राजनीतिक स्थायित्वको लागि सहमतीय मोडेल, इतिहासबाट सिकौं

https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2023/02/1266483?fbclid=IwAR0BjZa5Lkq5AqM7xfXYouCwb5oFA1hAGR5JjYdtbOPONTd6lnNzTAMVXQk 

माओवादीले हिंसा शुरु गरेको जनयुद्ध दिबसलाई संविधानले चिन्छ? माओवादी करेक...

यो सरकार तेस्रो श्रेणीको हो, विचार र एजेण्डा भन्दा पनि शक्ति बाँडफाटमा ट...

A strong prime minister born by a weak parliament

View of the arithmetic obtained in the elections held last November, it created a weak parliament. Due to the mixed electoral system adopted by us, it is difficult for a single party to form a majority government. Previously, it was possible to form a government when at least two parties came together, but this time, it was not possible to establish a majority without a coalition of five or seven parties.

The 'Hung Parliament' in vogue in the parliamentary system has been turned into a 'Super Hung Parliament' by this election result. Even more strangely, Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda has got the opportunity to become the prime minister with the strongest support even in such adverse conditions. This article discusses the challenges and opportunities of the strong Prime Minister Prachanda in this weak parliament.

A strange picture appeared in the arithmetic of the Parliament this time. Compared to the previous elections, the number of voters increased while the votes of established parties decreased. Newly registered parties received such an unexpected vote that they succeeded in becoming national parties in their first attempt. On the other hand, CPN Unified Socialist, which was elected by the largest party in the parliament, has failed to become a national party. The goal of the Congress-led ruling coalition that formed a five-party alliance was to weaken significantly the UML, which had reached the opposition. As internal unity could not be strengthened, the ruling coalition could not even come close to its goal.

On the other hand, the arrogance of the UML, which was inflamed in the parliamentary elections by dissolving the parliament twice in 6 months, would have entered the lion's palace with a majority. The election results also dashed the hopes of the UML, which started the election campaign by announcing the future prime minister. They commented that the new independent parties won't win a single seat.

What's more, the new parties entered the elections with the announcement of the future prime minister and insulting greatness. Overall, no one is satisfied with the results of this election. The truth is that no one's goals were fulfilled by this election. A weak parliament in which no one is satisfied is in danger of being attacked by anyone at any time. Glimpses which have started appearing in the early days.

Another unexpected event like the election results was that a weak parliament gave a strong prime minister. The Prime Minister received an almost unanimous vote of confidence, contrary to the expectations of a thin majority government and a thin vote of confidence. This has become a strange phenomenon in Nepali politics.

However, less than a month after receiving the vote of confidence, the race for the chair has already started. Those who supported him remained in the opposition because they did not get the ministry of their choice, while those who went to the government left the government for the same reason. This is not a good sign for political stability. But the positive thing is that this government has received a vote of confidence from both the ruling party and the opposition.

Even after the establishment of the Federal Democratic Republic, it is a matter of general discussion that the conduct and behavior could not be adapted to it. It has been established that even though the system has changed, the situation has not changed, and even though the character has changed, the tendency has not changed, because the structure envisioned by the constitution and the officers in charge do not behave accordingly.

As a result, the government has become a musical chair. Bargaining opportunities for the parties that joined the government have weakened. There is an added concern that if my party withdraws its support, another party will participate in the government. As soon as someone leaves the chair of the government, the parties are ready to sit there.

With the failure of Ravi Lamichhane's thousand attempts to hang on to the seat of the House, a dozen Home Minister candidates from half a dozen parties have started running for office. In this way, the Prime Minister has been given many options as to the size and type of government.

UM considers itself the designer of this government. Along with this, the government also has the support of Congress. He wants to correct the mistakes by awakening the alliance of the electorates. Therefore, as soon as the UML leaves the government, it is certain that Congress will enter. UML also does not want to lose power at the state and center simultaneously. Madhav is with the Nepal Congress just as the RSVP and the RPP were under the shadow of KP Oli. On the other hand, CK Raut, who tried to present mature politics, has the most faith in Prachanda. In this way, Prachanda's prime ministerial math does not seem weak.

