OPINION NO INSTITUTONALIZATION WITHOUT REFERENDUM Kathmandu, 23 Feb.: Any Nepali without any ax to grind can tell that the few but large political parties which have had a complete monopoly of power are the causes and the creators of the country’s prevailing political. Party leaders’ autocratic styles are to be blame for existing conditions which by the reckoning of some leaders in the “national political mainstream” are “the worst” since the 1951 democratic revolution, Trikal Vastavik writes in People’s Review.. Former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal puts the entire blame on the Pushpa Kamal Dahal-led faction of the Maoists. His party boss Jhala Nath Khanal, too, thinks the same. Nepali Congress chief Sushil Koirala is in complete agreement with the two CPN (UML) leaders. Rastriya Prajatantra Party president Pashupati Shumsher Rana endorses it. They all are one voice when condemning the Maoists but are silent whether they each have not contributed to the bizarre situation? Except for Rana’s party, all others have had a share in power at one time or the other since 2006. Rana, too, had his party licking its lips for a berth in the government, which the five prime ministers in the last seven years ignored. The key opposition parties’ lamentations are one-sided statements which are partially factual but which also deliberately but vainly shirk their own ignominious role. Laughable is also the claim that they contributed to the “main achievements of Jana Andolan” 2005-6, referring to the proclamation of Nepal as a secular, federal republic. Amid speculations that millions of Nepali people are not happy with the “achievements” that the larger parties lament, have not been “consolidated,” any honest chronicler will tell that it is the Maoists, among the political parties in Nepal, who deserve the virtually exclusive credit for the “three achievements gained from Jana Andolan.” The unalloyed fact is that the three elements thrust upon the Nepali body politic have stirred many emotions and sentiments, triggering speculations, disagreements and divisions. During no time of the movement seven years ago were the issues of a federal, secular republic been discussed. It was only after the democratically dissolved House of Representatives was revived and the Interim Constitution announced that the clauses to the effect were inserted and people were taken completely unawares. Many people were disturbed and disappointed. These issues have not been accorded due hearings in public debate because of the various forums and civil society units that function as sister organizations or hirelings of political parties and sponsoring agencies. Jana Morcha leader Chitra Bahadur K.C. has always opposed federal structure, more so one that is based on ethnicity. His powerful arguments have had strong followings. He is widely admired for speaking what the larger parties shy away from even countering him effectively. Kamal Thapa, leader of the pro-constitutional monarchist Rastriya Prajatantra Party, has weathered the initial condemnation, isolation and harassments by the larger parties, including the Maoists, the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML), for boldly daring to appeal for putting the key “achievements of Jana Andolan” 2005-6 to a national referendum. Today, he is hailed by independent thinking minds who may not necessarily agree with what he espouses. The consistency in his conviction, despite being hedged in so tortuously by self-styled “loktantrik” parties, is to be admired at least by default in that the other parties themselves are accusing one another of being inconsistent and unreliable. It would be stressing the obvious to say that the NC, the UML and, mostly, the Maoists have been the least consistent in what they promise and actually render. Power-grabbing is their prime occupation much to the public disenchantment, discrediting what they might otherwise have achieved. The protracted impasse in breaking the deadlock over the issue of constituting a “consensus” government is but only one of the numerous indicators. The gross misuse of power and position, in the name of a popular mandate that should have expired in 2010, is an outcome of unprincipled politics and improper governance. The spoils system shows the rot to the core. The terrifying trend travels across the country with impunity. Recruitments and appointments, investments and investigations, awards for contractual works and fellowships are divided among those in power. If there are some leftovers, it in those in the opposition with the tag of “major parties” that get to misappropriate what should have been public avenues with access for all eligible, without prejudice. It is totally wrong to appoint trophy men and women to positions paid for by the state. Appointing individuals on the basis of personal proximity or political ideology is a great injustice to domain experts who can serve better and seriously, whether they agree or not with the political philosophy prescribed by the party in power. The recent years have thrown all pretences in fair decisions in such matters. Differing views are crushed if possible; and are sidelined whenever the slightest of opportunity arises. The frequency of impunity is painfully and persistently predictable. The political degradation has eaten into the vitals of the promised system. Concerning rampant corruption, irregularities, price hike, bad governance and anti-people acts, Madhav Kumnar Nepal recently described the Baburam Bhattarai government as “the worst in the country’s history.” In the same breath, he reiterated that Bhattarai’s party boss Pushpa Kamal Dahal was a synonym for untruth and unreliability. Political sanction of the corrupt is another shameful feature of the “new Nepal.” Such being the prevailing practices, outrageous acts are unleashed left and right. For example, in whose interest is the vilification of Prithvi Narayan Shah the Great? Condemning the farmer for the growing of a fruit and yet priding in partaking of it should have been unethical but not to the elements who condemn or downgrade the Great King who enabled us to live as Nepalis in an independent, unified Nepal. Since 1951, Nepal has never had an orderly pluralistic democratic transition what with political parties in constant search for only ways to be propelled to power. None of the major parties are poll ready, not knowing how voters would rate them when they cast their ballots. This speaks of the quality of elections voters are in for, and hence their ugly wrangling in public over the formation of the next government. Long-lasting tide of negative impact is the result. The best way out of the existing mess is national referendum for feeling the pulse of the people directly and without mere claims and interpretations monopolized by parties that failed the Nepali people for seven long years. No democrat in word and deed would hesitate to take up the challenge of allowing the people to give their verdict on major issues. (The writer can be reached at: trikalvastavik[At]yahoo.com) nnnn