Submit your Article

The constitutional deadline for promulgating laws loom ever closer, but the government is yet to table all the bills in the parliament. Neither is lawmaking transparent, nor do parties seems focused on the contents of these bills. There are already indications that several provisions are against the spirit of the constitution. And there are concerns about the role of the National Assembly (NA), the upper house of federal parliament: Is it more than a rubberstamp for the lower house? Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Radheshyam Adhikari, a senior advocate and an assembly member from the Nepali Congress, on a wide range of issues related to law-making and the assembly’s role therein.

How do you characterize the current law-making process?

The government has expressed its commitment to meet the statutory deadline—first week of March—for formulating or amending laws in line with the new constitution. But the way the federal parliament is functioning indicates that the commitment will not be fulfilled. The National Assembly meets just once a week, which means it does not have enough business.

Can you update us on the progress so far on formulating new laws and amending old ones?

There are some problems. The government has introduced dozens of laws under a single basket. For example, it has brought a proposal seeking to amend 57 laws simultaneously. Such a working style does not allow a broad cross-section study of laws and the monitoring of the provisions that could affect each other. We had a bitter experience while formulating laws concerning the implementation of the fundamental rights of citizens. We were compelled to endorse 11 laws forwarded by the House of Representatives (HoR) without examining even a single word therein. Five laws forwarded by the NA were endorsed by the HoR in a similar manner. Such a scenario shows there’s no point in having a bi-cameral house. Passing laws in this way will create problems. 

Why, unlike in the past, have lawmakers not been consulted on the law-making process?

There are two aspects to it. One, we have an in-built system that ensures checks and balances, but the system is weak. Two, we can consult various stakeholders when we have time, but now we are running out of time because of our tendency to table bills in the House at the eleventh hour seeking their early passage. There has been some consultation on some issues of public concern, such as the citizenship bill. However, we are going to formulate around 300 laws, each with several stakeholders. On some laws, there hasn’t even been a minimum level of consultation.  

It is ill intent or sheer negligence on the government’s part?

One reason is the looming constitutional deadline. Another is the incapacity of our state mechanisms. I refer not only to the performance of this government, but to our weak state mechanisms that have been in place for long. We have a dearth of human resources in state mechanisms. The manpower shortage is acute in the Ministry of Law, the Parliament Secretariat and the Nepal Law Commission, which are key bodies in the lawmaking process. We have also been unable to use the existing manpower. 

But it’s also true that laws have been formulated in a careless manner. For example, there was very little discussion in the preliminary stage among the concerned agencies, such as the cabinet’s bill committee and the relevant ministry. As I said, our in-built system is so flawed that it cannot handle these issues efficiently. Now, there are fears that only about 20 to 30 percent of the legislation will be made by the parliament and the rest of the lawmaking authority will gradually be transferred to the government. Lack of vigilance will further weaken the parliament.

Could you give us an example of the declining role of the parliament in the law-making process?

For example, when a bill with, say, 17-18 sections is tabled in the parliament, the bill will be formed in a way that allows the government the final say over 11-12 sections, which means granting more legislative powers to the government.

This means many legal provisions would be further elaborated by regulations and directives, which are issued by various government ministries and departments. By endorsing incomplete laws, the parliament is gradually transferring authority to the government or the bureaucracy. The parliament can monitor these processes, but it cannot perform all oversight tasks.

That is why we are pushing for having a substantive part of the bills endorsed by the parliament. However, very few are floating this idea, as the ruling party has a majority and we are not in a position to challenge it.

Why is the opposition not paying enough attention to the content of the bills?

It is partially true that the opposition has not paid sufficient attention to overall lawmaking.  This is because we are focused on other issues. Through our policies, we have to present ourselves in a different light than the government. But we are centered on personal issues and agenda. Our main task is law-making, and we should get involved in this process in a thorough manner. But this is not happening. We have told our party leadership to form departments or a shadow cabinet and entrust them with the responsibility to scrutinize the lawmaking process in both the chambers.

