UPDATE NILAMBAR ACHARYA COMMITTEE MEET INCONCLUSIVE

MEET OF NILAMBAR ACHARYA CONSTITUTION DRAFTING CMMITTEE INCONCLUSIVE UPDATE

Kathmandu, 9 Jan.: A meeting of the main constitution drafting
headed by Nilambar Acharya was inconclusive for the second
time Monday after Maoists loyal to First Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya raised objections on themes on which agreement had been
reached before.
Baidya factions raised objections on the name of the lower house of the bicameral legislature and other themes.
‘Internal differences must be resolved,’ main opposition NC
Vice-chairman Ram Chandra Paudel said urging Maoists to resolve differences in the party before coming to committee meetings.
‘Preparations aren’t adequate Some more time may be required to resolve issues Differences erg on issues on which there was agreement,” Acharyal said after the meeting.
The Maoist faction objection for the second time prevented
agreement at the committee meeting.
nnnn

LOAD-SHEDDING TO BE INCREASED TO 14 HOURS

Kathmandu, 9 Jan. : Load-shedding may be increased for another three hours to 14 hour a day from the end of January
The 70MW Mid-Marshyangdhi Hydro Power, the country’s biggest, is being shut down for repairs for one month from 22 January, power authorities said.
Nnnn

UML STANDING COMMITTEE MEET STARTS

Kathmandu,7 Jan.: A UML standing committee meet started Monday in the capital.
The meeting will discuss agenda and preparations for a two-day
national advisory council from 4 February.
Nnnn


INTERVIEW IN THE KATHMANDU POST

DEUBA DEFENDS PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OPPOSED BY
MAOISTS

