सोझै निर्बाचित प्रधानमन्त्री – यो कस्तो रहर! कसको रहर!

म सोसल मिडियामा त्यति सक्रिय छैन. हुन कोशिस गरे तर सफल भैन. फेसबुकमा मेरो उपस्थिति सुन्यप्राय छ भने त्वीतरमा आक्कल झुक्कल देखा पर्छु. त्यहि पनि यता आउदा बहसहरु देखे मुख्यतया संसदले चुन्ने प्रम हुनेकी जनताद्वारा सोझै चुनिएको कार्यकारी (प्रम/रास्ट्रपति) भन्ने बिसयमा. मुलुक अहिले जटिल तर केहि होलाकी भन्ने आस बोकेर गुज्रिरहेको परिप्रेय्क्षमा मैले पनि यो “डिबेट” लाइ आफ्नो बुझाइको दायरामा रही टिप्पणी गर्ने कोसिस गरेको छु. सुझाब को अपेक्षा सहित!!

धेरै पछि केहि लेख्ने कोशिश गरेको छु. मेरो आर्गुमेण्ट चाही “सोझै निर्बाचित प्रम हुदैन है!” भन्ने धारको छ. किन म त्यसो भनिरहेको छु त्यसको लागि तल हेर्नुहोला.

सोझै निर्बाचित प्रधानमन्त्री – यो कस्तो रहर! कसको रहर!  

राजीब दहाल

नेपालको नया संविधानको मस्यौदा आयो र त्यसमा सुझाब लिने काम पनि “सफलतापुर्बक” नै सम्पन्न भएको छ। पत्रीकाहरुमा छापिएको रिपोर्ट अनुसार निम्न तिन बुदामा जनताको धेरै सुझाब आएको छ: १. नेपाल हिन्दु रास्ट्र हुनुपर्ने, २. सिमासहितको संघियता को घोसणा गरेर संबिधान जारी हुनुपर्ने, ३. प्रत्यक्ष निर्बाचित सरकार प्रमुख/कार्यकारी प्रमुख हुनुपर्ने।

आज मैले तेश्रो बुदामा केहि टिप्पणि गर्ने जमर्को गरेको छु।

तेश्रो बुदा हो: “प्रत्यक्ष निर्बाचित सरकार प्रमुख/कार्यकारी प्रमुख”

प्रत्यक्ष निर्बाचित सरकार प्रमुख/कार्यकारी प्रमुख हुनुपर्ने वा नपर्ने भन्ने बारेमा बहस सुरु गर्नु अघि अहिलेको मस्यौदा को प्रावधान हेरौ। अहिलेको संबिधान मस्यौदा मा भाग ७ ले “संघिय कार्यपालिका” लाइ समेटेको छ। यस अन्तर्गत का प्रावधान हरु २०४७ को संबिधान वा अन्तरिम संबिधान २०६३ भन्दा खासै भिन्न छैनन्। जस अनुसार कार्यकारी अधिकार प्रधानमन्त्री सहितको मन्त्रिपरिषदमा निहित हुनेछ भने प्रतिनिधि सभामा बहुमत प्राप्त दलको नेतालाई रास्ट्रपति द्वारा प्रधानमन्त्री नियुक्त गरिनेछ।  यो पृष्टभूमि मा कतिपय जनताको र राजनीतिक पार्टीको माग चाही “जनता द्वारा शिधै चुनिएको व्यक्ति प्रधानमन्त्री हुनुपर्दछ” भन्ने छ। यस्तो तर्क गर्ने हरु भन्ने गर्छन सरकारले स्थायित्व पावोस भन्ने उनीहरुको चाहना हो र उनीहरुका अनुसार अहिलेको आवस्यकता यहि हो।

 

अब प्रश्न यो उठ्छ की के जनताद्वारा सिधै चुनिएको प्रधानमन्त्री/कार्यकारी प्रमुख (प्रम) ले सरकार र कार्यकारी लाइ स्थायित्व दिन सक्छ? के यो नेपालको राजनीतिक बिकृतिको “रामबाण” साबित होला त?

