We are at it again. Having been asked to take reprieve of political change and concentrate on development for prosperity, the execution or management phase of the new Nepali republic is being given silent doses of expectations for yet another momentous change. As it is, the constitution was being sold for its flexibility in any case. So, when quarters casually float the propensity of a presidential system of government, it shouldn’t have caught us with surprise. The Maoists in the new Communist Party of Nepal had been, after all, advocating the presidential system of government (akin to the U.S.) system until what emerged was a prime ministerial one. And the UML section had often voiced a preference for the French type system of presidential government. Regardless, what emerged was a parliamentary system to allow the Nepali Congress it compromise it seems. Now that the two thoughts have combined to yield an unprecedented two thirds in parliament, it should have seemed inevitable that the constitutional change that this would pave the way for can allow the political climate to heat enough for the communists to claim a constitution that is genuinely their patent, the presidential one. Of course, the next phase of political change would have to do with either of the two systems. This is dialectic materialism at work.
So the reprieve is not worth a sigh of relief. We must have change for change since we cannot blame ourselves for what is so blatantly unproductively induced. Not that these dangled prospects are a certainty as yet. Already, reprimands and denials have ensued negating the prospects of change in favor of a period of stability and productivity, of execution in the post- crisis period that denied the country much promised progress after the drafting and implementation of the constitution. Since we cannot in any case blame ourselves for the lack of performance, we must have something else to blame. It will still be the constitution, the same constitution that once again was sold to us as the best in the world. We cannot say that federalism is proving beyond our affordability and that the republic and secular provisions are proving difficult to own. So we must blame parliament and the election process for the incompetence and seek solace in alternatives. That is, after all that has brought us to this stage. No wonder Marx is right. Change yields to change. This is thesis, synthesis, antitheses and all that; communism at work. That is what the doctrine says. Who’s to deny the Bible.
Recall, however, that Girija Koirala who so conveniently became de facto head of state by so conveniently suspending the monarchy and, by doing so, arbitrarily suspending the constitution and scrapping it altogether, was not afforded the illusive presidency. It is time we must analyze why these historical prerogatives slipped through his fingers. Recall also how this much coveted presidential seat was restrained to Prachanda’s election posters soon after. Somehow one is led to suspect that calculations of medical predictions functioned with one and the art of compromise dominated the other. Now it seems any of the two or something else will cheat these historical ambitions. For the moment, the Nepali Congress is scoring systemic points. Yes, the two dominant parties forgot parliamentarian norms once again. They forgot the sharing inclusiveness of accommodating the opposition in elected parliamentarian office. The Congress holds no seat but the opposition bench in parliament. Managing this system is illusive. It is no system, It is ad hocism.