A look at Nepal’s speakers: power, pressure and the struggle for neutrality.
The struggle for neutrality, pressure, and power among Nepal's speakers are examined. Speakers have attempted to balance allegations of executive influence, obstruction, and partisan pressure within parliament in a long political history. A long-standing custom in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom requires newly elected Speakers to be escorted to the Speaker's chair by fellow MPs in a symbolic act that is frequently referred to as a ceremonial "drag" to the office. The practice appears unusual at first glance.
Nevertheless, it is rooted in the office's historical role and risks. Parliament.uk claims that the Speaker's responsibility to convey the opinions of the Commons to the monarch is the origin of this custom. In the past, the Speaker's early death could occur if the monarch disagreed with the message being delivered. Therefore, accepting the position required some gentle persuasion from previous Speakers.
As a result, the contemporary custom of carrying the Speaker to the chair serves as a symbolic reminder of that historical risk. When elected, the Speaker of the House of Commons in Britain is expected to remain impartial and not support either the government or the opposition. The speaker is widely regarded as the House's guardian, tasked with resolving conflicts between a powerful executive and an active opposition while maintaining neutrality and upholding parliamentary rules. Speakers in Nepal, on the other hand, have repeatedly been criticized for failing to maintain neutrality ever since democracy was restored in 1990.
Speaker DP Aryal, who was elected by the Rastriya Swatantra Party and received nearly a two-thirds majority in the March elections, has recently been the subject of concerns from lawmakers from the opposition in the House of Representatives. Opposition parties have alleged that Aryal favors the government. Similar charges were leveled against earlier speakers. Demanding that Prime Minister Balendra Shah respond to their questions, the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, Nepali Communist Party, Shram Sanskriti Party, and Rastriya Prajatantra Party jointly obstructed the proceedings. On May 31, Shah stated in the House that not only has India encroached on Nepali territory, but also that Nepal has encroached on Indian territory. This led to the obstruction.
The opposition parties repeatedly blocked the proceedings and demanded clarification. In the past, opposition parties had also asked the prime minister to answer questions about the programs and policies of the government. Tensions increased further after Shah made additional controversial remarks during a parliamentary response session. MPs from the opposition claimed that the Speaker's handling of the situation was biased in favor of the ruling party. Speakers are typically chosen by the coalition or party in power in Nepal's parliamentary system. However, when they take up the position of Speaker, it is expected of them to put aside partisan concerns and act as impartial custodians of the House.
Daman Nath Dhungana, Nepal's
first Speaker, set the tone for parliamentary procedure following the People's
Movement of 1990. In 1991, the Nepali Congress won a majority and established a
one-party government. Dhungana, a lawyer, was supported by both the ruling
party and the opposition when he was elected Speaker. During his time in
office, the idea that the government belongs to the ruling party and that
parliament represents everyone, especially the opposition, was established.
Parliamentary affairs journalist and writer Hari Bahadur Thapa said Dhungana
played a crucial role in institutionalising parliamentary democracy in Nepal.
Thapa stated, "He ensured that opposition voices were heard in parliament." Dhungana's strategy, on the other hand, caused friction with the Nepali Congress, which was in charge, because he frequently tolerated strong opposition criticism within the House. Thapa stated, "He gave the opposition enough space, which established parliament as a place for both the government and opposition voices." "But the ruling party was irritated by this." As he resisted executive pressure during parliamentary proceedings, his relationship with Girija Prasad Koirala, who was serving as prime minister at the time, became strained. At the time, parliament was frequently disrupted by the UML, which was emerging as a powerful opposition force. In February 1991, it demanded that the Tanakpur agreement be suspended and obstructed proceedings for seven hours. Dhungana was able to handle numerous disturbances without limiting opposition speech. Thapa recalled, "He avoided suppressing dissent and allowed opposition MPs to speak freely."
