Submit your Article

Confirming months of speculation, the nine-member secretariat of the ruling Nepal Communist Party has nominated senior leader Bamdev Gautam as a member of the National Assembly, the federal upper house. Meanwhile, the party task-force to amend the constitution to allow even members of the National Assembly to be chosen as prime minister has been disbanded. Gautam had been insistent that he would decline the assembly nomination until his path to the PM’s chair was cleared through the amendment.

Gautam could now finagle the post of a senior deputy-prime minister in the Oli government, and from there he will steadily work towards realizing his long-desired dream of becoming the country’s executive head. Oli, in this reading, will be forced to give Gautam, a kingmaker in the secretariat, a powerful government post if he is to retain his hold on the party, which has been steadily slipping away as another co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal amasses power, partly with Gautam’s help.

Amending the national charter to clear the way for a single person’s political ascent would always have been tricky. The NCP bigwigs thus wanted to keep the proposal hush-hush. But when the word got out, there was an instant backlash, not just from outside the party but as vociferously from inside it. The proposal was dropped.

Yet this shocking development was the perfect illustration of how our senior politicians can easily trade away national interests for personal gains. While amending the constitution in Gautam’s favor, the majority members of the nine-member NCP secretariat were apparently also thinking of addressing some demands of the Madhesi parties related to the constitution—in return for their backing for the proposal for the election of PM via the National Assembly. In the same round of amendments, the ceremonial president would also be given more powers. In other words, senior ruling party leaders were bent on wrecking the new constitution by abusing the party’s two-thirds majority in the lower house.

No wonder the two-year record of the Oli government has been so dismal. Instead of embarking on the path to prosperity and implementation of federalism, ruling party leaders spent most of this time jockeying for power. Gautam, the wily old politician who miraculously lost in the last elections, will not let anything hinder his march up the political ladder. In the end, the fact that most members of the NCP secretariat see no problem in handing over the country’s executive powers to someone without public mandate speaks volumes about the party’s democratic credentials.

Our politicians see the constitu­tion only from a power perspective. All our constitutions from 1948 till date have been misused to make certain politicians powerful. Those constitutions were promulgated to serve certain interests, not the people. For the first time in Nepal’s political history, a participatory approach was adopted when the country promulgated the constitu­tion in 2015 through the Constituent Assembly. But even then, certain people sought to fulfill their own interests, disregarding larger public interest.

Now, the issue of amendment has come up. Opposition parties, mainly Madhes-based ones, and Dalits have grievances with the new constitu­tion. However, we are yet to start a detailed study on what kind of con­stitution amendment is required. This is because our constitution has not completed even a single elec­toral cycle. Laws are yet to be made in line with it. Even the formulated laws are beset with problems.

As the constitution is still new, it is immature to talk about amendment. In an emergency, an amendment could be necessary. But this is not the case now. The talk of consti­tution amendment has surfaced only to make a certain leader prime minister. One can become prime minister only through political backing, not constitution amend­ment. Parties should not choose this wrong path.

There were also attempts to get the consent of the Madhes-based parties to the amendment process with the promise of incorporating their agenda.

Actually, the force which is back­ing this agenda thinks that once the agenda is tabled in the parliament, Prachanda and Bam Dev Gautam will lose their control over it. In this scenario, the force can fulfill its interest. Look at our recent history. The first CA was dissolved without delivering a constitution. The sec­ond CA promulgated a new con­stitution due to a strong position taken by then Prime Minister Sushil Koirala. Otherwise, there was no possibility of the new constitution. The missing constitution was only giving opportunistic elements more space. We certainly have issues of Madhesi, Janajati and Dalit people, but there is a need for a national per­spective on how to address them.

Will it be justified to give Nation­al Assembly power to elect prime minister?

Let’s look back to the time KP Oli became prime minister. Politics was heated then. He somehow got the coveted post, but it was difficult for him to put the house in order. There are two houses in the parliament, and both have similar powers about making laws. But why does only the lower house have the right to form government?

There are certain constitution­al principles behind it. The House of Representatives is larger than the National Assembly. It is more inclusive, and more diverse too. More important, the House of Representatives has powers over money bills and committee systems which are formed under various themes. The leader of the largest party in the lower house stakes the claim for prime minister. I do not think the House of Representatives would agree to tie up its hands and legs by allowing the National Assembly to pick a prime minis­ter. The people who are pushing the amendment have not thought this through.