Could you talk a bit about what is happening with the Passport Bill?

The bill on passports contains some flawed provisions. After the political change in 1990, getting a passport became easy. People get a passport primarily to visit other countries. Issuing passports easily led to more foreign trips in the past three decades. Although this has some drawbacks, the benefits outweigh the costs. The bill tabled in the parliament has many ‘if and buts’ in several sections, which can curb access to a passport.

For example, the proposed bill says that people involved in money laundering would be denied passports. The government itself files cases related to money laundering. People’s passports cannot be seized on the basis of cases filed by the government. It is up to the court to control the movement of people facing money laundering charges, but the government cannot seize passports. If someone is convicted of money laundering, we would not object to such provisions. But we cannot deny passports on the basis of cases filed in the court. Such problematic provisions need to be amended. 

What about the bill on the management and regulation of advertisements?

There are a couples of reasons behind our opposition to the bill on the regulation of advertisements. Our first logic is that the provisions of criminal offence are not applicable to the issues related to publishing and broadcasting advertisements. It is very simple; it should be a civil offence. 

Our second concern is about the provision of freedom of speech and expression, which is a fundamental right. Also objectionable is a non-bailable provision with a five-year sentence. So the bill in its current form is hostile to freedom of expression and it intends to criminalize offenders. You can regulate, but not control, advertisements. And you certainly cannot make people infringing advertisement regulations criminals.  

There are confusions about the functions and duties of the National Assembly. Could you please help us understand it better?

We are going to squander an opportunity to exploit the assembly’s potential. We haven’t had a serious discussion on how to make good use of the NA. If we continue with the current process of endorsing the bills, there is no need for two chambers. Because it has mayors from the local level and those elected from provincial assemblies as members, the NA could have played a vital role in making the federal system more effective and result-oriented. It could be a mediator between the government and various federal structures.

The NA’s leadership should take up these issues. We have raised them in the parliament, but our voice is not strong enough to take a concrete shape. There is growing dissatisfaction that the provincial governments are being denied the powers granted by the constitution. This is where the assembly could play a vital role. It can question the government about this, and disseminate the response to the provincial and local levels. It is a political process.

Are there conflicts between constitutional provisions and the role that the assembly is playing?

There is a set of procedures for passing bills from parliament. The money bills directly go to the HoR, and it is its exclusive right. The feedback we provide on this bill could be accepted or rejected by the house. Irrespective of our position, the house can forward this bill to the President for authentication. Other bills could be registered in both the houses and there are certain procedures mentioned in the law. If we do not get an additional role from a legislative perspective, the NA loses its relevance.

The assembly can play an important role in the lawmaking process, as it can study the laws, find loopholes and ways to plug them. For example, within a year, the Ministry of Agriculture has introduced 20 directives that are being implemented as law. Of the 20, as many as 11 directives have not mentioned the law on which they are based. These are serious issues that require a strong leadership to address. We have three levels of government, all of which are making laws. But we do not have a place where the laws of all three levels can be deposited so that they can be later studied. The federal upper house could be such a place.

There are record-keeping tasks as well, but we still lack sufficient infrastructure to carry them out. Our parliament doesn’t have a record of the laws it has passed. We don’t have all the documents in one place. We can push the assembly to perform these tasks. Lawmaking is only a small part of the NA’s responsibilities. If efficiently run, it can play a huge role in assisting the ongoing process of state restructuring.  

You see unsatisfied with the current role of the National Assembly?

Yes, I am not satisfied with its performance so far. If the NA continues functioning this way, it is better to dissolve it. Because we are not in a position to interfere in the law-making process, there is currently a wasteful duplication of effort. If we need this institution, we have to prove its utility.

