh possess very different physical features, pervasive poverty in both the countries present many common problems. More than half the population in both the countries live below the poverty line. The annual per capital income in Nepal and Bangladesh is 225 US dollars and 283 US dollars, the percentage of literacy 27 per cent and 38 per cent and average life expectancy 57 years and 58 years, respectively. In the list of developing countries, Nepal and Bangladesh occupy positions very near the bottom.
There is a commonality between the two countries in political developments as well. Both the countries got rid of autocratic regimes in the beginning of this decade to set up parliamentary form of governments. General elections took place in both the countries in 1991. A very large number of political parties participated in the election with only a few succeeding in gaining an entry into their respective parliaments. Since then, however, politics in the two countries has not quite evolved in an identical manner.
Thanks to the 30 reserved women's seats in our parliament, the BNP in 1991 and the Awami League in 1996 were able to achieve absolute majority. Basically, they have taken their turn in running the government in a manner, in which the role of the parliament has been kept marginal. As a result, democratic practices and institutions have not developed. It is this more than anything else that has encouraged the culture of hartal and violence in our politics.
Nepal's experience with parliamentary democracy has been somewhat different. In 1991 elections in that country, the Nepal Congress got an absolute majority in the 205-seat parliament, by capturing 113 seats. The party had played a leading role in bringing down the 'Panchayat Raj' and the people had high hopes on that party. But they were soon to be disappointed. Soon after the formation of the government the three powerful leaders of the party, Ganesh Mansingh, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and the Prime Minister, Girija Prasad Koirala, fell out with each other, for reasons more personal than political. The infighting within the party took such a bad turn that in 1994, the Vote of Thanks to the King's speech in the Parliament was defeated, as 36 members of the ruling Congress party abstained from the voting. As a result, the Prime Minster resigned and on his advice, the King dissolved the Parliament. The opposition went to the Court challenging the royal decision. The Court however turned down the appeal.
Elections were then held in 1994 and this time no party succeeded in attaining an overall majority. In fact, the outgoing party in power, the Congress party, with its 89 seats came second to the Communist party, which mustered 91 seats. The Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), the protagonists of the Panchayat raj (Jatiya party of Nepal!) was in the fortunate position of holding the balance of power with 20 seats - a situation it subsequently exploited to the hilt. Out of the remaining five seats, three were held by the supposedly pro-Indian Good-will Party and the other two went to Independents, who proved themselves ever ready to join any party trying to form the government!
In other words the 1994 elections threw up a coalition situation, as a result of which Nepal has had six governments in the last four years. In this political free for all, all the parties have participated at one time or the other. And in the process two parties viz, the Communist party and the RPP have got bifurcated, both more or less down the middle. Nepal's constitution allows the bifurcation of a party provided 40 per cent parliamentary members of a party so wish. Those who have adorned the prime ministerial chair in the last four years are, Manmohan Adhikari of the undivided Communist party, Sherbahadur Deuba and Girija Prasad Koirala of the Congress (the latter, altogether three times. In fact the former confided to me with refreshing candour, last March in Kathmandu, that being only 52 years of age, he had more time than the 72-year-old Koirala and could therefore afford to be patient!), Suryabahadur Thapa and Lokbahadur Chand, the two leaders of the two factions of the RPP. A comparable situation in the Bangladesh scenario would be like both Ershad and Anwar Hussain Manju becoming prime minister, in their turn, with the Jatiya Party holding the balance of power between AL and the BNP! Credit be to the bargaining power of Chand and Thapa that all the 20 MPs were able to occupy ministerial chairs at one time or another! In fact, a vast majority of the 205 MPs of the parliament have succeeded in their effort in gathering ministerial experience and the parliament still has some life left, with the elections expected in the spring. So may be, good luck to the rest of the MPs!
In Nepal, frequent changes of government have led to an increase in corruption in the administration that is clearly hurting the socioeconomic progress of the country. A mood of disenchantment and pessimism prevails among the people, that may have contributed to the escalating guerilla activities in the countryside. This is causing some concern to the authorities.
However the coalition situation in the parliament has some positive aspects as well. As the political drama keeps on unfolding, with the parliament being the amphitheatre, apart from the guerilla activities in the countryside, there is not much political violence in the streets. Governments have changed and new coalitions have been forged in gay abandon, but these have been peacefully done, following the constitutional rules of the game. This has lent some maturity to the political bahaviour pattern. Amidst all the chaos and confusion of politics, democracy has survived and there has not been any constitutional crisis. And this is something to be noted about a country that has had five constitutions in the last fifty years, the one of 1991 being the last and the first truly democratic one. Then, the judiciary has performed a constructive role in certain difficult and delicate situations and has earned popular confidence. Lastly, the Nepalese monarch has played a valuable role staying clear of politics and has, in times of crises and uncertainties, performed his constitutional duties with diligence and imagination. This has made King Birendra personally popular and has enhanced the prestige of the constitutional monarchy as a stabilizing institution.