Three-time prime minister and senior leader of Nepali Congress (NC), Sher Bahadur Deuba is a veteran in Nepali politics with five decades of experience. In recent days, differences have surfaced between the NC and the Maoist party over the form of governance to be adopted in the new constitution as well as the peace process. Kamal Raj Sigdel and Gyanu Adhikari spoke with Deuba to get the NC’s perspective on current affairs, including the deal between NC and the Maoist party to give general amnesty for crimes committed during the insurgency. Excerpts:
Why is the NC afraid of an executive president?
NC is not afraid. There’s been dictatorship in Nepal since 1950. The revolution of 1970 brought multi-party dictatorship. Look at what king Mahendra did with that?
But surely you can’t compare Mahen-dra’s rule with a presidential system.
There’re dangers in it, as we’ve seen in many places. I’m not saying that a presidential system is bad, but there is a danger of dictatorship in it.
Does that mean that NC doesn’t want to see a directly elected president
in Nepal?
NC’s worry is that the government changes in the country every six months, creating instability. That’s not a good thing about the parliamentary system. But there’s no dictatorship. First, there was the Panchayat system, then there was king Gyanendra, and who knows what’ll happen tomorrow.
There’s another interpretation to NC’s move, which is that NC is against the presidential system because it is afraid of Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal being elected to the post.
Let’s not talk about an individual. Nepali Congress, ideologically, accepts the Westmi-nsterial system. Even when there is no king, there can be a constitutional president and parliament. That’s the system of our choice. We don’t see a reason to change this. Why would we change this because of a person? It’s not like we accepted the presidential system before and are rejecting it now. We’ve always stood for Westminsterial system. So how can you say that NC is afraid of an individual and therefore is rejecting the presidential system? This is a useless allegation.
So what’s your objection to a presidential system?
Both parliamentary and presidential systems have their good and bad qualities. In the presidential system, at least for four or five years, it gives stability. The president can work for the nation without much fear. Many people think it’s better than the government changing every six months. However, the president can
turn into a dictator. This has happened in many places in the word. In the parliamentary system there’s absolutely no possibility of a dictator being born. As far as instability is concerned, there can be a consensus on fundamental things like not interfering with the economic policy, bureaucracy, police, army or any other things.
Can there not be checks and balances to stop dictatorship in a presidential system?
There’s a danger that a dictator will be born despite checks and balances, and dictatorship has always been a problem in Nepal.
If you look at recent history post-1990, you must know that there’re lots of flaws in the parliamentary system. Nobody disagrees when we say that it made the country unstable.
I said the government was unstable, not the country. And I haven’t said that the parliamentary system makes the country unstable.
Even then, don’t unstable governments hurt the country, for example in development and the fight against poverty?
The government won’t be an obstacle for development because we are going to agree on the fundamentals. In any case, where’s the guarantee that everyone is going to support the elected president?
Surely, the president will have some kind of decision-making power.
There’s no chance that there’ll be a president with that kind of power.
Going back to Westminsterial system we adopted after 1990, did you see any flaws in the system?
There’s no system without flaws. There’s no perfect system. The parliamentary system is one with fewer bad qualities with zero chances of a dictatorship. Another thing is that a lot of things were accomplished after 1990. Miracles do not happen anywhere. If there was no insurgency we’d have accomplished a lot more. Look at all the development—roads and schools have been built in many places. We built a health post and a school in every VDC. It’s not that a presidential system will create miracles. It’s the same country, the same geography.
You became the prime minister three times. Didn’t you ever feel that if you had five years you’d have done something better?
The biggest need in Nepal is development and economic prosperity. It’s not that the same government staying in power for five or ten years is going to achieve that.
Going back to the form of government, UCPN(Maoist) says that it wants a directly elected president. NC says that it’s committed to the Westminsterial system since its birth. So where’s the meeting point going to be?
They have to come to the middle, that’s it.
Does that mean that NC won’t give up its stance so the Maoists will have to give up theirs?
They’ll also benefit from the Westminsterial system. Where’s the guarantee that Prachanda will win in the presidential system? It’s only a useless wish. He can become the prime minister in the Westminsterial system.
It appears that the Maoists are not willing to move the peace process ahead if the NC doesn’t agree to the presidential system.
That’s blackmailing. You can’t ask others to change their ideology for the peace process to move. This is a threat, basically saying that there won’t be peace until we agree with them. We were not scared even when the king imprisoned us, and we’re not going to be scared of threats like this. They have to convince the people.
Well, it seems neither the Maoists nor the NC is willing to budge from their stance. So can we let the people decide through a referendum?
How can we allow them to bring new condition that says there’ll be peace only when we agree to a presidential system? They shouldn’t add new conditions. The largest party should not operate by trying to scare people. We haven’t really thought about a referendum on this issue.
How do you see the peace process moving forward?
The seven-point agreement hasn’t been implemented. It should be implemented in the letter and spirit. Seized land should be returned, and the cantonments should be vacated.
We’ve heard that NC and the Maoists have mutually agreed to give general amnesty for crimes committed during the conflict.
This is an effort to use the South African model.
Actually, the victim had the right to grant amnesty in the South African model.
It’s the same thing. You have to understand this better.
The South African model has four phases — truth, mercy, peace and justice. The mercy part can come only after the truth. But right now, even before the truth has been uncovered, the parties are talking about amnesty.
We haven’t said that. There aren’t as many charges against the Army as people say there are. The human rights people who dug the Shivapuri forest alleging that the Army disappeared the people there, couldn’t find a single dead body there. The Maoists may have to face some problems with truth and reconciliation.
Actually, they’ve found some remains of human bodies there.
Where?
Apparently, the National Human Rights Commission hasn’t been able to release the report on it due to pressures.
Not true, they’re just rumours.
So what do you think should be done to address past wrongs?
Prachanda and I should take moral responsibility for the past wrongdoings. The Army also have not done any wrong deliberately. What could I have done? I was the one who started the talks, and they broke the talks and attacked in Dang. After that I started the state of emergency. I mobilised the Army only after it was attacked. But why would I kill or disappear anyone?
Did the king ask you to mobilise the Army?
They [the Maoists] asked for the Army to join the war by attacking the Army. The Army wanted to join the war. I only fulfilled the required process. Everyone voted in the parliament for the emergency. The insurgency shouldn’t have happened. It happened. What could we do? The country is bruised. It’s going to take time to heal.
A strong Truth and Reconciliation Commission ease the healing. Why are the parties against it?
We’ve come this far after the 12-point agreement. We can’t go after each other. A good quality in Nepalis is that they’re willing to forget. Perhaps that’s the best way.
nnnn