Submit your Article

In a democracy true to its name, the Parliament (the legislative), one of the three principal organs of the state, makes laws. Elected representatives voice concerns of the public in its hallowed chambers and make the other organ of the state, the executive, address them. Well-informed, engaging and enlightening discussions on every matter before it, including draft laws, make these chambers truly representative of the will of the people. Parliamentary debates in India and the United Kingdom, for example, show how the lawmakers hold their governments to account. 

The judiciary has a very important role to play in a democracy. As the final interpreter of the Constitution, it checks the constitutionality of laws and keeps a tab on the government and the parliament from a moral high ground. More often than not, our own judiciary has shown how to do it. If its precedents are not enough, there are enough lessons to learn from the immediate neighborhood and beyond on how to tame a regime seeking to trample on civil liberties.   

A constant judicial vigilance is necessary in a functioning democracy. This is also because the executive even seeks to bring the judiciary under its ambit through some sort of parliamentary control by violating judicial independence. The parliament often exhibits the tendency to do the bidding of a majority even at the expense of the larger interest of the public and the country it is supposed to serve, under pressure from the government of the day, in a blatant violation of the letter and the spirit of the charter.  Who knows this better than the Nepali people, mute spectators to spectacles where a ready majority raises its hands automatically in support when a whip-wielding executive seeks to enforce its will in an audacious breach of the principles of separation of powers as well as checks and balances?

In young democracies in particular, the parliament often becomes a special-purpose vehicle designed to serve the executive and other powerful vested interests instead of taking them to task. This becomes easy when the opposition and the ruling parties come together to serve vested interests. The people pay the price when the executive seeks to move ahead by ignoring the concerns of the opposition raised in the House and the latter obstructs it in its desperate bid to have its way.

Recently, the main opposition obstructed the Parliament for days on end calling for a high-level commission to investigate a recent case of a huge gold consignment concealed in brake shoes passing through a high-security Tribhuvan International Airport. Before that, the party had obstructed the Parliament over the Prime Minister’s remarks about a transporter’s ‘great efforts’ toward elevating him to the coveted position. The opposition has every right to ask difficult questions and seek answers from the government, but is the House obstruction an effective way to hold the government accountable?  

Notably, opposition parties other than the main opposition have accused the main opposition CPN-UML, Nepali Congress and the CPN (Maoist Center) of holding the parliament hostage to fulfill vested interests. Secretive talks between the leadership of the three major parties ‘magically’ ending House stalemates suggest some comfy arrangements. ApEx has repeatedly raised the issue of the troika turning the Parliament into a rubber-stamp of sorts through its extensive coverage, as part of efforts to make democracy deliver.

Indeed, the leadership of the three parties could have done so much for the people grappling with challenges like rising market prices, shrinking job opportunities, endemic corruption, instability and calamities that are becoming more and more disastrous due to development activities undertaken with scant regard for the carrying capacity of the terrains. Their disastrous performance in a difficult situation will not be lost on a people they claim to be serving, day in and day out.  Neither the government nor the main opposition nor any other force has the right to hold the legislative organ of the state hostage in its desperate bid to fulfill its overt or covert interests. 

Sadly, even the Speaker and the President, the guardian of the Constitution, have appeared helpless in the face of repeated deadlocks. Summing up, all entities that constitute the parliament should learn lessons from repeated obstructions and make every effort to ensure its smooth functioning. The sovereign body has some crucial legislations pending, including those related to transitional justice and money-laundering. It’s time the parliament moved ahead with a sense of urgency and made up for the lost time.

The decision of the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) to seek clarification over news published in a daily is an attack on freedoms of speech and expression, so it is condemnable. 

On Aug 18, CAAN sought clarification from Simrik Air Chairman Capt Rameshwar Thapa, who also chairs the Annapurna Media Network (AMN), regarding news materials published by AMN outlets, including the Nepali daily Annapurna Post.

While CAAN’s concern for flight safety is justifiable, the manner in which it has engaged with the media raises important questions about the compatibility of regulatory authority with the principles of press freedom and democratic governance. It also goes against the principle of editorial freedom. It is imperative that the principles of press freedom, enshrined in Nepal’s Constitution, are upheld.