It’s been a torrid one year for the KP Oli government. Having cemented the merger of the country’s two biggest communist outfits, and commanding over a two-thirds majority in the federal parliament, the government has cre­ated a semblance of stability in a notoriously turbulent polity. In theory, this should have helped attract the much-needed FDI and goaded our own businesses and industries to invest in job- and capital-creation. But with the federal government blasé about its woeful capital spending, despite the prime minister’s repeated assurance of swift and adequate infra­structure spending, the economy appears wobbly: there is a severe liquidity crunch in the BFIs, the trade deficit continues to tick up steadily, and economic growth has stalled. There has been no meaningful progress in big-ticket proj­ects that PM Oli likes to talk about endlessly—rail-links with both India and China, water-link with India. The government has asked for patience as most of PM Oli’s first year in office was spent “laying the ground”. As proof, the prime minis­ter on Feb 13 unveiled an unemployment allowance scheme and a day later, a ‘people’s hydroelectricity’ scheme. Yet there is no clear modality for either. Meanwhile, corruption has ballooned and the rule of law deteriorated. Press freedom is under threat. Transitional justice has been shelved, to potentially dangerous consequences.

 Oli has tried to diversify Nepal’s foreign relations away from the two giant neighbors

On foreign policy, the government may claim success. Relations with India have been ‘normalized’ following the blockade-time low. The Oli government also seems to be in China’s good books. Further, it has tried to diversify Nepal’s foreign relations away from the two giant neighbors. As a part of this process, Foreign Minister Pradeep Gyawali made a landmark visit to the US, even though NCP co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s mistimed comments on the US inter­vention in Venezuela severely dented the US outreach.

To give it the benefit of the doubt, it was the first govern­ment formed under the new constitution and it has had to spend most of the past year formulating laws to make the federal formula work. Yet even on law-making, progress has been slow and there has been little consultation with the stakeholders. As it enters Year Two, the government will make another round of big promises to make up for lost time. Promising big things has always been a strong suit of PM Oli. It is in follow-through that he falters.

Sabin Karki always wanted to be the best in the business. “I don’t think I am the best at what I do yet. There is a cameraman somewhere who can take a mil­lion-dollar shot sitting at the spot that I am in. I want to be inside that person’s mind. There is someone who can do it better than me and I want to be that person.” When Karki perfomed in shop­ping malls, he used to see his dance group categorized as a ‘B-boying group’. But he did not want to be categorized and wanted to create his own unique brand. “When I started to dance in 2008, I did not even know that I would be paid for it.” He recalls that in 2011, an organizer from Close-Up Love Fest asked him how much he would charge for a show, and he was sur­prised. “I was dancing because I loved it. To learn I would be paid for it was amazing.”

He joined Cartoonz Crew, a dance group, in 2012, and they did many events together, struggling a lot at the start. “We did not have money to ride the public bus so some of us would walk to our meeting place.” He recalls running around for the entire day in Thamel to find the cheapest place to print matching t-shirts for group mem­bers. Despite these struggles, Karki never doubted himself or felt like giving up on his dream. “I just kept going. Maybe because I had family support, which is essential, especially at the start of your career when you are struggling financially. I assured my mother I was going to get big and this was just a passing phase. Luckily, whatever I thought would happen, has happened, like a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Karki believes his work speaks for itself and he is not scared of not being popular or relevant

But there are many who cannot follow their dreams for various rea­sons, or make it big in the industry despite a lot of struggle. “You need creativity, new ideas, and good execution, and you might still fail. So I understand when parents tell their children to focus on subjects that ensure job security. It’s a safety net. If I had to financially support my family from the beginning, I could not have said ‘I won’t give up on dance.’ People can’t just­drop everything to pursue their passion.” Karki says you need to reflect on how good you are and find ways to follow your passion.

The good thing is that technol­ogy has become so advanced that there are now platforms like You­Tube and Instagram where you can showcase your talent. “This is the golden age,” says Karki. “It is the place to build your fan base. As you grow, you do not have to restrict your art. For now, I am thinking of making music videos. Eventually, I will make a film.”