In Bangladesh governments have remained stable, since 1991, in the parliamentary sense, in as much as there has not been any change of government in between the elections. It is mainly because of the 30 reserved women's seats in the parliament. In the winner take all system of voting, they are indirectly elected by the members of the parliament. As a result, to start with, the largest party in the parliament has a comparative advantage over the other parties. By trading with a smaller party, some of the women's seats that the party did not actually need for its parliamentary majority, the BNP in 1991 and the AL in 1996, were able to establish comfortable majority in the parliament. The BNP did it in 1991, with the Jamaat, by giving away to it two women's seats, and likewise, the AL followed in 1996, by surrendering three seats to the Jatiya Party. Another feature of this system is that having elected the women MPs, the large party gathers absolute majority and does not have to depend any longer on the parliamentary support of the smaller parties. Having once pulled out the ruling party's chestnuts out of the fire, the smaller party finds itself unwanted and as a result alienation sets in. This is what happened with the Jamaat in relation to the BNP, in the 1991 parliament and is happening with the Jamaat and the Ershad faction of the Jatiya Party, vis-a-vis the AL, in the present parliament. It may be recalled that the BNP secured 140 seats in the 1991 parliament and was in need of 11 more seats for an overall majority, before the election of the 30 women MPs. With the help of the Jamaat, which then held 18 seats in the parliament, it secured that majority and was thus able to elect its own nominees as women MPs. However, it gave 2 of those seats to the Jamaat in the process. Likewise, in 1996, the AL, which had secured 146 seats in the parliament, lacking 5 seats for an overall majority, obtained the support of the Jatiya Party with its 30 MPs. The price was, surrendering three women's seats to the Jatiya Party. In politics, when principles have no place, this kind of give and take is done with the ease of trading in a market.
Therefore, but for the 30 reserved women's seats, we would not have been spared a coalition situation both in the 1991 and the current 1996 parliament, as neither the BNP nor the AL, had an overall majority on their own. However, according to Article 66(3) of the our Constitution, the reserved seats for the women should stand abolished as of July 2001, unless of course the arrangement is prolonged by a constitutional amendment with a two third majority. This majority, neither of the two big parties can muster, without doing, what may appear unthinkable, that is, getting together to have the amendment passed in the parliament. But this they may decide to do in enlightened self-interest so as not to alienate feminine sensitivities! We may therefore have the privilege of witnessing a rare instance of national unity and cooperation!
Indeed, unlike India or Nepal, we have not so far faced the uncertainties of a coalition scenario in the parliament, with changing party loyalities. Party alignments have however changed ever so often. In the post 1991 situation, the Jamaat abandoned the BNP and joined the Jatiya Party and the AL outside the parliament in the movement to bring down the BNP government. And now we see the spectacle of Jamaat and the Ershad faction of the Jatiya Party getting together with the BNP, against the ruling AL. In the process a Nepal style split seems to have taken place within the Jatiya Party, as it happened within the pro-panchayat Rashtriya Panchayat Party of Nepal, Ershad and Anwar Husain Manju emerging as the Surya Bahadur Thapa and Lok Bahadur Chand of Bangladesh; who in which role being of the least importance!
In our constitution there is of course a provision against MPs' changing party loyalities. Articles 70(1) of our constitution says, "a person elected as a member of parliament at an election at which he was nominated as a candidate by a political party, shall vacate his seat if he resigns from that party or votes in parliament against that party." We have, however, in the present AL-led government, Jatiya Party and BNP members, against the wishes of their respective parties. In the Parliament, the Speaker has accepted the situation by interpreting the above quoted provision of the constitution literally, maintaining that the ministers concerned (Manju of JP and the two junior ministers of the BNP) have neither resigned from their respective parties nor have they voted against those in the parliament. However, the opinion of the Chief Election Commissioner was not sought in the matter. The question was referred to the High Court, which has opined that the decision of the Chief Election Commissioner should have been sought. An appeal by the government against this opinion is now pending with the Appellate Division.
The recent 'to be or not to be' Khaleq situation has indeed dramatically revealed that the culture of changing parties has firm roots in our politics, although at times we may attempt to do so in inimitable local style, without any apparent results. However, with all our sympathies for poor Mr. Khaleq's predicament, one has to point out that the list of turncoat politicians, who have been successful in the past, of achieving ministerial positions and above, by changing party colours, is fairly long and impressive! Future parliaments may indeed call for the formation of coalition governments. It is therefore imperative that we are clear in our interpretation of the constitutional provision against changing parties or party loyalities, by the members of the parliament. Otherwise this could clearly be a source of recurring political uncertainties.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments