Different political parties have the agenda of the directly elected executive president or the prime minister. Even the Rastriya Prajatantra Party has adopted the agenda of a directly elected prime minister. Some other political analysts have also remarked on practising the idea of the directly elected president or the prime minister. Indeed, it sounds good to hear that the directly elected executive chief would ensure political stability and at least for five years the government can function without hurdles. However, the other part of the directly elected executive chief looks dark, especially, in Nepal like tiny country geopolitically located between the two giant countries, India and China. Moreover, India is involved in micromanagement in Nepal and we are experiencing a wide range of interventions in all sectors. Just recently, India, putting pressure on Prime Minister Pushpakamal Dahal and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, imposed a decision to spend on 200 million rupees worth of projects without the approval of the Nepal government. This is an intention of the Indians to manipulate the Nepali society under the influence of money. Such an act is against the sovereignty and independence of a country. Unfortunately, all the political parties remained silent against such an anti-national decision of the government. Every time, when the new government comes, it is compelled to reward India with key hydropower projects and Nepali rivers. There is the House of Representatives, and also the opposition parties, but in such objectionable cases, the members remain silent.
Even when there is an executive prime minister elected by Parliament, we are experiencing visible intervention from India. If there is a directly elected executive chief, India doesn’t need to please the leaders of the opposition parties and obtain consent from them, rather, by influencing one executive chief, can fulfill its mission. In this regard, a directly elected executive chief for a Nepal-like country is dangerous.
Moreover, viewing the global scenario, we can assume that one directly elected executive chief can also be a dictator and perform anarchism to prolong his tenure. We should not undermine this threat coming in the name of democracy and free and fair elections.
We believe a parliamentary system with checks and balances on the government is appropriate for a Nepal-like country. Of course, to avoid the horse-trading and domination of small parties in the government in the name of coalition culture, we need to change the present election system. Also, we can develop a provision restricting the members of Parliament from becoming ministers.
Login to add a comment