He wants to keep learning and growing. One of his early dreams was to be independent. Now he has learnt every step of video-making, from concept formulation to edit­ing to publishing, and he does not have to rely on anyone. “I still need my brother Sanjay Karki though. He keeps me motivated. He is busy with his engineering classes and I wait for him to come home every day so that we can develop and work on ideas,” he reveals.

Karki believes his work speaks for itself and he is not scared of not being popular or relevant. “But I know that the day I can’t think of a new idea, I am finished. People con­stantly ask when I am publishing a new video. But I do not want to just publish a video. Rather, I would invest my time in creating some­thing that people remember.” He says there are enough people doing the same thing in arts; Nepal needs more hard-working people who are ready to be internationally recog­nized. “When I work with someone, I want perfection.” To the people who are trying their best, he says, “Keep taking little steps and if you are good, your hard work will not be wasted.”

The makers of “Ek Ladki ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga” did not want to miss out on the opportunity of being the first mainstream Bollywood film to deal with same-sex (lesbian) love. Hence the haste. It’s true that the story is progressive but it is far from daring as well.

The film is about Sweety (Sonam Kapoor), an introverted Punjabi girl whose rich family is looking for a suitable Punjabi guy to marry her off. They are under the false impression that she is in love with Sahil Mirza (Rajkummar Rao), a theater writer who is a Muslim. Just a brief encounter with Sweety makes Sahil fall in love with her, and the confusions that follow make for a hilarious first half. Right before the interval we find out that Sweety is actually in love with Kuhu (Regina Cassandra) and the second half of the movie is about how Sweety, with the help of Sahil, tries to make her traditional Punjabi family accept her truth.

Who should watch it?

Old fans of Anil Kapoor and Juhi Chawla, and young and old Rajkummar Rao fans may enjoy the film. Also those looking for some light-hearted weekend comedy. But if you want a tug at your heartstrings, you may be better served checking new releases this weekend.

The film fails to do justice to this story. It wastes too much time revealing Sweety is actually a lesbian and in the next half the plot progresses so hastily it leaves no time for the audience to understand Sweety and Kuhu’s love to root for them. Yes, a small section of the film shows how Sweety started feeling like an alien in her childhood and how her preference for the same sex led her to being bullied at school. When she met Kuhu she felt like finally there was someone she could be herself with. But something does not feel right. For one there is no development of Sweety’s character to make us genuinely feel for the lead actor.

For a film that is celebrating same-sex love, it is ironic that the filmmakers seem scared of making their audience even a bit uncomfortable. Thus we only get scenes of some hand-holding, smiles and hugs from the two female lovers. It treads on safe waters. Yes, this is the first mainstream Bollywood movie showing same-sex relationships and they might be trying to make this movie family-friendly. But there is little of the kind of soulful dancing or heartfelt romance that usually highlight a Bollywood movie.

In the central character, Sonam Kapoor’s acting is mechanical and dialogue-delivery stilted. For instance, in a moment of despair, Sweety says to Sahil that she would choose to die if she cannot be with Kuhu but we do not really feel it. Other actors like Anil Kapoor (Balbir Choudhary, a garment manufacturer who plays Sweety’s father), Juhi Chawla (the impatient Chatro who is eager to be an actor) and Rajkummar Rao shine. They provide some much-needed comic relief. Abhishek Duhan (who plays Sweety’s controlling brother Babloo) and Regina Cassandra, in her Bollywood debut, are convincing too.

Pegged as ‘the most unexpected romance of the year’, events in this movie are mostly predictable. Its central message is that homosexuality is normal and has nothing to do with ‘westernization’, and that parents should live their life and let their kids theirs. Brilliant. It’s a tragedy that such an important message is so poorly delivered, even with a strong star-cast.

