‘Civilian Supremacy’ in Nepal
21 Jul, 2009 · 2914
Padmaja Murthy says that the blame for undermining the concept lies with the political parties themselves
The faltering peace process in Nepal entered an uncertain period on 4 May when Pushpa Kamal Dahal resigned as the Prime Minister. The resignation was prompted by the President’s move to overrule the Maoist-led cabinet’s decision to sack Chief of the Army Staff Rookmangud Katuwal. The former Prime Minister asserted that the Army Chief had challenged civilian supremacy and that his resignation had averted the President’s direct rule, backed by the Army. After many failed attempts, the political parties finally came to an understanding in the first week of July to enable the budget session of the parliament to run smoothly. The new Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal heading a coalition government said, The opinion of the ruling parties and the Maoists is sharply divided over the Army Chief row and the President's step. We should consult on the constitutional and legal provisions about those issues. I want to inform the House that the government will take the initiative to narrow down the differences and forge a consensus among political parties within a month.”
An important question that arises is whether the one month reprieve will indeed bring some clarity on the PM’s powers vis-a-vis those of the President’s and related to it, on the all-important debate about ‘civilian supremacy.’ A closer look shows that the issues are too complex to be decided in a month’s time. They need to be examined not just with regard to the happenings of the last few months but in a much broader frame including Nepal’s struggle for democracy against the monarchy, the two people’s movements (Jana Andolan of 1990 and of 2006) and most important the dismal working of democracy since 1990.
One should not fall into the trap of defining civilian supremacy with respect to the single issue of - who controls the army? Civilian supremacy is about stability within the country and the ability to peacefully settle multiple differences through proper, non-violent channels. It is about politicians who look beyond narrow political gains, commanding respect and authority which go beyond what is stated in the written statutes, about leaders who are statesmen with vision, acting as a catalyst in transforming society and bringing socioeconomic political development. The result of such a positive political culture will necessarily be ‘civilian supremacy.’ In this context, after one month, even if the Maoists stand is vindicated, it would not mean the triumph of civilian supremacy. Conversely, even if the stalemate continues, it need not be a declaration that civilian supremacy has been negated.
Nepal has not witnessed effective civilian supremacy so far. While Nepal was under a monarchy, there was no space for civilian supremacy. Later, Jana Andolan I of 1990, a written constitution, constitutional monarchy, multiparty parliamentary democracy - all gave hope that civilian supremacy would finally reign. The transition from a monarchy to a democracy did leave certain ambiguities on crucial issues but these could have been easily blurred with time through effective leaders and proper functioning of democracy. Ironically, civilian supremacy in Nepal has been undermined the most, apart from others, by the democratically elected leaders themselves. Following Jana Andolan I of 1990, Nepal was a witness to ten governments formed in as many years. The disillusionment with the democratically-elected leaders was so much that people did not find much difference to their lives from before. The beneficiary of democracy’s failure was first, the late King Birendra who as the constitutional monarch gained public admiration and second, the Maoist insurgency which got wide support from the marginalized sections of society as their agenda reflected the accumulated grievances of the people at large. The parallel governments set up by the Maoists in most of Nepal’s 75 districts denied the democratically- elected government its legal reach and further undermined civilian supremacy.
Jana Andolan II marked the violent assertion of rights by the marginalized sections - the Madhesis, Janajatis, Dalits, etc. They have now become politicized, are conscious of their organized power and unlike before, have leaders from within them leading from the front the fight for an inclusive society. Consensus in such a situation is all the more difficult and adopting violence only adds to instability, increasing the role of the police and the armed forces. While elections to the Constituent Assembly were successfully held last year, the process since then has hardly made real progress. The calendar of events for drafting the constitution has been amended for the fifth time.
In Nepal, civilian supremacy will prevail only when the new constitution is drafted in time, law and order and stability prevail, and the political parties and other stakeholders do not cross swords on every issue but strive for consensus. The Maoists’ threat that they would go in for agitations if in one month the issue is not resolved will only harm the very cause they claim to be championing. All the political parties need to understand ‘civilian supremacy’ in a wider and deeper context. Given Nepal’s specific political history, they need to question themselves continuously as to how their every action assists ‘civilian supremacy’ or undermines it.
An important question that arises is whether the one month reprieve will indeed bring some clarity on the PM’s powers vis-a-vis those of the President’s and related to it, on the all-important debate about ‘civilian supremacy.’ A closer look shows that the issues are too complex to be decided in a month’s time. They need to be examined not just with regard to the happenings of the last few months but in a much broader frame including Nepal’s struggle for democracy against the monarchy, the two people’s movements (Jana Andolan of 1990 and of 2006) and most important the dismal working of democracy since 1990.
One should not fall into the trap of defining civilian supremacy with respect to the single issue of - who controls the army? Civilian supremacy is about stability within the country and the ability to peacefully settle multiple differences through proper, non-violent channels. It is about politicians who look beyond narrow political gains, commanding respect and authority which go beyond what is stated in the written statutes, about leaders who are statesmen with vision, acting as a catalyst in transforming society and bringing socioeconomic political development. The result of such a positive political culture will necessarily be ‘civilian supremacy.’ In this context, after one month, even if the Maoists stand is vindicated, it would not mean the triumph of civilian supremacy. Conversely, even if the stalemate continues, it need not be a declaration that civilian supremacy has been negated.
Nepal has not witnessed effective civilian supremacy so far. While Nepal was under a monarchy, there was no space for civilian supremacy. Later, Jana Andolan I of 1990, a written constitution, constitutional monarchy, multiparty parliamentary democracy - all gave hope that civilian supremacy would finally reign. The transition from a monarchy to a democracy did leave certain ambiguities on crucial issues but these could have been easily blurred with time through effective leaders and proper functioning of democracy. Ironically, civilian supremacy in Nepal has been undermined the most, apart from others, by the democratically elected leaders themselves. Following Jana Andolan I of 1990, Nepal was a witness to ten governments formed in as many years. The disillusionment with the democratically-elected leaders was so much that people did not find much difference to their lives from before. The beneficiary of democracy’s failure was first, the late King Birendra who as the constitutional monarch gained public admiration and second, the Maoist insurgency which got wide support from the marginalized sections of society as their agenda reflected the accumulated grievances of the people at large. The parallel governments set up by the Maoists in most of Nepal’s 75 districts denied the democratically- elected government its legal reach and further undermined civilian supremacy.
Jana Andolan II marked the violent assertion of rights by the marginalized sections - the Madhesis, Janajatis, Dalits, etc. They have now become politicized, are conscious of their organized power and unlike before, have leaders from within them leading from the front the fight for an inclusive society. Consensus in such a situation is all the more difficult and adopting violence only adds to instability, increasing the role of the police and the armed forces. While elections to the Constituent Assembly were successfully held last year, the process since then has hardly made real progress. The calendar of events for drafting the constitution has been amended for the fifth time.
In Nepal, civilian supremacy will prevail only when the new constitution is drafted in time, law and order and stability prevail, and the political parties and other stakeholders do not cross swords on every issue but strive for consensus. The Maoists’ threat that they would go in for agitations if in one month the issue is not resolved will only harm the very cause they claim to be championing. All the political parties need to understand ‘civilian supremacy’ in a wider and deeper context. Given Nepal’s specific political history, they need to question themselves continuously as to how their every action assists ‘civilian supremacy’ or undermines it.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