What do you think was at the heart of the constitution amend­ment demand?

It is an anti-government strategy. It does not address public expecta­tion. Some forces want to disturb the current political stability. Such an amendment proposal cannot be tabled as it could invite unexpected upheaval in national politics. Even if required, there should be adequate discussion among stakeholders. All parties should be involved. The NCP leaders are ready for an amend­ment because someone is mislead­ing them about the outcome. Nepal has a big potential for a consolidated democratic system. There are forc­es that do not like it. They helped initiate the Maoist insurgency. The same forces are trying to scuttle consolidated development in Nepal.

Are you hinting at internal or external forces?

There are both internal and external forces behind it. In certain aspects, the current government is different from the previous ones. India did not support us when we promulgated the constitution. But we had an assertive government which told foreign powers that Nepal will promulgate a new consti­tution, no matter what. KP Sharma Oli received popular votes in 2017 elections due to his strong stand against the Indian blockade. So long as he stays, the same forces will con­tinue to play. The Oli government has also made departure in relation with China. It has given a message to the international community that a second or third power is not needed in Nepal. Some elements do not like this. Obviously, Indian interest always influences things here.

Is such abuse of the constitution common in South Asia?

In weaker countries, it is difficult to explain the constitution on the basis of its worth. Nepal is much better off in this regard. In India, we saw Prime Minister Modi amend the charter and decide Kashmir’s fate without a thought about the Kash­miri people. India is a federal coun­try, but it is concerned more with security than power devolution in Kashmir. There are many constitu­tional issues in Pakistan and Arabian countries. In those countries, consti­tutions have little meaning. We can see similar tendencies in East Asia and South East Asia. Our problem is related more to geopolitics than the constitution. If Nepal is allowed to function independently, we will be better off. We can consolidate constitutionalism.

How do you evaluate the process of constitution implementation in Nepal over the past four years?

First, the constitution was pro­mulgated amid much political ten­sion. But we have made progress and achieved stability. The forces that challenged the constitution have joined mainstream politics now. This is positive. Second, our goal is not only political change but also transformation: we wanted to qualitatively change our political culture in line with the new con­stitution. But we are yet to make laws to implement constitutional provisions.

Another important issue is good governance which is a day-to-day affair. But when we think of long-term, we have to make our vital state institutions vibrant. We have to for­mulate laws and procedures in order to make this constitution strong.

On constitution implementa­tion, we have a mixed experience. On stability, we are in a safe posi­tion. But there are some weak­nesses in formulating laws. One example is the recent media bills. The government has not had a positive outlook on the media. On governance, we have to deal with corruption and build institutions. In general there is no threat to the constitution. But many agendas related to transformation are yet to be addressed. Each provision of the constitution should be imple­mented. Remaining laws should be formulated.

Some say the new Nepali consti­tution too will fail, just like its predecessors. How can you say there is no threat to it?

The biggest threat to the constitu­tion is lack of national unity. Nation­al unity will create an environment for the constitution’s stability. To maintain national unity, we have to ensure justice for all, at least on fundamental issues. There were foreign interests in our past con­stitutions. They failed for the same reason. Nepali people were barred from having their say when big decisions were made. For example, Nepali people were not asked to vote whether they wanted a republican system or a monarchy. We could have gone for federal structure by amending the 1990 constitution, but we took a more risky path.

There are claims that the government is trying to weaken key state institutions.

On the issue of National Human Rights Commission, yes. The NHRC was formed with a view that it should be out of government influ­ence. Now, an amendment bill has been registered which states that the NHRC could recommend the gov­ernment to take action on human rights violation cases. But such rec­ommendation can be implemented only with the consent of the attor­ney general, the prime minister’s legal advisor. This shows the gov­ernment has a dismal outlook on human rights. But there are also reports that the government is think­ing of withdrawing such problematic provisions.

Does the parliament pose any kind of threat to the current gov­ernment?