Ek Ladki ko Dekha Toh Aisa Laga

Director: Shelly Chopra Dhar

Genre: Comedy

Cast: Sonam Kapoor, Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla, Rajkummar Rao

This reviewer sees Hindi his­torical dramas like Bajirao Mastani (2015), Padmaavat (2018), and now Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi, as little windows into the rich history of the Indi­an subcontinent. You don’t watch these mainstream Bollywood mov­ies as perfect reflections of the times and the characters they sup­posedly represent. They rather gloss over nuances and twist histo­ry to glorify the protagonists, often larger-than-life personas who can seemingly do no wrong. Frankly, if they tried to capture history as it is, these movies would be niche art-house productions that would be watched by few. And Bollywood is all about minting money by playing on people’s emotions. Manikarnika (with its titular role played by Kangana Ranaut) is the same. A Brahmin girl with “qualities of a Kshatriya” is born in Varanasi (currently in Uttar Pradesh). She is the daughter of Moropant Tambe, a courtier to the Pesha (modern-day prime min­ister) of nearby Bithoor district. By and by, she is married into the royal family of Jhansi, an indepen­dent princely state. Renamed ‘Rani Lakshmibai’ after her marriage, she gives birth to a son, who unfor­tunately dies only four months later, robbing Jhansi’s throne of a natural successor.

 Who should watch it?

The fans of Kangana Ranaut and of her signature successes like ‘Queen’ and ‘Revolver Rani’ will love it. So will anyone interested in the legendary Jhansi ki Rani—if they are willing to forego some historical nuances.

After the death of their son, the royal couple adopt a son, Anand, who is later renamed Damodar Rao after their dead son. Soon after, Lakshmibai’s husband and the reigning Maharaja of Jhansi, Gan­gadhar, too dies after a prolonged illness. The British, the de jure rulers of Jhansi, refuse to accept Damodar’s claim to the throne, and decide to annex the princely state. The film is a tale of how Lakshmib­ai, even with a small force at her disposal, tried to valiantly defend her besieged state against the scheming British.

As a cinematic spectacle, there is little not to like about Manikarnika: a well-crafted conspiracy-leaden plot; thousands of colorful troops, men and women, engaged in pitched battles, with swords and guns and canons; well-choreo­graphed songs; a sense of being transported back into the mid-19th century India at the height of the British Raj. Everything is well done.

But, again, it would not be a Bol­lywood blockbuster if it didn’t take some liberty with history. In one scene, Rani Lakshmibai is seen jumping, a child strapped to her back, off the roof of a fort hundreds of feet high—straight on the back of her faithful steed, Badal. In anoth­er, a mature-looking Manikarnika marries Jhansi’s Maharaj, while the historical figure actually got mar­ried when she was just 14. The mov­ie also controversially expunges the rani of any involvement in the 1857 massacre of unarmed English women and children in Gwalior. Let us just say ‘Manikarnika’ is not afraid to take convenient shortcuts to spice up the plot.

At 2 hours 28 minutes, the film is a little long, but considering the immensity of the subject it is based on, just about bearable. Ranaut, who is also the director of the film, delivers another masterful perfor­mance in the lead role (if you are prepared overlook her unnatural ability to leap and bound, as well as some stilted dialogues coming out of her busy mouth). Danny Denzongpa as the queen’s trusted head of army is also convincing. There are no major acting snafus as such. But Ranaut is the front and center of the film and she carries it with some aplomb.

Movie: MANIKARNIKA: The Queen of Jhansi

Genre: Action

CAST: Kangana Ranaut, Danny Denzongpa, Atul Kulkarni, Ankita Lokhande

DIRECTION: Radha Krishna Jagarlamudi, Kangana Ranaut

‘Little Fires Everywhere’ is Celeste Ng’s second novel. Her debut novel, ‘Everything I Never Told You’, was a New York Times bestseller and won the Amazon Book of the Year Award in 2014, beating out works by Stephen King and Hilary Mantel. Just like her debut novel, Little Fires Everywhere too begins with a catastrophic event. But here, unlike in Everything I Never Told You, it’s not a death but a raging house fire with the owners contemplating the smoldering ruins of their house in Shaker Height, Ohio, that you are faced with at the beginning of the story. The rest of the book goes back in time and follows the chain of events that led to the tragic end.