 

यो मुद्दामा प्रवेश गर्नुपुर्ब एकपटक बिकसित प्रजातान्त्रिक देशका चालचलन पनि हेरौ। संसारको सबैभन्दा ठुलो प्रजातान्त्रिक देश भारतमा लगभग ७० बर्ष बाट संसदले प्रधानमन्त्री चुन्ने ब्यबस्था छ। सोहि ब्यबस्था छिमेकी पाकिस्तान र बंगलादेशमा छ। अझै नजिकको छिमेकी र साउथ एसियाको कान्छो प्रजातन्त्र भएको देश भुटानमा पनि संसदमा बहुमत प्राप्त दलको नेतालाई राजाद्वारा प्रधानमन्त्री नियुक्त गर्ने प्रावधान छ। प्रजातन्त्रको जननी मानिएको बेलायत र युरोपका अन्य थुप्रै रास्ट्र जस्तै नर्वे, जर्मनी, इटाली आदिमा पनि “पार्लियामेन्ट्री डेमोक्रेसी” कै हाली मुहाली छ। र “वेस्टमिनिस्टर मोडेल” कै प्रजातान्त्रिक पद्धति अपनाइएको छ।

 

त्यस्तै विश्वमा सोझै जनता द्वारा चुनाबमा बिजयी गराएर कार्यकारिणी अधिकार बिजयी रास्ट्रपति वा सरकार प्रमुखलाई दिने देशहरु पनि छन्।  उल्लेखनीय नामहरु संसारको शक्तिशाली रास्ट्र संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका, केहि ल्याटिन अमेरिकी देशहरु जस्तै ब्राजिल, हाम्रा नजिकका देशहरु अफगानिस्तान, बर्मा र माल्दिभ्स आदि छन्।तर प्रजातन्त्रको अधिकतम बिकास भएको देशको उदाहरण लिने हो भने केवल अमेरिका मात्र यस्तो देश हो जहा जनताद्वारा प्रत्यक्ष निर्बाचित रास्ट्रपति वा सरकारप्रमुख चुनिने ब्यबस्था छ।  अन्य सबै बिकशित र विकासोन्मुख, आधुनिक राज्यहरुमा संसदद्वारा प्रधानमन्त्री/कार्यकारी प्रमुख चुनिने ब्यबस्था छ। कस्तो ब्यबस्था अपनाउने भन्ने बारेमा यो हाम्रो लागि एउटा “पोइण्टर” हुन सक्छ।

संसारका सबै देशका प्रजातन्त्रका सफलता र असफलता को अध्ययन गर्न ता साध्य छैन तर सके जतिको अध्ययन गर्ने हो भने के कुरामा एकमतता हुञ्छ भने कुनै पनि शाशन पद्धति दोष रहित हुन सक्दैन। छैन त्यस्तो ब्यबस्था संसार मै अहिले सम्म। त्यस्तो कुनै राजनीतिक बिचार छैन जसको “काउण्टर” नहोस। आधुनिक राजनीतिक शाश्त्रको बिकास गरेको श्रेय जाने “प्लेटो” का आफ्नै चेला “एरिस्टोटल” ले आफ्नै गुरुको बारेमा कडा टिप्पणी हरु गरेका थिए उसबेलामा। एउटामा गुण मात्रै देख्ने र अर्को मा अवगुण मात्रै देख्ने हो भने “मेरो गोरुको बार्है टक्का” भने सरह मात्रै हुनेछ।  तसर्थ कुन शासन पद्धति लाद्ने भनेर बिचार गर्दा के अहिलेको पद्धतिमा सुधार गर्न सकिदैन भन्नेमा पनि गहिरो ध्यान जानु आवस्यक छ। ल्याउन खोजेको नया पध्दतीमा अहिलेको भन्दा बढी दोषहरु ता छैनन् भनेर सोच्नु अझै बढी जरुरि छ।

अब यति भूमिका बाढी सकेपछि मूल प्रश्नमा छिरौ है।

के जनताद्वारा चुनिएको रास्ट्रप्रमुख चाही सधै “राम” नै हुनेहुन? कि कतै “दुर्योधन” र “दुषाशन” ले पो बाजी मार्नेहुन की? अनि यस्ता पछिल्ला प्रकृतिका आए भने तिनलाई तह लाउने सभा कतै “हस्तिनापुर” को झैँ हुने ता हैन जहा “द्रौपदी” सारी खोलिदा पनि “बिदुर” र “भिष्म” जस्ताले पनि केहि गर्न सकेका थिएनन्। स्थिरताको कामना गर्नेहरुले यस्तो प्रश्न पनि कहिलेकाही आफुले आफैलाई गर्नु जरुरि छ।

 

