Who’s afraid of elections?

JUL 13 -

As this column is reappearing after a gap of one and a half months, the talk of elections is filling the air in Kathmandu and Nepal. The Election Commission has held a series of meetings with the government and the political parties that are not in government. There are some legal issues apparently to be overcome before an election can be held. As I had mentioned in my column in the past, the election announced by the government would prove to be controversial as the Interim Constitution has made no provision for holding another poll to another Constituent Assembly (CA) with the specific purpose of writing a constitution.

The framers of the Interim Constitution were apparently convinced that the political parties would not fail the country, and that a constitution would be written within the specified two-year time frame. But, alas, the parties deceived the people as they deceived themselves because in failing to write the constitution even within the extended period of four years, the parties have effectively played a villain’s role as far as the people are concerned. The parties now know that the people have “grappled these parties to their soul with hoops of steel”. No wonder the parties are shy of facing the voters again.

Our so-called major political parties have raised questions on many occasions regarding the government’s initial announcement to hold elections to a new CA, which will, hopefully, draft and adopt a new constitution. The two major parties — the Nepali Congress (NC) and the CPN-UML — were irked that the Maoist-led government did not take them into confidence before announcing the election date. Or, in other words, the political parties were not consulted.

The result of the political parties not wanting to hold new elections was outlandish demands including reviving the naturally defunct CA. The demand to resurrect the dead CA reminded one of the demand made by the NC (the then GP Koirala faction) to bring back to life a dead parliament killed by the then prime minister SB Deuba. The Maoists did not want a revival of the dead parliament (they did not believe in a parliamentary system) but went along in the end. Many still consider the then king’s action in reviving the parliament as being unconstitutional, but many also make the excuse that it was done as a political expediency and in the greater interest of the country, both of which — they claim — take precedence over any issues of constitutionality.

Maybe so or maybe not, but we now have to live with it. In the present context, how relevant is it to make things easy for the political parties to revive the CA during whose legitimate term they were busy bickering and lusting for power rather than focussing on what they had to do?

The NC and the UML had initially called for the revival of the CA. And the ruling Maoist party leaders, including the party chief and the prime minister, have gone on record saying that the CA can be revived “if there is consensus among the political parties”, which, in turn, means that if the three major national parties and one major regional party come to an agreement, the CA will be revived. The new dissident Maoist party, too, wants it to be revived. None of the political parties are ready to face the people, and if they do, they want to do so on their own terms. This might explain why — despite calls for the prime minister’s resignation — the Maoist chief said it would be “suicidal” for Bhattarai to resign. But he failed to say to whom it would prove suicidal. Suicidal for his party, for other political parties, for democracy or for the country?

The reason for any political party to stick to the government in times of elections is clear to all. In poor, underdeveloped countries like Nepal, those in government use seen and unseen means to influence citizens to vote for a particular party. A government that can daringly, openly and without any shade of shame withdraw criminal cases against party workers who were allegedly involved in murder and killings can also stoop to the lowest level of taking action to influence voters. This also explains why other political parties want to be part of any government, and are presently pressing Bhattarai to quit and make way for another government led by another party. Everyone is aware of the unfair advantage any political party gains when leading government during elections. It is not, therefore, surprising that the NC and the UML are clamouring for a government of what they call “national consensus”.

The talk in town these days is that if fair and impartial elections were to be held any time in the near future, there is bound to be a dramatic change in the party-wise composition of the CA. The past four years have shown how trustworthy and sincere were the parties people voted for. Elections are said to be the best known means to ascertain the wishes of the people, and they are part and parcel of any democratic system. To try to avoid elections under various outlandish excuses is to undermine the democratic system itself. Elections are expensive, and poor countries like Nepal find it difficult to resort to this democratic practice. But it is an expense the people have been willingly bearing, and the high cost is no excuse to put off elections. The real fear among most of the political parties is that based on their recent performance in the CA, the people might turn their backs on them and the once mighty parties might be reduced to insignificant ones. So who is afraid o f elections? The answer is simple: the non-performing and unprincipled parties are afraid of the voters.

 

 

 

 


Source: http://www.ekantipur.com/2012/07/13/oped/whos-afraid-of-elections/357035/