--By Achyut Wagle
In the run-up to the presentation of the budget for FY 2013/14, the differences between the 'election government' and the Four Party High-level Mechanism (FPHM) which installed this government came to the fore, more manifested than ever before. It is for the first time that differences were such glaringly public, such that the constituents of the FPHM indulged in the criticism of the government for 'not addressing' their though varying interests through budget. Or, for making a political budget by the 'apolitical' government.
The FPHM doesn't have constitutional mandate to directly dictate on hows and whats in the functioning of the government. But it always has had all those intents of acting as extra-constitutional superpower to influence the government decisions, almost in every agenda possible; as it did in the last minutes of budget preparations on 14th July. The top hats of the FPHM met the Chairman of the Council of Ministers (read care taker Prime minister) Khil Raj Regmi on the day to warn him not to introduce any 'new' programmes through the proposed budget. The Mechanism also put its weight through President Dr Ram Baran Yadav to admonish the government in the same line. Then came the news, Dr Yadav 'reminded' Chairman Regmi of his limitations as the head of essentially an 'election government'. In fact, this too was an unconstitutional exercise on the part of the 'ceremonial' President.
These maneuverings caused the last minute amputation of several propositions the budget had planned to announce. And, more interestingly, there were some additions like doubling of allocation to the 'Siwalik Conservation Programme' and it was catapulted to the 'project of national pride' from a generic one, clearly at the insistence of the President himself. These were clear indications that both the FPHM and the President didn't in fact want the government to act in politically neutral fashion but serve their petty interests the way they wanted, contrary to the very spirit of the President's last minute admonition. No sooner the budget was made public, leaders representing these four parties — UCPN (Maoists), Nepali Congress, CPN-UML and the Madheshi Front—criticised the government by picking some petty political points as the weakness of the budget.
This sort of undue shooting space for extra-constitutional activities to the president or FPHM is however provided by the nothing but the spinelessness of the government itself. Even in the budget episode, like in many other instances, the government couldn't assert that its priority was not to placate the political leaders with conflicting interests but to address to precarious economic situation that the country is unambiguously heading to. For this reason, the budget failed to deliver a desired impact, although it was claimed to be a full-fledged one. After peace-meals and adhocism in presenting national budget for exactly half a decade now, this budget was naturally expected to be a life-saver for the dying economy.
The budget is just one of many examples of national priorities being trapped between the patronising behaviour of the FPHM and perennial confusion in the government. The government's lack of assertion and tendency of looking at the face of the leaders of FPHM before taking any decision have had their ramifications in the entire political course of the country. This has fueled the extra-constitutional ambitions of the FPHM. This indeed has eroded the credibility and neutrality that are expected from the 'election government'.
Therefore, government has failed to initiate a meaningful dialogue with the political parties threatening to boycott the Constituent Assembly (CA) polls proposed for November 19, this year. Even for the parties willing to sit for dialogue, the government's facelessness has doubled the complications. The FPHM has no constitutional validity to fulfill their demands if they chose to negotiate with it. Simply because, FPHM is not the government. And, if they wanted to talk with the government, it is not exhibiting any political guts and commitment to answer their concerns of purely political nature.
The FPHM is marred by a hegemony that the Regmi government was its pet progeny and thus always acted as an obedient offspring. This has made the government to a large extent non-functional where it was needed to be pro-active, and, at times just to prove its legal existence becomes wrongly assertive where such assertion was not at all warranted. In particular case of the new budget, it was high-handed irrational act of the Mechanism to prevent the government from introducing new and constructive programmes through the budget. The political bosses in the mechanism seemed apprehensive about the government introducing a few of innovative programmes as such programmes would indirectly make the political forces more unpopular, in light of the comparative analysis of several of past budgets with the present one.
The warnings by the FPHM and the President not to introduce new programmes made double-pronged mistakes. First, the country lost an important opportunity of spatially addressing the engrossing and immediate economic problems nagging the country, namely low GDP growth, devouring trade deficit and spiraling prices ever up. Second, in the event of elections not taking place in November, the suspicion that the Kathmandu high circles hold so close to their chest, another entire year would go in vain without making any mark of growth and development due to programmatic flaws in the current patch worked budget.
The main issue here is not how the government and the FPHM are acting in any particular issues like the budget or political talks, but the implications of the new cracks that are widening in Nepal's political boat that is already in rough waters of transition. The distance between the the government and FPHM is bound to grow faster than anybody's imagination. The prime reason of all is that, if the very recent conclusions of Kathmandu power corridors are to be believed, the November 19 polls are all set to be rescheduled for April, 2014, triggering a blatant blame game between these two for the failure to meet two deadlines of June and then November. The firing lines on both sides are just ready. 'The government didn't do enough to make the polls happen', the FPHM would say and the government would have a ready retort, ' The political parties in FPHM didn't help the government to create a suitable political climate.'
The end of honeymoon of two strange bedfellows—Khil Raj Regmi and UCPN (Maoist) Chairman Puspa Kamal Dahal —is likely to create some ripples in Nepali politics. This can push to the government to a situation of taking decisions more independently, should it gather guts for it. It can also create a much needed climate for dialogue with the political parties out of FPHM and at present opposing the November polls. On the other hand, the non-cooperation of FPHM to the Regmi government can render the the latter fully dysfunctional in the event it failed to carry-out its constitutional duties and assert as the government incumbent.
One thing that has become almost sure is that the polls in November are not going to take place as the political discourse has already diverted to exploring constitutional remedy in the event of such a failure. What happens if the polls are not held on the stipulated date? The answer to this question is not easy one. The FPHM is already considering to replace the Regmi government if it couldn't hold the polls. And, the Regmi brigade naturally has its own batting plans since there is no constitutional provision to guide the next political course since the Presidential Decree on 'Removal of Difficulties' issued in the last April has only mandated this government to hold polls not later than mid-December this year. It is void beyond that point and another decree is required to fill in the constitutional void and guide the next course. If another similar Decree were to be introduced, the government automatically has the upper hand as it has to be processed through the existing Council of Ministers. And, the FPHM as it is has no constitutional means to remove this government, if in case it refuses to leave Singhadurbar. Whether the Regmi will have enough courage to stick to the government is though a different question.
The writer is former editor of Aarthik Abhiyan National Daily