"He was even pressured into considering resignation after Congress leaders accused him of favoring the opposition." Birodh Khatiwada, a member of the opposition at the time, was one of those who frequently challenged the government in parliament. Despite harsh criticism, Dhungana permitted him and others to continue speaking. Thapa stated, "Although Dhungana was elected Speaker with the support of the Congress, he neither carried the political arrogance of the party nor ignored the opposition's more extreme tactics." He proceeded with moderation. The UML was very revolutionary at the time, and almost every debate in parliament between the government and the opposition turned into a fight. He handled those disagreements well." Thapa stated that Dhungana permitted the people's voices to be heard by providing ample opportunities for the opposition to speak in the House. He stated,
"The Speaker managed the situation skillfully, and then Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala frequently sought to exert pressure inside parliament." Dhungana tried to manage disagreements between the ruling party and the opposition through dialogue and coordination, even when they were intense. Thapa claims that instead of simply issuing a notice to adjourn parliament, he made every effort to keep the House functioning. From June 23, 1991 to October 1, 1994, he was in charge. On November 17, 2024, he passed away. From December 18, 1994 to March 23, 1999, Ramchandra Paudel was Speaker. During his time in office, parliamentary impasses, protests, and disruptions were frequent. Observers claim that the parliament appeared increasingly leaning toward the executive during this time.
According to Thapa, Paudel was of the opinion that the minority should not overturn the decisions of the majority. UML, the opposition, strongly opposed this strategy and even filed a motion accusing him of misconduct, which was ultimately rejected. During the adoption of the Local Self-Governance Act in October 1998, parliament witnessed severe chaos, including the breaking of microphones and chairs. Thapa stated that "Parliament visibly reflected executive dominance during this period." On March 23, 1999, Congress leader Taranaath Ranabhat resigned as Minister for Law to become Speaker. Through cross-party consultation, he attempted to maintain equilibrium. However, during the winter session of 2000, the CPN-UML obstructed parliament for 57 days to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala. This occurred during the Lauda Air leasing controversy.
The Speaker had difficulty breaking the
prolonged impasse. Thapa stated, "He attempted to hear both sides, but
failed to end the obstruction in the Lauda case." Parliament was disbanded
during King Gyanendra's direct rule in 2005, but it was reestablished following
the People's Movement and peace process in 2006. In 2006, senior constitutional
lawyer Subas Chandra Nembang became Speaker of the Interim Legislature. He is
widely considered to be one of the most admired speakers in Nepal. Nembang was
instrumental in facilitating the Maoists' transition from armed conflict to
mainstream politics and the incorporation of multiple parties into
parliamentary procedure. Manohar Prasad Bhattarai, a former general secretary
of the Parliament, stated that Nembang had exceptional coordination skills.
Bhattarai stated, "He worked with Maoists, Congress, UML, and
Madhesh-based parties with equal balance." Then Maoist leader Onsari
Gharti, who later became Speaker herself, said Nembang prioritised dialogue.
He recognized the Speaker's office's status. He was able to restore order to the House as a whole whenever tensions between the government and the opposition rose. He never considered the Speaker's chair to be an authoritative position. She stated, "He preferred to facilitate dialogue and establish consensus." "He took the initiative to engage party leaders whenever disagreements arose." The journalist Thapa claims that Nembang used his extensive parliamentary experience to cultivate a House culture of dialogue and consensus.
He was Speaker of Nepal for the longest time. However, critics contend that he was sometimes overly accommodating when drafting the constitution, particularly when Madhesh-based parties protested and boycotted sessions. According to some Madhesh leaders, their objections were not adequately addressed in the constitution's final stages. When Madhesh-based parties disagreed with key provisions of the proposed constitution, Laxman Lal Karna, a former member of the Sadbhavana Party's Constituent Assembly, stated that Nembang appeared to be influenced by the Congress, the UML, and the Maoists. Before, Nembang came across as humble and objective.
https://www.effectivecpmnetwork.com/gr1hdw2ws?key=0b7c754200d6c5cdacfb68d29605121aatOptions = { 'key' : '849143d82d9b49fff627a11a3ed1a8f5', 'format' : 'iframe', 'height' : 50, 'width' : 320, 'params' : {} };
Comments
Post a Comment