Even the influence of external forces is now in the shadows. However, they have not stopped trying to chase away the power of the enemy from the government and bring in the power of the good. This government is in a favorable position to turn the sensitive geographical location into an opportunity. Nepal has got a good opportunity to take a stand to protect its interests. At this time when world politics has become extremely divided in history, Nepal has got an opportunity to maintain its self-respect without being a porter of anyone. Prachanda government should not fail to make full use of it.

Ravi Lamichhane, who became controversial in the case of conflict of interest, has been expelled due to the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court. At a time when the citizenship and passport disputes are under investigation, he has finally called back all the ministers of the party, who made the decision that the Ministry of Home Affairs should be the one. He wanted to become the Home Minister even though he had left the Deputy Prime Minister. KP Oli's arguments in the parliament and the attack on the Supreme Court have also failed.

This was done in a press conference by the responsible official who took the oath of secrecy and took the key of the right house a few days agoThis level of comment is not natural. He spoke on the strength of the information received because he led the Ministry of Home Affairs. He finally gave up his attachment to Shakti and left. His language and style showed his own face. The allegations of bargaining by the media house raised the suspicion that it was not the experience of doing journalism. Because he is also accused of the same.

Overall, he could not confirm that his interests were not conflicted. Instead, he used the style of saying, "When other people's interests conflict, it is not mine" and "I have made a mistake, but you will write my mistake too." His presentation served to weaken his argument and case. Even though he was deprived of the position of MP, there was no fault of his fellow ministers. The decision to call them back is not based on any logic and facts. Rather, it seems to be based on personal interest and desire. Ravi demonstrated his ego and feudal style that why would he become a minister after the party president's ministerial position was gone.

Media owners have separate issues to review, they have to do that. But when the reference did not match, it was like 'Bela na Kubela Baji Nayla'. If they had not written about him, the media owners would have been good for him! Despite this, his accusations against the media owners have raised two questions at the same time. First, he should show an example of what a media owner should be by exposing the facts of being a media owner, only then will there be no room for pointing fingers at others. He has taken this responsibility on himself. Secondly, those who accused him have to confirm that it is not a fact. Despite this, the role played by the media in the establishment of a federal democratic republic is not acceptable. This is confirmed by the immediate responses from the concerned parties. He expressed his anger towards the role played by the media in the establishment of the Federal Democratic Republic. Does he want to separate himself from it? The question has been raised. It is necessary for him to give the answer himself.

Even after the establishment of the Federal Democratic Republic, it is a matter of general discussion that the conduct and behavior could not be adapted to it. It has been established that the structure envisioned by the constitution and the officers in charge do not behave accordingly, even though the system has changed, the situation has not changed, and even though the character has changed, the trend has not changed.

With recent developments, that evil has started to be exposed not only in the organization but in individuals as well. Currently, the Federal Democratic Republic alone is fighting against those ethnic elements. It is a situation where those who gave up and sacrificed for the establishment of a federal democratic republic have become like witnesses of the broken edge. After changing that situation, now is the right time to rally in favor of the Federal Democratic Republic, which is fighting alone against those ethnic elements. It is important to increase everyone's interest in this regard. In particular, Prime Minister Prachanda needs to emphasize this. A strong Prime Minister born out of weak parliamentary arithmetic should take some decisive steps.

कमजोर संसदले जन्माएका बलिया प्रधानमन्त्रीको कार्यभार

पछिल्ला घटनाक्रमले अब संस्था मात्रै हैन, व्यक्ति-व्यक्तिमा त्यो खराबी उजागर हुन थालेको छ । कमजोर संसदीय अंकगणितले जन्माएको बलिया प्रधानमन्त्रीले केही निर्णायक कदम चालून् ।

https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2023/02/1259139 

Conflict of Interest in Nepali Politics

The conflict of interest concept holds that one should abstain from making decisions when doing so would be to their best benefit. In Nepal, a person with an interest is called an expert, and his or her involvement in the decision is considered mandatory rather than recusal or separation from the decision.