Book: Little Fires Everywhere

Gere: Fiction

Author: Celeste Ng

Publisher: Penguin Press

Pages: 338, Paperback

Set in the 1990s in a seemingly perfect neighborhood in Shaker Heights whose strict rules and protocols make it an ideal community, the story is based on the clash between two families, the Richardson family and their tenant, Mia Warren and her 15-year-old daughter, Pearl. The Richardsons, an upper-middle class family, are living their utopian life when nomadic Mia comes into the picture and Mrs Richardson blames her artistic inclinations for causing disruptions in the community.

 At its core, Little Fires Everywhere is about motherhood, love for a child, and the testy waters of adoption: “To a parent, your child isn’t just a person, your child was a place, a kind of Narnia.” Ng addresses what it means to be a mother and that it isn’t just another role a woman plays in life. Rather, it becomes the most important identity for her from the first time she holds her baby. Through the subplot of a well-off white family adopting a Chinese baby, the issues of race and intercultural respect are also brought to the fore.

What makes the book interesting is Ng’s attention to small details of everyday life. Everything from Pearl’s growing closeness to the Richardson kids and the tension of the custody battle between Mrs Richardson’s friend and Mia’s colleague plays out quite brilliantly. And the narrative is neither too fast nor does it drag on. Ng has crafted her characters so well that you feel like they are people you know personally. You understand the teenage angst Pearl is going through and despise Mrs Richardson for her headstrong ways while Mia’s resilience makes you wonder what it takes to be like her.

All in all, Little Fires Everywhere is a good novel but you never completely warm up to it either. It isn’t a book that will have you pondering life and its intricacies once you are done but, since you will be able to identify with one of the large cast of characters, you will find yourself questioning your morality and wondering what you would have done in similar circumstances.

‘Garud Puran’ was touted as a good movie even before its release. (Or at least a few people in my circle, who suggested that I watch the film, thought so.) In the trailer, the plot appeared bland and the dialogues stilted. But I still wanted to give it the benefit of doubt. Never judge a book by its cover, right? But my worst fears were realized when I actually saw it. At no point did I laugh. Nor did the film evoke any feeling other than utter ennui. ‘Garud Puran’ is the story of four central characters. Henriks (Najir Hussain) wants to go abroad to work and has already been cheat­ed four times while trying to do. His friend Rambo (Karma), is a virgin eager to lose his you-know-what. So you can expect an over­dose of sexual innuendos and double-entendres, and which, in fact, were more cringe-worthy than funny.

To the plot, then. Henriks and Rambo are best friends. Karan (Pra­been Khatiwada) is in love with Jyo­ti (Priyanka Thakuri), who is always demanding an Oppo phone and sounds like she would sleep with anyone who meets her materialis­tic needs. The whole film revolves around these four characters.

There are many things not to like about the film. First, its name. Garun Puran is a Hindu scripture believed to help departed souls go to heaven and inspire the living to pursue a meaningful life. But the movie has nothing to do with any of these themes. Second, parts of the film have no logic.

For starters, it opens with Hen­riks’ family walking to the airport with band baaja even as his flight ticket is unconfirmed. Who does that? Then, at the end, all central characters come to a park where there is a bag with Rs 7 million in cash, of which Rs 5 million is fake. Two protagonists take out a few lakhs of real money. (Don’t ask how they knew which bundles were real.) In the end, the police nabs the single villain who is caught with fake notes.

Who should watch it?

If you are a die-hard slapstick comedy fan—good, bad, ugly, you like them all—and can put up with a poor plot, then you may enjoy it. Otherwise, don’t bother.

The pacing is inconsistent as well. The directors, it appears, tried to copy scenes from similar Bollywood movies like ‘Golmaal’ and ‘Dhamaal’. But without a fresh twist, these efforts fail miserably.