नेपालको अहिले सम्मको प्रजातन्त्रको अनुभब हेर्ने हो भने “संसदीय प्रजातन्त्र” ले नेपाललाई कुनै उप्प्लो तहमा त पुर्याउन सकेन। तर यसले प्रजातन्त्रको आडमा कसैको तानाशाह बन्ने चाहना थियो भने त्यसलाई कुनै हालतमा मलजल गरेन। प्रजातन्त्रमा कुनै गतिलो प्राप्ति नभए पनि, प्रजातन्त्रको “मिस-युज” गरेर देश र समाजलाई हानी गर्ने तत्वहरुले यो बुझे की प्रजातन्त्र को कभरमा यो सम्भब छैन। यसलाई थोरै भए पनि उपलब्धि नै मान्नुपर्छ।

अब हेरौ “जनताद्वारा सोझै चुनिने सरकार प्रमुख” ले ल्याउने चुनौतिहरु:

 

यस्तो कार्यकारी प्रमुखले स्थायित्व ल्याउछ भन्ने तर्क पेश गर्ने हरु यो कुरामा प्रस्ट छैनन् कि कसरि त्यस्तो कार्यकारी प्रमुख हुदैमा स्थायित्व आउछ भन्नु सम्भब छ।यदि कार्यकारी प्रमुख एक पार्टीको तर साम्सदहरु चाही अरु भिन्न भिन्न पार्टीका बिजयी हुने हो भने त्यस्तो प्रम लाइ कुनै काम गर्न नसक्ने अवस्था पनि आउन सक्छ।उसका कुनै पनि नितीहरु संसदले अनुमोदन नगर्दिने अवस्थाले कुसाशन मात्रै जन्माउदछ। सोझै चुनाबबाट प्रम चुन्ने व्यबस्थाको सबै भन्दा ठुलो कमजोरी र अत्यन्तै घातक कमजोरी नै यहि हो। राजनीतिक जानकारहरु पनि यो मान्दछन कि यस्तो व्यवस्थाले संसद र प्रधानमन्त्री बीच अनावस्यक “फ़्रिक्शन” बढाउदछ। एकले अर्कालाई काबुमा राख्ने खेल सुरु हुने र जुन कामका लागि यी व्यक्तिहरु निर्बाचित भएका हुन्, त्यस्तो बिसयमा यिनीहरुको ध्यान कम जाने सम्भावना हुन्छ। २०१४ को डिसेम्बरमा थाइल्याण्डमा यस्तै खालको प्रोपोजललाइ त्यहाको संबिधान बनाउने समितिले सोझै निर्बाचित सरकार प्रमुखले “समस्या जन्माउने डर” ले खारेज गरेको थियो भन्ने कुरा हाम्रो लागि उदाहरण हुनसक्छ।

 

उ चुनिएको पहिलो दिनदेखि नै “लेम-डक” हुने सम्भावना छ। अनि हामीले खोजेको प्रम ५ बर्ष “लेम-डक” हुने अवस्था आउने ब्यबस्था कसरी राम्रो हुन सक्छ? नेपालको गएको दुइवटा चुनाबको नतिजालाई हेर्ने हो भने यस्तो खालको चुनाबी नतिजा आउन सक्ने सम्भावना केवल कल्पनाका कुरा होइनन। संसदले कार्यकारी चुन्ने व्यवस्थाबाट सोझै प्रम चुन्ने ब्यबस्था गरेको इजरायलले ९ बर्ष (१९९२-२००१)मै निर्बाचन पद्धति लाइ परिबर्तन गर्न बाध्य भयो। अहिले इसरायलमा संसदले नै प्रम चुन्दछ। यो अर्को उदाहरण हो सोझै प्रम चुन्ने ब्यबस्था गलत भएको।

 

त्यस्तै त्यसरी बिजयी भएको प्रम चाही सर्बगुण सम्पन्न वा सबैभन्दा राम्रो नै हुन्छ भन्ने पनि कुनै ग्यारेण्टी छैन। “सोझै चुनिने कार्यकारी” का क्रिटिक हरु भन्छन, यस्तो चुनाबले त केवल “पपुलारिटी कन्टेस्ट” लाइ जन्माउछ। मान्छे योग्य छ छैन भन्दा पनि को धेरै “पपुलर” र चिनिएको छ समाजमा उ कार्यकारी बन्ने लगभग निश्चिन्त हुन्छ यस्तो चुनाबको पछि लाग्ने हो भने भन्ने उनीहरुको तर्क छ। अगर कुनै “सेलेब्रेटि”लाइ प्रम देख्ने चाहना हो भने चाही यो चुनाबी बाटो उत्तम हुनेछ।

 

कुन बाटो रोज्ने त?