Stephen Emond, the author of the Holistic Self-Realization book, writes, “90 percent of relationships are born out of misunderstandings, or relationships are born out of conflicting interests. Disagreements end in agreement, but conflicted subjects fail to find a solution. Therefore, a 10 percent conflict is 9 times stronger than a 90 percent conflict in destroying a relationship.”

Similarly, the chairman of the Constituent Assembly of India, VR Ambedkar, said, “Where ethics and money interests collide, money will always win. In money and ethics, ethics should be won. Still, if the vested interests do not get enough power to force themselves, then they will not know that they have separated themselves voluntarily.” He has given a message that this is a difficult task but it is inevitable.

Making decisions based on your own interests is not advisable. He/she should refrain from making decisions in this circumstance by using the same behavior, even if they were in government. Of course, it is generally agreed that one should begin their task only by publicly announcing that they have no conflict of interest in this topic before making a judgment. It is said that not only should one not participate in the decision-making of a matter related to one’s own interest, but also one should not participate even in the discussion of that matter. The reason behind doing this is to try to increase the credibility of decisions made in public places. In the area of justice, it is said that “Judgment is not only to be done but also to be seen to be done”.

Similarly, in the executive office, it is expected that the decision should not only be corrected but also be seen to be done. If there is disbelief towards the expected decision at first glance, no matter how honestly the decision is made, the conclusion that that decision was correct does not come out. As a result, it’s critical to teach the conviction that the decision was, is, and always will be fair, right, and accurate. Any decision made in the absence of this faith, regardless of how wise it may be, will be regarded as flawed.

Based on the belief that one person cannot serve two masters at the same time, this issue is basically a moral bond. A person has a public duty on the one hand and on the other hand, he has his own interests, so he cannot judge in both cases. So in such a case, no matter who the person is, no matter how high a position he is, he should stay away from the said decision. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption [UNCAC] clarifies the involvement of 3 elements in the matter of conflict of interest: “First public responsibility, second private interest and third undue pressure in the work” that is, if public and private interest collide, the inevitable result is improper action through undue pressure. The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] has also established a standard in the case of self-interest and its conclusion is that “Corruption occurs when self-interest is decided.”

After talking about principles and scriptures, it is almost mandatory to discuss Nepali politics. If you look at the picture of the recently formed Council of Ministers against the scriptures and beliefs, the result will be negative.

The Nepal Police is the investigating body in the Supreme Court’s case involving citizenship. The Ministry of Home Affairs oversees the Nepal Police, and the Home Minister is involved in this conflict.

The Ministry of Labor and Employment is the department in charge of handling the dispute when messages from people who have engaged in the foreign employment business and those who have recently traveled abroad are stuck abroad and have not found work become widely popular on social media. The disputed individual is also appointed as a minister of that ministry. The minister of the Ministry of Education is a similar example of a person with vested interests in private educational institutions.

He was successful in obtaining the largest contract in the nation as an A-class contractor, and the authority has launched a case alleging corruption while the issue is being heard in court. He was also chosen to be a minister.

There may be many others, but the four ministers mentioned above stand out. They speak for all parties other than Congress, UML, and Maoists. “Congress-UML Maoist leaders are corrupt, hence they should be stopped,” was their winning campaign slogan. To be more precise, they popularized the idea that “prioritizing good governance” and “doing corruption is like drinking mother’s blood,” but they are also some of the candidates who were elected on the basis of this idea.

Tell me, where are we at in terms of recognizing Nepal’s interest in this situation? How much difference is there in the slogan and practice of eliminating corruption along with ethics, transparency, and good governance? Who will notice the difference between speech and action? Or how will those who came to power deal with this question by saying that “One thing while out of power and another thing after coming to power has become the character of Nepali politics”? What will happen to the state of our country and society if the voters, who have been deceived and swayed for years, come to the conclusion that they have become more foolish this time? The questions are serious and unanswerable.