The background score is praiseworthy though, fitting the scenes well and making charac­ters come alive. The cinematogra­phy also elicits audience hooting in places.

 The movie’s central failing is that the directors push too hard to evoke emotions in the audience

Karma and Najir Hussain both entered the cinema world after their successful theater careers. Perhaps this is why they are uncon­vincing at the start of the film and their acting gets better as the movie progresses. As her first film, Pri­yanka’s acting can be considered passable. Loonibha Tuladhar, who plays Najir’s overbearing aunt, per­fectly fits the role: comedy, after all, is her forte.

MOVIE: GARUD PURAN

GENRE: Comedy

CAST: Najir Hussain, Karma, Priyanka Singh Thakuri

DIRECTION: Subash Koirala,Sushan Prajapati

The main opposition Nepali Congress has been disrupting the federal lower house as the government tries to forcefully pass a watered-down version of the Medical Education Bill and as it looks to rename some hospitals named after past Congress leaders. Notwithstanding its recent show of strength in the parliament, many feel Congress is rudderless and has been a feeble opposition. Biswas Baral and Kamal Dev Bhattarai talked to Gagan Thapa, NC Central Working Committee member and a federal MP, on government functioning, his party’s future course and Dr Govinda KC’s fast.    

Was the recently concluded Mahasamiti meeting helpful in resolving the outstanding issues in Nepali Congress?

The primary agenda of the Mahasamiti meeting was the amendment of the party statute, which was necessary given the country’s new federal structure. The Mahasamiti was also expected to pave the way for the General Convention. Both objectives have been achieved.

However, we failed to discuss many dimensions of the party’s reform. In fact, we are not ready for a serious discussion on party reform. We have to understand this is not the first time the NC lost an election. Our presence in the parliament would have been even weaker had the communist and Madhes-based forces been united in the second Constituent Assembly (CA) election in 2013.

Do you think Congress will be able to regain its past strength?

As I said, this is not the first time we performed badly in an election. We began to do so after the 1999 parliamentary elections, but we are only talking about our performance in the 2017 elections. The votes our party gets has ranged from 27 to 36 percent of the total votes cast, and the various communist forces get the rest. Of late, some voters are attracted to the Madhes-based parties as well. Why couldn’t we attract more voters? Even in the elections we claim to have won, we got the same percentage of vote.

This percentage will not be enough to lead the government in the future. Our leadership is nostalgic about our glorious past and wants to regain it, but that’s not the right approach. Congress should have a forward-looking approach, identify new ways of thinking and set new targets.

Has there been any change in the party functioning after the Mahasamiti meeting?

There are two aspects to our party’s mismanagement. The first is the political aspect, which depends on the conscience and the working style of party leadership. It is a continuous test of party leadership.

Second, every political party is a modern organization with millions of cadres who have their own expectations. A party is an outcome of cooperation and competition among its members and leaders, a concept that seems to have eluded our leadership. If we do not follow certain procedures, we cannot function like a coherent party unit. But even after the Mahasamiti, our working style remains the same. It requires a major overhaul. 

Are you hinting at the monopoly exercised by the party president?

Our CWC meeting has not been held, but the party is making big decisions without extensive consultations. Our party statute has envisioned a ‘Kendriya Karya Sampadan Samiti’ for making vital decisions in the absence of the CWC meeting. The party president invites leaders close to him to his residence and they make decisions. This goes against the party statute. As the party president has a super-majority in the organization, he can appoint his close aides to the Samiti and formalize his decisions. 

Party leaders do not care about party statute until some decisions affect them personally. They object to the president’s monopoly if their personal interests are hurt. The competition among leaders can only be managed if the party operates on the basis of established norms. Intra-party betrayal was rampant during the last election. Had we followed some rules while distributing tickets, we could have won another 20 seats in the national parliament.  

