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.