Submit your Article

A couple of days ago, Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire made the headlines.  His remarks that Nepal’s journalists are for sale created some stir in the gradually calming waters of Nepal’s fourth estate. If getting media publicity was his intent, he should pat himself on his back.   Interestingly, the Speaker’s ‘quotable quote’ came during his meeting with a delegation from the Federation of Nepali Journalists that had gone all the way to the Parliament Secretariat last Friday to meet him.  The harsh remarks coming from Speaker Ghimire during a courtesy call perhaps show how disenchanted he is with the independent media.  Had it not been for ‘up for sale remarks’, the free media could have thanked itself, at least, for making the helmsman of one of the three organs of the state uncomfortable. The lion’s share of the credit would surely have gone to the FNJ. What a proud moment that would have been! Lambasting the remarks, FNJ demanded that the Speaker either substantiate the allegation or apologize for such irresponsible comments.  With no word coming from the Speaker since then, the chapter remains pretty open.  The Speaker is neither the only high-profile figure to attack the media, nor he will be the last. Not so long ago, it was on the cross-hairs of an up-and-coming politician. Before him too, many politicians have spared no opportunity to target the media.    Whenever such attacks come from vantage points, the independent media faces increased hostilities on social media and much beyond, putting media houses and journalists associated with them at heightened risks. The media has seen it all, in Nepal and beyond.    While the Speaker should have been more specific instead of coming up with a generalized remark against the entire fraternity, his remarks should prompt some soul-searching.  How effective has the FNJ been when it comes to playing the role of the umbrella organization of journalists? What can it do to raise genuine concerns of journalists related to their safety, security and livelihoods more powerfully? Have its office-bearers indeed been playing apolitical roles, snapping their umbilical cords with political parties of different hues and shades? Introspection makes more sense at a time when the free press is facing increased threats in the region and much beyond, from the state and non-state actors enjoying the support of the government, in many cases.  Soul-searching should not end there, though. High officials like the Speaker have it in their powers to make the state more accountable to the public. As the permanent opposition, the free media can play a crucial role in this, especially in times of soaring inflation and plummeting faith in the state.  Some management Guru has rightly said: If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. 

What is the main task of a parliament? Here, we are not talking about an assembly of some nocturnal creatures. We are talking about an organ of the state consisting of elected representatives of the people. We are talking about a sovereign body that represents the will of the people expressed through adult franchise. Worldwide, parliaments worth their names do one major thing. They make laws. But Nepal’s parliament is emerging as an exception. For years, a chronic disease has been ailing the parliament, preventing it from functioning properly. Crucial Bills getting nowhere attest to this sorry state of affairs. The Truth and Reconciliation Bill is a case in point and so is the Anti-money Laundering Bill. The failure to get the TRC Bill through the parliament is tantamount to denying justice for the victims of the decade-long insurgency. It does not enhance Nepal’s image in international fora like the United Nations. There is another cause for alarm also. Recent reports suggest that Nepal faces graylisting for failing to introduce and enforce laws against money-laundering. At a time when the national economy is not in the pink of health, the government should have presented this crucial Bill without further delay as graylisting will hit Nepal’s domestic and international business transactions hard. The presidential election, the upcoming vice-presidential vote, the vote of confidence and the ongoing dispute over the opposition party have consumed much of our lawmakers’ energies. It is the responsibility of a government to give business to the parliament. The government should wake up to this responsibility and work in close coordination with political parties across the aisle for the passage of crucial Bills and a smooth functioning of the parliament. Otherwise, there are chances of a relapse into the Ordinance Raaj where governments used to rule through ordinances after failing to have their way in the parliament. This time, chances are that such a rule may not be a smooth sailing, given the international outcry against TRC Bill and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. The government and the parliament should wake up and act before it’s too late.  

The Constitution of Nepal has envisaged the President as the symbol of national unity, the defender and protector of national unity. But have the holders of the highest office been able to live up to these provisions? Some serious soul-searching has become necessary, in light of the fact that the two Presidents have courted their share of controversies, fair or otherwise. While they had a golden opportunity to preside over a country transitioning from a unitary system to federalism by becoming the protector and the defender of the Charter and a true symbol of national unity, they faced charges of failing to rise above partisan interests and even intruding into the domain of the executive and the legislative. This does not mean that the first citizen of the country should keep mum even when the executive, powered by a majority in the parliament, tramples on civil liberties and attacks the very tenets of democracy. The institution should not only play by the rules, but should also be seen as doing the same, to retain public faith in the new system. There are ample examples from the neighborhood and beyond of political figures rising above petty interests and steering a country in transition. So, the argument that a political figure cannot be a true symbol of national unity cannot be entirely true, to say the least. The onus is on the third President to learn lessons from the predecessors and best practices in the neighborhood and much beyond. Only by rising above petty interests and adhering to the Charter in its letter and spirit can the head of state earn moral authority to make the executive and the legislature stay within their respective bounds. Only by staying away from controversies can the institution transform into a symbol of national unity. This is especially important at a time when certain forces are yearning for olden days and olden days. Their voices will only get stronger if the political system of the day fails to deliver. As the guardian of the Constitution and the country, the President should be able to instill faith in the new system of governance, especially at a time when it is at its lowest lows. The onus is on the President of Nepal to do no wrong, for the sake of the country, the people and the longevity of the system.

A close neighbor and a very good friend of Nepal, India is currently holding the G20 Summit featuring global and regional powers like the US, China, India, the United Kingdom, South Africa and France. This event points at the emergence of India as a force to reckon with in a comity of nations, though the presidency of G20, representing around 85 percent of the global GDP, over 75 percent of the global trade, and about two-thirds of the world population, is part of a rotating arrangement. Remarkably, the summit comes at a time of heightened international tensions, marked by the Russia-Ukraine war, worsening relations between the US and China, India and China, among others. In such a forum, war of words between the countries that otherwise do not see eye to eye is but natural. Such exchanges surely have much more than entertainment value, though. The exchanges happening just across the border offer us a golden opportunity to observe a fast-changing world and its evolving power equations from a vantage point, and ask ourselves as to what threats and opportunities await us when the world seems to be at the cusp of a Cold War 2.0. Amid signs of winds of change sweeping the world yet again, it will also be worthwhile to have a brief look into Nepal’s contemporary history marked by some epoch-making changes. Political transformations in Nepal have always coincided with important changes in the international order, whether it’s in the 1950s, the 1990s or the early-to-mid-2000s. But let’s not see these events just as tornados sweeping the world making a landfall in Nepal. Successive generations of Nepalis have aspired for ideals like democracy, human rights and dignity, rule of law, a better future and a prosperous Nepal. These changes are reflections of Nepali aspirations, though it will be naive to separate Nepali consciousness from global consciousness and undermine the power of global waves of change. As the world is no longer a collection of isolated isles, geopolitics and geostrategy will surely have a more profound bearing, especially on small, medium-sized and instability-plagued countries like Nepal. What should worry our rulers, though, is that Nepal and the Nepalis have not arrived, as yet, despite political movements. Worryingly, recent years have seen the global push and pull factors in full play, threatening to dislodge Nepal, a country located between two emerging giants, from its coveted position of avowed neutrality. If the past is any guide, rulers’ tilt toward one or the other camp has ended up further weakening national sovereignty. Events like the G20 should inspire our rulers to negotiate turbulent waters of international diplomacy with extreme caution.