अहिले एक प्रकारको प्रचार चलिरहेछ कि सोझै निर्बाचित प्रमको व्यवस्थाले स्थायित्व आउने, शक्तिशाली प्रम हुने, बिकासका काम द्रुतगतिमा हुने आदि इत्यादि। तर अन्य देशका अनुभबले यी प्रचारहरु सहि होइनन भन्ने देखाएको छ। यस्ता खालका मागहरुलाई बेलायत, भारत, जापान र थाइल्याण्ड मा अस्विकार गरिएको छ। र यी देशहरुमा संसदीय प्रजातन्त्र र संसदले प्रम चुन्ने व्यवस्थालाई नै मजबुत र सुधार गरिएको छ। हामीसग पनि यहि एउटै उपाय छ: जनताले संसद चुन्ने, संसदले प्रम चुन्ने र प्रमलाई देश, जनता र संसद्प्रति उत्तरदायी बनाउने। सुधार यहि ब्यबस्था भित्रै छ, र भित्रै खोजिनुपर्छ।

राजीब दहाल (@rajibdahal / rajib.dahal@gmail.com )

लेखक वकिल हुन्.

Advertisements

Nepal: (Un)Necessary – ‘doctrine of necessity’

My this article below is published in Telegraph Nepal today. You can read it from here:

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/views/2011-09-21/nepal:-unnecessary-doctrine-of-necessity.html

THE term ‘doctrine of necessity’ has found an unwarranted place in Nepalese legal development despite not having any acceptable legacy behind it. The doctrine itself has a very dubious purpose to serve and the outcome of application of this doctrine would be debated for a long time. The doctrine, in its simple understanding, is a validating tool for those illegal, extra-legal, and invalid administrative state actions and these actions get validity from one’s understanding of necessity, mostly based on his/their momentary understanding of what was the necessity of that time. Therefore, there would be divergence in views even among the legal luminaries. One’s view of what was necessary at a time can always be contested by other set of legal luminaries.

Therefore, in this article, my effort has been to make a jurisprudential fathoming of legacy that ‘doctrine of necessity’ inherits and to examine whether we have acted judiciously to patronize this doctrine in Nepalese legal development.

The doctrine helps to bestow legality on any extra-legal actions if such actions are found to be to restore legal orders and if, at the give point of time, the state machineries would have no alternative viable recourse available. Therefore, most often, the courts have given breath to this principle when constitutional validities of states are to be upheld even when such state actions sans constitutionally permitted limits.

The credit for giving birth to this principle goes initially to the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton (c.1210-1268), and later, justification of the doctrine has been advanced by another great authority, William Blackstone. The legal maxim that has been credited to Bracton goes like this: “……………that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity…………………”

The constitutional lawyers should be troubled in Nepal as the doctrine seems to be gaining unshakable ground to justify diverse extra-legal state actions. In a judgement delivered in April 2010, the Supreme Court of Nepal, in a matter relating to parliamentary hearings for appointment in constitutional bodies, had opined that all the articles of Interim Constitution of Nepal can be amended as per the doctrine of necessity except those relating to democratic republic, human rights and an independent judiciary. The reasoning though may sound to be a political victory for the supremacy of parliament; it comes with the imminent danger of having serious implications in the future.

Once again, the discourse on this doctrine has gained momentum since the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Nepal has invoked this principle in another verdict while upholding the extension of tenure of Constituent Assembly (CA). The court cited and applied the doctrine to uphold the Ninth Amendment of the Interim Constitution of Nepal. The court verdict has, therefore, upheld the extension of the tenure of the CA by three more months on May 28, 2011. The Supreme Court reasoned that the objective of CA was to draft and to promulgate a new constitution and to conclude the peace process and that has not been achieved yet. Therefore, the doctrine has to be applied to uphold the actions taken by CA when the twin tasks are yet to be performed, reasoned the Apex Court.

A brief overview to world history shows that the Chief Justice Mohammad Munir of Pakistan had invoked the doctrine to validate the actions of Governor General Ghulam Mohammad who had dismissed the Constituent Assembly and appointed a Council of Ministers in 1954. While putting breath in the doctrine in modern times, Justice Munir in Pakistan in 1954 relied on Bracton’s maxim ‘that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity’, and on the Roman law maxim urged by Jennings, ‘the well-being of the people is the supreme law’.