The above serious questions must be answered by the person who is in public accountability. A public official caught in the trap of double self-interest cannot be impartial. While judging one interest, another interest may be harmed or unjust. If the decision-making official is reluctant to stay away from that decision or that position in the case of conflicting interests, it is assumed that there will be bias in those particular decisions. When making a special decision, there will be a special setting to fulfill their interests. Doing so will demoralize the state agencies. It can be said that it is inevitable that the credibility of the state agencies will be undermined. There can be a conflict of interest in a particular business. When competitors have financial or personal relationships with ministers, officials, employees, or officials, they can influence every decision or action.

Conflicts of interest can have detrimental effects on the parties involved, the organizations they work for, and the general public. Due to their self-interest, individuals may engage in an immoral or criminal action, the most dreaded result of which is political corruption. In addition to governmental corruption, illegal trade and bribes will grow. They may also erode public confidence in all governmental institutions, officials, and agencies. The system of state operation will be utterly dismantled if the state structures, public office holders, political party leaders, party activist ideologues, and the general populace are coerced into acting in the public interest.

If the state ceases to function as a state, it will be transformed into a machine that relies on external conditions, and its power will be forfeited. The idea of law comes to an end. There will be no democracy. Autocracy then rears its ugly head once more. Those who put their lives in danger to fight tyranny lose some of their moral courage. After all, if the final result is authoritarianism, then it will not be of interest to anyone, regardless of whether it is done in the name of democracy or in the name of something else. People today think that by putting their trust in the state’s structures and the politicians in charge of them, their interests and riches are secure.

In this belief, the laws made by the state and the taxes determined by the state are also committed to paying. When this trust is lost, then there will be a situation of disobeying the laws made by the state and refusing to pay the taxes set by the state, then extreme chaos will begin. In anarchy, learned rules and laws will stop working. Sri Lanka is the latest example of the fact that the latest attack of anarchy is being done by public officials. In Sri Lanka, where the economic crisis reached its peak, the state collapsed and all the state agencies failed to maintain law and order. Then the target common people became the office of President and Prime Minister’s Office.

Many nations, as well as its organs and bodies, have put a lot of effort into locating and revealing conflicts of interest as a way to address them. Policies and procedures of a permanent character have been devised in order to manage the cases of conflict of interest that have been discovered and disclosed, and the adoption of their unqualified compliance has been recognized. It demands that people declare their financial and private interests, develop codes of behavior, and set up oversight organizations to check on compliance with these rules. Your self-interest is the first indicator that something has been compromised. Success can only be attained if one can forge a moral imperative to identify selfishness and let it be known without feeling guilty about it. Creating a culture of commitment to follow it will only be possible if there is a public comment if self-declaration is not available.

Finally, conflicts of interest are a frequent issue for nonprofit organizations, for-profit corporations, and even the government. It is also obvious that people’s or organizations’ decisions or every action are impacted when they have conflicting interests or worries, or whether they receive favoritism or loyalty from them whether it is voluntary or required. It goes without saying that selfishness can influence his choice. Conflicts of interest can result in immoral, unlawful, or criminal actions, which can erode public confidence in the government and its institutions. As a result, if we want to eliminate this kind of risk, we must identify the conflict of interest, make it public through self-declaration, or, if that is not possible, even if only the public comments are made, separate from the post or decision-making process, and manage effective policies and procedures to address it. Conditions must be established in order for them to be implemented successfully.

There are numerous instances where former finance ministers returned after receiving a clean bill of health, including Janardan Sharma who enabled unapproved middlemen to enter the budget, and Ramsharan Mahat who resigned owing to concerns about holding a foreign currency account. Given that the Supreme Court is currently debating whether or not his eligibility to serve in parliament due to his citizenship dispute, will the minister of home affairs dare to resign from the ministry on the grounds that his own interests have been compromised? Even if the agency looking into citizenship is part of the same ministry. Can he and the people who are in the limelight and who are not in every public office and position like him publicize their conflict of interest through self-declaration and stay away from that position or decision and set the standard of good governance? This is what people expect from those who do the most about transparency and good governance.