Till date, the government was under no threat from the par­liament. But now that threat is increasing. This is a challenge not only for the government but also for the stability of Nepal, as well as for the new constitution. While exercising political and con­stitutional powers, PM Oli should accommodate the concerns of all parties. The PM should strictly control wrong activities where gov­ernment ministers are involved, including corruption. This will help not only the government but the entire country. We certainly don’t want a repeat of the vicious circle of political instability we witnessed in the 1990s

Gymkhana Muay Thai and the team, which has already hosted two Gymkhana Fight Nights (GFN I and GFN II)—a platform generated to pro­mote combat sports athletes (Box­ing and Muay Thai)—are partnering with AP1 HD TV for the broadcasting/ networking rights for the upcoming GFN events. AP1 HD, a cutting-edge TV channel in Nepal, will now live broadcast GFN III at 3 pm on March 7.

The main and co-main fights will be Nepal vs international fighters, with the latter coming from India (boxing) and Thailand (Muay Thai). There will be four weight categories (55, 60, 65 and 70kgs) in both boxing as well as Muay Thai.

 Issuing a statement, Mega Bank has announced its prepa­rations to bring $20 million (Rs 2.25 billion) in loan from the Qatar-based Doha Bank.

Anupama Khunjeli, CEO of Mega Bank, and Suraj Bikram Shah, chief of Nepal-based office of Doha Bank, signed an agree­ment to this effect this week. If the Nepal Rastra Bank approves the deal, this will be the first instance of Doha Bank investing in Nepali banking.

Mega Bank is vying for loan investment from Doha Bank in line with the central bank policy allowing commercial banks to acquire foreign loans worth up to 100 percent of the bank’s core capital. The loan is expected to ease liquidity crunch in the banking system.

Mega Bank has been providing its services through its network of 111 branches, 29 extension counters, 79 branchless banking facilities, 114 ATMs, and 2,500 remit agents.

Q. Who would you like to collaborate with?
A. I see many talented musicians from Nepal and any one of them would be great to work with. I’d especially love to work with Kutumba someday.
Q. Have you ever had stage anxiety?
A. I did in the early days but now I’m ready to rock the stage every time.
Q. What is one thing that annoys you the most?
A. Negative vibes and attitude
Q. What is your least favorite type of music?
A. Although I listen to all types of music, I don’t prefer high tempo techno music.
Q. What is your favorite “Edge” song?
A. “Thaha Chhaina”, “Nachaheko Hoina”
Q. Do you recall your worst hair cut?
A. I’m sure I did have some really bad haircuts but I don’t recall the exact time and age.
Q. What is the most rewarding musical advice you have ever gotten?
A. To practice a lot and play with as many musicians as possible, and as often as possible.
Q. If you could change one thing about your look, what would it be?
A. I’m happy with my looks.
Q. Last band or artist you listened to?
A. Jaco Pastorius

Started with the vision of promot­ing Nepali artists and give them a platform to “be understood, to cre­ate, and to be original,” the ICMC is an annual event where young musi­cians from schools, college and music institutions await eagerly to showcase their talent.

From the two preliminary rounds held inside the college premises at Gwarko on February 14 and 15, a list of 10 bands—Alankar, Spiral, Lapxa, Prasna, Thibon Hawks, Black Mamba, Paradigm Shift, The Adapters, Sunya, and Obscure—will be battling for the coveted title in the finals. The winning band will get cash prizes, recording deals and the opportunity to perform as guest artists in the next ICMC.

The guest band this year are Psycho­path (last edition’s winner), Chakachak, Jindabaad, and Albatross.

 The mighty two-thirds majority government of KP Oli has often been blamed for trying to curtail the freedom of expression. And rightly so. A set of bills it had introduced in the parliament could have potentially criminalized any factual reporting or even a social media post. A person or organization publishing an ‘offensive material’ would be liable up to Rs 1.5 million in fines, and/or jail for five years. Following widespread protests, these most draconian punishments were removed from the bills. Then, on Feb 20, Minister for Communication and Information Technology Gokul Baskota was forced to resign following the leak of an audio-record that has him asking for Rs 700 million in bribe. Again, unrelenting media pressure played a decisive role in his resignation.

The Oli government is allegedly tone-deaf to public opinion. There is evidence to support this too. Despite public uproar, the Nirmala Panta rape remains mysteriously unresolved. Cartels continue to flourish. Corruption is as entrenched. But the reality is more nuanced. Yes, the government does not look kindly at criticism. As the public opinion slowly turned against it, the government tried to stifle criticism through restrictive laws. But then the media went up in uproar. Members of the civil society hit the streets. The international community spoke out. In time, the government that had enjoyed such widespread support during its formation slowly came to be seen as intolerant and ineffective.