The 2015 Constitution guarantees every Nepali citizen the freedom of expression and thought. Article 17 of the Constitution explicitly protects the press’ right to function independently, question authority, and ensure a transparent democratic society.

While CAAN’s concerns may be rooted in the well-being of air travel, the approach taken to seek clarification has raised concerns about overreach and potential violations of press freedom. The constitutionally-guaranteed rights of freedom of the press should not be overridden by any regulatory body’s actions. 

The CAAN move of seeking clarification seems to be a clear violation of these rights and could be perceived as an attempt to stifle media criticism and accountability. Questions arise whether there exists a legal basis to restrict the publication of opinions, comments, and reports concerning policy errors related to air services. While dissatisfaction with media coverage is a legitimate concern, there are established legal avenues such as the press council and courts for seeking redress.

The media’s role as the fourth estate within the democratic system is to ensure transparency, accountability, and checks and balances. It is not only the watchdog of executive, legislative, and judicial actions, but also a platform for citizens to question government decisions and policies. Thus, the media's ability to question the activities of bodies like CAAN should be safeguarded, especially when matters of public safety and accountability are at stake. If CAAN has any objection to the news content, it should approach Press Council Nepal and other regulatory bodies. 

It is essential to recognize that the editorial discretion for finalizing content rests with the editor. Moreover, it’s noteworthy that not only Annapurna Post but also other prominent national and international media outlets, including the BBC, have reported on the adverse impact experienced by citizens living in remote regions of Nepal due to CAAN’s directives. Regulatory agencies must recognize the role of the media in upholding democratic values, promoting accountability, and fostering public discourse. 

To maintain a delicate equilibrium between regulatory authority and press freedom, open communication, adherence to democratic norms, and a commitment to transparency are essential. In a thriving democracy, the actions of regulatory bodies should withstand public scrutiny without suppressing the media’s right to question and criticize. It is through such respectful engagement that Nepal can uphold democratic principles.

When a student passes a certain exam (with or without flying colors), that’s something worth celebrating. That means her/his hard work paid off despite all oddities like a perennial struggle to pay soaring tuition fees, having to juggle between studies and work (in case of plus-two and higher studies) or having to wait perennially for the family to send some money and political disturbances that affect the academic calendar more often than not.

Frankly speaking, a government, especially in countries reeling under the collective impact of poor governance, corruption, the rule by law, ever-rising inflation, political instability, soaring tuition fees and the like has precious little to do with individual success. On the contrary, the government acts as an overpowering force pushing the student from the classroom into dirty, difficult and dangerous job destinations abroad with the intent of feasting on hard-earned remittance. 

When a student fails, our society looks down upon the individual holding the latter solely responsible for the failure. Overnight, the person becomes ‘unsociable’ of sorts in circles of kith and kin.
For our society, this failure is a personal problem or a family problem at most. But the setback gives the society some stuff to gossip about. Perhaps the student spent too much time on social media at the ‘expense’ of studies. It is possible that family members did not ‘keep a tab’ on the individual. Or perhaps the person is not that ‘bright’, after all. 

From individual failure, let’s jump into collective failure. 

The results of this year’s grade 12 exams were not a departure from the past. No Krambhangata took place. Out of 448,837 examinees, 51.91 percent passed whereas the rest could not make it, per the National Examination Board.

To borrow from NEB’s Sarkari Bhasa (governmentese), about a quarter—109,527—out of 448,837 examinees got ‘non-graded’ (NG) in English this year. This means they technically failed the exam with a score below 35 percent. 

For a country used to below-par performance on the part of all three organs of the state, this is nothing unusual, or is it? Unusual or not, let’s ponder over the recent below-par performance. 

Our emphasis on English is extraordinary. The whole nation seems to be learning English with a missionary zeal—at home, in schools, colleges, learning centers, in the company of friends and families and several other public fora. 