It seems the party’s reform process will begin only after the general convention? What plans are afoot to hold the convention?

I do not think only convening the GC would trigger reform. While the Mahasamiti was focused on amending the party statute, the GC would concentrate only on electing the party leadership. What we need is clear vision and policy to function as an effective opposition. Obviously, the current government has failed to deliver, and we are criticizing it. But the NC should give a clear message about how the current situation could have been different had the NC been in power. How would it have governed differently? Answering this requires a serious discussion on party ideology, policy and programs. Mere rhetoric about the current government’s shortcomings won’t do.

What is happening with the agenda of changing party leadership?

We have high respect and love for our incumbent leaders, but it’s clear that they cannot reform the party. The public will no longer accept them as the party’s face. A change is the need of the hour.

How do you evaluate the performance of this government?

The government was elected by the people and given a five-year mandate. At the same time, the tenet of ‘constitutional liberalism’ suggests three tests to check if any government is democratic—whether it respects the rule of law, whether it respects the separation of powers, and whether it respects people’s fundamental rights. This government fails all three tests. So I won’t hesitate to say it is not a democratic government. 

KP Oli is perhaps the luckiest prime minister in that he has a super-majority in the parliament and strong control over his party. Late Girija Prasad Koirala and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai had a majority in the parliament but they faced strong opposition in their party. But although Oli is in a comfortable position, he couldn’t bring about systematic and institutional changes in the country. He has failed to perform; he has failed to deliver. The country’s economy is spiraling towards a crisis and people are losing faith in the government.

Why then has the opposition’s role not been satisfactory?

What matters is what people think about us and whether they are happy with our performance in the parliament. There are some issues about which the opposition just raises questions in the parliament. Some issues demand strong resistance to make the government accountable. On some other issues, we can provide suggestions to the government. And there could be some issues in which we can work together with the government. The NC is confused as to how to deal with various issues in the parliament.

There is a powerful government but a weak opposition. Can your failure to play the role of an effective opposition pose a threat to democracy itself?

It can. The government, with a two-thirds majority, is mighty. If the prime minister’s focus had been on building a robust system and enhancing institutions, we would have fewer reasons to worry even if the opposition was weak. But the PM does not care about the basic principles of democracy. He believes that those principles are an obstacle. The head of the government wants to violate democratic principles, and the opposition is not capable enough to protect them. Given such a scenario, it’s reasonable to fear that hard-won democracy could be undermined and civic space could shrink. 

What is the status of the shadow cabinet that Congress was supposed to form?

I first proposed this concept when we drafted the statute of NC parliamentary party.  All leaders were convinced that it was a good idea and it was incorporated into the party statute. Earlier, a sense of urgency was missing, but in the last meeting, I pushed this proposal again and some progress has been made. Still, if the party leadership does not take ownership of this concept, it would be difficult to form a shadow cabinet and problems could arise even after its formation.

The NC should set the principle of the role of the opposition party. We do not have a long experience of being an opposition party, and there is no particular yardsticks by which to measure a shadow cabinet’s success. The shadow cabinet will fully inform the parliamentary party. If there is an informed decision, there is a high chance that we will take the right decisions on national issues.

That questions are being continuously raised about our leadership show that people are not satisfied with the performance of either the government or the opposition. Top party leaders should realize this fact.

Finally, how do you see government’s role in addressing Dr Govinda KC’s demands?

There are two aspects to it. First, the government’s recent action indicates it is not ready to heed the small but powerful and legitimate voices of society. This is a dangerous trend. Earlier, even powerful prime ministers used to heed the voices of a few influential people who stood for truth. Now, the government is trying to create a situation where you are either on its side or Dr KC’s.  Unlike the past, there is no middle ground. Dr KC and his supporters are forcefully being portrayed as NC supporters.

Second, the government is trying to protect some private interests. The interest groups close to government are upbeat with government stonewalling Dr KC’s demands. The government is serving a narrow interest, which is also a dangerous sign.