All these incidents suggest that despite the many deficiencies of Nepali democracy, today, it is nigh impossible to take away one democratic right: freedom of speech. People’s freedoms have been steadily expanding since the promulgation of the post- Panchayat constitution in 1990. The 2015 constitution guarantees universal basic freedoms. A belief has steadily taken hold that whatever else may be wrong with Nepal, people have the right to express themselves freely, and no one dares take away that freedom.

Besides the constitutional protection, Nepal now has a robust and varied media landscape, and an indomitable civil society. The involvement of foreign democratic actors also mitigates against curtailment of basic freedoms. Even if the Nepali citizens were yesterday ready to live with some restrictions, youths today won’t tolerate any cap on their in-born rights. Such a refusal to be silenced will help the democratic process that the young federal republic has embarked on.

The government performance is average. In Nepal’s modern polit­ical history, after the big majority government of BP Koirala in 1959, it was only the second time that a government was formed with such a conducive environment. The cur­rent government has a strong man­date with almost two-third support in parliament and it has popular support as well. There is virtually no opposition as well. In this situa­tion, people expect more from the government.

For instance, the Oli government has come up with a new education policy but it is doubtful any edu­cation expert has gone through it. The policy is a mess but no one is challenging the policy, neither from inside the party nor from outside it. Previous governments had no such luxury.

The Oli government is undertak­ing only day-to-day tasks. But such things could also have been done by any of the previous, and far-weaker, governments. It is a tragedy that there is no substantial difference between previous short-lived gov­ernments and current stable one.

Why has such a strong govern­ment performed so poorly?

There is a lack of homework, and our state machinery is also weak. When Oli was electioneering, I had asked whether the big promises he was making could be honored by our weak state machinery. Why are our development projects so slow? There could be political and other vested interests and there also could be some financial issues. But the main thing is that we do not have the required manpower to run them. We have insufficient project management skills. We have the manpower who have studied management but project manage­ment is a different area altogether. There are other countries too that are both corrupt and that witness a high level of political instability, and yet they are making good prog­ress on development projects. So we cannot entirely blame corrup­tion and political instability for our project delays.

Development projects have cer­tain characteristics. To achieve tar­gets, people in leadership should enjoy a level of autonomy. We do not have the concept of autono­my here. Whoever becomes proj­ect head has to constantly appease their political masters. Look at the current Millennium Challenge Cor­poration compact debate. If you look at the MCC compact, there has been an attempt to assure the management’s autonomy in order to ensure the project’s timely comple­tion. In our projects we do not have such autonomy, and hence they often fail.

The government, however, claims it is well on its way to achieving its goal of national prosperity?

The major slogan of the Oli gov­ernment is ‘Prosperous Nepal, Hap­py Nepali’. But the key question is: what are the indices to measure prosperity? What does the govern­ment want to achieve in education, health, and other sectors? The fig­ures included in budget speech are abstract. After the elections, the Nepal Communist Party had a month in which to internally pre­pare to make their electoral promise a reality. Even though the election results where yet to be declared, KP Sharma Oli was sure to be prime minister and he was in a position to lay out his government’s vision. Yet there was no such homework. This suggests the political leader­ship of Nepal is of average quality. And this is true right across par­ty lines. It would not make a huge difference if Madhav Kumar Nepal or Prachanda took over PM’s chair tomorrow. They have already been tried and tested and found wanting. Our leadership has a weak vision and even weaker capacity to come up with policy actions to realize this vision. We cannot expect more than average work from an average leadership.

What is your take on the media’s rather harsh response to Oli gov­ernment’s functioning?

During the 2017 elections, there was massive opinion in media in favor of the left alliance. But the media got progressively critical even before the federal government had completed a year. See the news reports and analysis covering the government’s two years, they are overwhelmingly critical. This clearly shows that there are weaknesses in government functioning. The government has also failed to take the public into confidence. This is dangerous. The government has become too defensive. It should convince people with its deeds, not its rhetoric.

But there must also be some posi­tive things that have happened in the past two years.