Apart from private and boarding schools mushrooming across the country, many community and government-run schools have switched to English as ‘the’ medium of instruction from the nursery level itself. So much so that many of the private schools do not even allow their students to communicate in non-English languages within their precincts. Perhaps the only language not taught in English in the classroom these days is Nepali. 

For an increasing number of Nepalis, English—broken or otherwise—is the preferred medium of communication. A good command of the international language is indeed a plus-point. 

Against this backdrop, Grade 12 results on the English front have come as a rude shock despite our Himalayan emphasis on the language, not to mention the pass rate of roughly 50 percent. Of course, a poor result won’t trigger the Education Minister’s resignation. Such things happen seven seas across, not here.  

But to take it solely as the failure of concerned students and/or their families will be far-fetched. 

It is the collective failure of our education system consisting of the government, teachers, students, parents and the society at large. This failure should be an eye-opener for all stakeholders. 

What elements are lacking in our teaching-learning activities—from the preschool to the university level—that lead to about 50 percent of the examinees failing the exams? How much time are English and other subject teachers spending in the classroom? Which teaching methods are they employing? What are the policy gaps at play and how to bridge them?

The government in general and the Education Ministry in particular should formulate—and, not to forget, implement—policies by discussing the matter with subject experts, curriculum developers, parents and teachers.  

Like many other words, ‘Parliament’ has more than one meaning. An assembly of a species of nocturnal birds of prey is one of them.  

‘Democracy’ has several strains the world over. But in a real democracy that does not run as per the whims and fancies of a ‘benevolent dictator’, two or one too many such figures, Parliament refers to one of the three organs of the state consisting of elected representatives, whose main task is to make laws. It is but natural for birds of a feather to flock together even at midnight and those populating our Parliament—one of the state organs—show such traits once in a while, not necessarily for the country and the people. Whether such an act is permissible or not, let the ‘Nepali lok’ decide. 

But no dictionary, legal or otherwise, has referred to words like ‘bedlam’, ‘chaos’, ‘anarchy’, ‘setting’  as synonyms of ‘Parliament’. 

In a democracy, the opposition bench has an important role in the Parliament. A strong opposition can do so much to make the government accountable, given that even in democracies that are not under tinpot dictators the executive shows tyrannical tendencies because of its right to exercise legitimate authority or violence over a given territory. 

The Parliament should belong to the opposition in the larger interest of the country and democracy. 

This does not mean, though, that the opposition should not play by the rules. In its conduct within the Parliament and outside, the opposition, as a vanguard of the democratic system, should also uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Its failure to do so will give the government a carte blanche to trample on the principles of separation of powers as well as checks and balances, and turn democracy into ‘demoncracy’. 

For about a fortnight, the main opposition has effectively stalled the Parliament demanding the formation of a high-level parliamentary committee to investigate as to how a 100-kg gold consignment passed through a high-security Tribhuvan International Airport. It has demanded that the Home Minister and the Finance Minister also be brought under the purview of the investigation, reasoning that the Central Investigation Bureau under Nepal Police may not have the wherewithal to grill the sitting ministers. Opposition parties like the Rastriya Swatantra Party and Rastriya Prajatantra Party have also stood in favor of a high-level probe committee. Have they thought about the possible impact of their stance on the morale of the law enforcement? 

On its part, the government has asked that the CIB be given about a month for a credible probe into the case. With both the right and the left flank toughening their respective stances, the House has become a battleground of sorts and the Speaker has not been able to make peace. 

RSP and RPP have made one more point worth pondering over. They have accused the top brass of the three major parties of opting for a ‘setting’, a comfortable arrangement for opening and shutting the House at will.  

It is clear that the powerful troika cannot hold the sovereign body hostage forever. While a free and fair probe into the quintal-heavy gold cargo is important, the Parliament has a number of other important issues to deal with. Throughout the country, rain-induced disasters have wreaked havoc while troubles are brewing in the neighborhood and beyond. They all will have a huge bearing on an ill-governed and instability-plagued country. 

Both the government and the opposition must give up their my way or highway attitude. The Speaker should have read the riot act in time. Still, who else can act as a peacemaker and end this standoff if not him?