In countries like Nigeria and in Fiji, this doctrine were invoked and applied whenever the state had acted against the constitution. There were striking similarities in all these states at the time when the doctrine was invoked – dysfunctional parliamentary democracy. Therefore, this will inevitably leads us to the question – whether doctrine of necessity is a necessary doctrine when there is a breakdown of parliamentary democracy.

In the instant case, another immediate question that needs to ponder is how long the doctrine of necessity can save the functioning of CA or any such extra – legal actions of state actors in the future. Dealing with the issue vis – a – vis functioning of CA, what if, the CA fails to perform its functioning of promulgation of new constitution but based on this doctrine; it keeps on extending its term for another dozen times. By adopting this doctrine by highest judiciary of the country, we have placed ourselves in a very precarious situation where CA may not function as per the mandate given by people and the constitution but whatever it does going outside the Constitution would be held constitutional. Then, what incentives CA members would have even to be serious for constitution making when their terms and tenures are guaranteed by ‘doctrine of necessity’. There would be some argument to say that the doctrine of necessity alone cannot extend the tenure of CA for more than six months. However, the so called sovereign CA has all the incentives to amend the provisions in Interim Constitution and remove such barriers where if the mighty CA wishes, it can extend its term by innumerable times.

At this juncture, the first and foremost issue among the legal experts should be the implications of borrowing such principle into Nepalese Legal System which can have serious ramifications on fundamental points concerning the rule of law and constitution, the retrospective exercise of legislative powers by the law makers, and the yardstick and benchmark to adjudge the legality of actions in the future.

What we have to understand is the constitution is not only a legal document but also a political, social, economical testament and vision of a nation. Constitution embodies the hope and aspiration of the people of many generations and expected to be so in the time period yet to come. Therefore, CA, which has received the mandate from the people, will be exercising its power in various capacities and its functioning are not merely discharge of legal and constitutional functions. In this scenario, in my humble opinion, the court should have rescued itself to adjudge on the matter of extension of CA tenure, as the issue will have different dimensions including political and courts are not to interfere on such political powers. It is not only the implications of the outcome is political but the role of CA is itself is different from parliament under democratic set up. As the ‘doctrine of necessity’ comes with enormous peril of being misused and susceptible to tampering in future, it would be difficult for courts to stay away from the controversy inasmuch as the present verdict could be taken as stamping on the power of CA to extend its term, sometimes based on its own sweet will and fancy.

However, if we have to take a positive from the verdicts rendered, a silver lining can be that the court has upheld the supremacy of the parliament/CA and this supremacy could have been upheld even without resorting to ‘doctrine of necessity’. When there is enormous pessimism on people for not having stable functioning parliamentary democracy with able executive, it can only be hoped that the verdict, though may be founded on uncanny reasoning would be taken as a positive steps towards stable supreme parliament. If people are able to take this positive, another positive hope that comes to our mind naturally would be, hopefully, we will soon see our New Constitution.

© Rajib Dahal. The Author is an Advocate. He can be reached at rajib.dahal@gmail.com

Law pleads, “My lord”

The law, the dead law

suddenly woke up in the night

asking its existence and threatening us

how long its hands are ! 4

I laughed first, she followed me

and our room got filled with a laughter

someone said from the crowd

you have no life now! 8

Forget about your hands

You have no life at all

you are an old law

rescinded by king’s edict before king was thrown out! 12

That old king, you remember him?

He curtailed your power, he mutilated you

he took your life and before he could restore that to you

We kicked his ass! 16

Then, law protested for a while

but then, started pleading before us

Tell me you advocate!

That was unconstitutional ! 20

He shouted loudly

King has no power to do that

I approach the Apex Court under ‘Writ’

We laughed Again! 24

What is the situation of common man

when law itself has to plead for its existence

what will be our fate in this lawless state

when the victimized  law is a ‘Constitution’28

Even, technically law can not file a writ

as king is no more state

from the day we kicked his butt

he is an ordinary citizen like you and me, is what they say ! 32

In this lawless state, yes he is now an ordinary citizen

He is an ordinary citizen in this lawless state created by himself

For us, King is dead and law is slaughtered

only the ghosts of laws plead for justice ! 36

In my lawless tiny state

Let’s sleep silently friends

If not, the ghost of lawless law haunts us again

maintain silence to save your life! 40

When you maintain silence, at least it seems you are mourning

for that dead constitutional law and for the dead constitution

and that ghost will not wake up again

In my dreams, law pleads “My Lord……………..”! 44