Political Commentary
By P.R. Pradhan
What is the “offensive move” that has become clear from the present drama staged by the political actors!
The Supreme Court by curtailing the prerogatives of a prime minister for dissolving the House of Representatives and urging for a fresh mandate of the people had given the verdict for restoration of the House along with an order to assign Sher Bahadur Deuba as the PM at the given deadline.
K.P. Sharma Oli, the outgoing prime minister, had defined the verdict as the “court setting”.
When the Court gave such an odd verdict, those who were against Oli and in favour of an alliance government backing foreign interests, became happy and apprised the judges’ decision.
The verdict was influenced by a “bhagbanda” politics, which was exposed after the appointment of Gajendra Bahadur Hamal, brother-in-law of chief justice Cholendra Sumsher Rana as the powerful minister.
The senior leaders of the alliance partners – Pushpakamal Dahal Prachanda, Madhav Nepal, Upendra Yadav, Baburam Bhattarai and others didn’t oppose Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba’s decision to assign Hamal, a non-MP, as the minister.
Reports state that CJ Rana had demanded two ministerial posts against rewarding the Deuba led alliance. These reports were exposed by the alliance partners betraying Rana.
In a democracy, separation of power is highly meaningful. Even during alleged to be the autocratic Panchayat System, the then chief executives, the Kings, never intervened in the court affairs. The history of the SC recalls that many court verdicts were against the Kings’ decision but the kings had always respected the court decisions.
On the other hand, the court never came into controversy. The court verdicts were considered to be impartial and the court was performing on an independent basis.
Today, the judges are performing anarchism and the court has become the venue of politics as most of the judges have been rewarded on the basis of their political beliefs.
The bureaucracy has become vulnerable as officials are getting the opportunity on the basis of their political beliefs and also on the basis of their monitory contribution to the political leaders. An odd system of changing the ambassadors and administrators along with a change in the government has been established in Nepal.
One cannot deny that during the kings’ days, only those dignified personalities could get the chance to become the ambassador and the government secretary. Even, there was a high prestige of a chief district officer. It is shameful to mention that the ambassadorial post has become the place to reward one’s mother-in-law, sister-in-law, cousin brother of the political leaders. Otherwise, the post is rewarded on the basis of donations offered to the political leaders.
In conclusion, the system has already been collapsed and political leaders have already been exposed. We saw K.P. Sharma Oli’s anarchism and now we are seeing Sher Bahadur Deuba and the gang of five’s anarchism. The country and the people achieved nothing.
Login to add a comment