Two years are not insufficient to evaluate a government but they are also not sufficient. We have to wait for some time yet before we reach a conclusion. I feel happy in the sense that we promulgated a new constitu­tion by overcoming big challenges. The constitutional and federal pro­cesses have moved forward and the credit goes to polit­ical parties. There may be some prob­lems as federal­ism is not some­thing that can be implemented overnight. So, yes, you cannot also say that nothing good has happened in these two years.

Do you also think the conflict between the two NCP co-chair­men Oli and Prachanda hampers government functioning?

After the unification, Prachan­da has been giving voice to some alternate views. Otherwise, there were no alternate voices to Oli in the former CPN-UML. These days, Prachanda is close to PM Oli. Pra­chanda is saying Oli will be at the government’s helm for five years. There are some internal conflicts but it is not at the level of paralyz­ing the government. For the first time, internal conflicts came to the surface during the selection of the speaker of the House of Represen­tatives. The issue of MCC is yet to be settled. Otherwise, there is no internal ideological challenge to the government. For example, Ghan­shyam Bhusal, a possible ideological challenger, has now become part of the government. There is a sense of insecurity on Prachanda’s part and he is impatient about his turn in power but he is not challenging the government yet.

How has Nepal’s international relations changed in the past two years?

We have seen a visible change in our geopolitics. The relation with China has moved ahead apace, more swiftly than we anticipated. At the same time, the level of depen­dence on China has also increased. We say the rail will come only if China builds it with its own money. The Chinese side has not assured us about the rail and has proposed better roads as an alternative. But we keep emphasizing railway. With China, we made a leap forward. But do we have enough capacity and preparations to sustain this new level of engagement? If we do not, it could be counterproductive. We are in a sensitive geopolitical location and it is not easy to take both our neighbors into confidence. We need their support but at the same time our options should remain open.

What about Nepal’s relations with other powers?

With other powers, our relations have shrunk. The activities of the European Union are slowing down. We are in increasing disputes with the United States. For instance, there was no need to link the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the MCC and blow up the issue.There is no possibility of our joining an American secu­rity alliance as non-alignment is a cornerstone of our foreign policy. Internationally, Nepal is increasing­ly thought of as close to China and as a communist country. There are five declared communist countries: Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and China. Some now think of Nepal as the sixth one. The difference is that unlike in those countries, in Nepal the communist party has come through a democratic process.

In the past, international actors in Nepal were not in conflict. Nepal was a pleasant place for all pow­ers but the situation is gradually changing. The Europeans are not happy though they have not said so directly. It also seems that we are trying to create a distance with the US, creating unnecessary disputes.

How do you evaluate the role of the opposition parties, particu­larly the Nepali Congress?

There is a huge majority govern­ment and the opposition does not get much space in such a setup. Despite this, the opposition is failing to carry out its expected role. Con­sider the prime minister’s recent address to the parliament. After the PM’s address, the leader of the main opposition should have spoken. Instead, some opposition lawmak­ers only asked innocuous questions over his address. In a parliamentary system, the opposition is an alter­native to the government in two ways. First, in its role in the current parliament and then as the potential ruling party after the next election. The opposition should come up with alternative policies, programs and ideas, not just with facetious questions.

The government has made sever­al attempts to curtail freedom of expression but with only limited success. Is it particularly difficult to curtail free speech in Nepal?

Despite the many criticisms of Nepali democracy, over the past 10-12 years it has succeeded in cre­ating a vibrant civil society. People immediately take to the streets if the government tries to shrink civic space. There are also instances of street protests forcing the govern­ment to withdraw some of its plans. The people who have come out on the streets are not committed NCP voters. This is the biggest plus point of our democracy.

Separately, the government works should be analyzed from two angles. In line with the policy commitments it made in election time, the ruling party is free to bring policies and programs. The government can introduce new policies in educa­tion, health and other sectors, and which are liable to change in the coming days. The opposition can only protest but it cannot block those measures. But the key ques­tion is whether the Guthi Bill, the Information Technology bill, and the National Human Rights Com­mission bill are such policy com­mitments. They are not. They are constitutional commitments rather.

For example, the issue of human rights is related not just to a party or the government; it is a constitu­tional commitment. Press freedom is also a constitutional commitment. The government should realize that there is a difference between elec­toral commitments and constitu­tional commitments. The parlia­mentary majority-minority is not applicable to constitutional com­mitments and electoral mandate should not affect them