No compromise on federalism, democracy and republic

MAR 03 - Minendra Rijal , the new minister for information and communications, has steadily established himself as one of the key leaders in the Nepali Congress (NC). Though he couldn’t get a party ticket to contest the Constituent Assembly (CA) elections from the crowded Morang district, the party leadership has entrusted him some crucial responsibilities in recent times—first, he was the brain behind finalising the NC’s  Proportional Representation list after the CA elections; second, he was a member of the taskforce that handled the party’s Cabinet negotiations. For some time now, Rijal has also been the party’s go-to man to reach out to other parties. This says a few things about Rijal: the party leadership trusts him to ‘feel the pulse’ of the NC rank-and-file; but as importantly, they see him as a serious negotiator who can deftly handle intra- and inter-party relations. Akhilesh Upadhyay and Binod Ghimire talked to the newly sworn-in minister last Friday at his Singha Durbar office.

What are the government’s top priorities?

Our top priority is creating an environment that is conducive to writing the constitution within a year. It’s the job of the CA to write the constitution but the government can create a political environment for it. The current government, formed by the two largest parties in the country, has the challenge of winning the confidence of other parties in the CA so that they feel that they will have a role in constitution writing. At the same time, we should also be able to give them the message that the people have endorsed the agendas of the NC and CPN-UML and the two parties represent their voice. However, that does not mean that things that are significantly important to the Maoists and Madhes-based parties will not be addressed.

Already, one criticism against the new government is that it has not been representative of broader diversity in its bid to manage intra- and inter-party dynamics?

You have a point there. I see both sides of this argument. Yes, making the government a little more diverse would probably have sent a much better signal. But again, the message we have gotten from the CA is that ‘it’s not just the people of my identity who can represent me’. People of any identity can represent important issues.

Still, will the Cabinet be expanded at some point?

I don’t see a case for its expansion with more ministers from the NC or UML. But we want the Madhes-based parties to join us. The three portfolios presently with the PM are to bring the Madhes-based parties with significant representation in the CA on board.

On a broader issue of constitution making, the Maoists and Madhesi constituencies have expressed fear that the NC and UML could try to turn back the clock as far as the early 1990s.

We will not repeat the mistake the Maoists made in the previous CA. The largest party in the CA made no effort to win confidence of other parties to build a broad-based coalition for constitution writing. They probably had thought once they were in the seat of government, the constitution was not important. That is probably the reason why the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led government interfered in many issues including in the Nepal Army and it had to pay a heavy price for that.

When they came to the government again with Baburam Bhattarai, I had a feeling that they had learnt their lessons but they clearly hadn’t. There was an agreement among big four parties, 12 days before the CA deadline, that the constitution would be promulgated through consensus. But the Maoists consciously sabotaged the whole agreement, creating a situation where constitution writing simply became impossible. We will not repeat these mistakes.

What would the NC-UML do to create this broad-based coalition you talk about and that you don’t repeat the mistakes?

First, the broader mandate, expressed in the election, has to be honoured, meaning the support the NC and UML got. We cannot write a constitution that is contrary to the people’s mandate. But at the same time, this shouldn’t be construed as the authority to exclude others from having their say in the constitution.

Obviously, federalism was the major bone of contention that led to the collapse of the last CA. How do you want the country to be federated?

I am sure that the Maoist leadership understands the mood of the country. I hope that they will find a very clever way to revise their stance on federalism. Once they do that, it will be a lot easier for us to reach out to them.

But aren’t you again falling into the trap of being reactive? As you have the mandate, why don’t you lay out the agendas more proactively?

What we should do is to articulate the common NC-UML suggestions on federalism and approach the Maoists and the Madhes-based parties for their input. Once they are on board, this can be resolved.

What specifically is your broader blueprint on federalism?

People do not want too many states. The consensus in the previous CA was, states would be delineated on the basis of identity and viability. The Maoists and Madhesi parties argued that identity was the only criteria. We said viability is equally important. Now, the people have clearly given a mandate for viability and identity.

How many federal states are viable?

We proposed seven federal states in our manifesto, so did the UML. This sounds like a reasonable number.

Regarding the other bone of contention, the form of governance, where do you see the meeting point?

Even the UML’s stance on the form of governance is different from the NC’s. But when we sit down to talk of power sharing, election of President, Speaker and so on, everybody seems to have in their mind the Prime Minister as the chief executive, directly accountable to the Parliament, and an indirectly elected President who would be largely ceremonial.

But the UML’s idea of forms of governance is different from NC’s.

Yes, they want a directly elected prime minister. But if you read between the lines of the seven-point agreement between the two parties, clearly the UML has in the back of its mind where the PM is the chief executive of the country, elected and accountable to the Parliament.  

Do you think there is a need for a broad cross-party mechanism, as the High Level Political Mechanism before the November elections?

Yes, but has to be inside the CA, not outside of it.

Are the NC and UML discussing the larger political roadmap, such as local elections in the summer?

I am quite hopeful. First, the people want local elections. Donors who pour a lot of money in Nepal and spend that money through the local bodies very strongly support it. More importantly, if you look back at the past few years, corruption has permeated to the grassroots and no matter how serious we are at the central level, our service delivery mechanism will not work.

What are the difficulties in holding local elections?

First, probably the Maoists and the Madhesi parties will think that the NC and UML will abuse their position of power. We need to have a mechanism whereby elections are fair, independent and the parties in the government cannot influence it to their advantage.

What are the Maoists and Madhesi parties saying in your inter-party talks?

I should be honest in admitting that until now, we were held up by government formation. But now, it’s time to reach out to the opposition. I think the Prime Minister will talk to the Maoists and Madhesi parties after he returns from the BIMSTEC summit—on constitution writing, holding local elections and broader issues of governance.

How are you going to take Rastriya Prajatantra Party-Nepal on board? One of their major arguments is that the whole CA process has to be revisited.

They are smart people to understand that if they push too hard they will probably not be able to get anything at all. But if they play their cards well they could get something that is of significant importance to them.

What would that be?

There will be absolutely no compromise on the issue of federalism, demo-cracy and republic. We are a secular country. The state cannot preach one religion or the other. But the freedom of religion does not give anybody the right to force anyone to change his/her religion.

On governance, what kind of policy and programmes will the new government come up with?

First, facilitating and creating a conducive environment to write a constitution that institutionalises federal democratic republic. Second, lay a foundation for national development. We want to give a sense to the people of Nepal that the country has started moving in the right direction. Sector-wise, the priorities will be hydropower, tourism, redefining agricultural development.

One major concern is of law and order.

The first reason people seek a government is for law and order.

One big criticism of political party leaders has been their growing nexus with criminal groups.

This is something no civilised society can tolerate. If we hope to get the support of people in any sense we must attend to it immediately.

Senior police officials have said on record that each time they arrest criminals, they get telephone calls from powerful politicians to free them.

Yes, political leaders may have access but at the same time, putting all the blame squarely on them is unwarranted.

Do you know any criminals? Do you get calls when they are arrested?

No, I don’t know any.


(The answer to the question But the UML's idea of forms of governance is different from NC's should have said 'Yes, they want a directly elected prime minister', instead of 'Yes, they want a directly elected president'. The error is now corrected.)

The article is update from the category