Khimlal Devkota

Devkota is a Senior Advocate and Member of the Constituent Assembly of Nepal.

https://merotribune.com/2023/01/22/conflict-of-interest-in-nepali-politics/ 

विचार :

प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा प्रचण्डको तेस्रो परीक्षा

संविधानका समर्थक र विरोधी, गणतन्त्रवादी र राजावादी, संघीयता पक्षधर र विरोधी, समावेशिताका पक्षधर र विपक्षी सबै एकैठाउँमा उभिएको खिचडी सरकारको नेतृत्व गर्ने काम कम चानचुने छैन ।

 खिमलाल देवकोटा

 २०७९ पुष २७ गते ८:११

प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा प्रचण्डको यो तेस्रो कार्यकाल हो । पहिलो र दोस्रो कार्यकालको परीक्षाको अनुभवका आधारमा सामना गर्न तयार भएका प्रचण्डका लागि यो तेस्रो परीक्षा हो । यो परीक्षा सामना गर्नुको विकल्प प्रचण्डका लागि छैन । उनको सफलता र असफलतामा मुलुकको विकास र समृद्धिको सफलता र असफलता पनि जोडिएको छ । हामीलाई मुलुकको सफलताको विकल्प खोज्ने सुविधा छैन ।

प्रचण्ड यस्तो पात्र हुन् जसले युद्धको नेतृत्व गरिरहँदा नै हरेक तहको नेतृत्व हरेक परीक्षामा पास हुनैपर्छ भन्ने गर्दथे । प्रचण्ड भन्ने गर्थे, एकपटक पास भएको वा उत्कृष्ट ठहरिएको नेता वा कार्यकर्ता सर्वकालिक पास वा उत्कृष्ट हुन्छ भन्ने छैन । त्यसैले क्रान्तिकारी भइरहन निरन्तर परीक्षामा सामेल हुँदै पास हुनैपर्ने बाध्यता छ । निरन्तर क्रान्तिको सिद्धान्त अनुसार क्रान्तिको नेता पनि निरन्तर पास हुन जरूरी छ भन्ने उनको आशय थियो ।

यो मामला क्रान्ति गर्ने समयको थियो । अर्थात् विद्यमान राज्य सत्ता ध्वंस गर्ने बेलाको थियो । तर यतिबेला परिस्थिति बदलिएको छ । अब ध्वंस हैन, निर्माणको आवश्यकता छ । पार्टी, समाज र राष्ट्र निर्माण आजको कार्यभार हो । हिजो ध्वंसमा उत्कृष्ट ठहरिएकाहरू आज निर्माणमा उत्कृष्ट ठहरिन जरूरी छ, त्यसले मात्र नेतृत्वको परीक्षा र परीक्षण हुन्छ । यही पृष्ठभूमिमा भन्दा अबको राजनीति निर्माणमा उत्कृष्टताको प्रमाणपत्र प्राप्त गर्ने गरी हुनुपर्छ, कम्तीमा यो परीक्षामा उत्तीर्ण भने पनि हुनैपर्छ । यो कुरा प्रचण्डका हकमा पनि लागू हुन्छ ।

ध्वंसको चरण पार गरेर निर्माणको चरणमा प्रवेश गरेपछि प्रचण्ड प्रधानमन्त्री बन्ने वा बनाउने काममा केन्द्रित भए । आफू प्रधानमन्त्री बन्ने परीक्षामा उनी तीन पटक उत्तीर्ण भए, तर गरेको काममा उत्तीर्ण भए कि भएनन्, मूल्यांकन गर्ने जिम्मा समीक्षकहरूमै छोडौं ।

पहिलो कार्यकाल

पहिलो प्रधानमन्त्रीको रूपमा प्रचण्डको ‘इनिङ’ शान्ति प्रक्रियामा आएपछिको पहिलो परीक्षा थियो । उनले पार्टीलाई सर्वाधिक ठूलो बनाए र प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा देशकै नेतृत्व गर्ने हैसियतमा पुर्‍याए, यो उनको सफलता हो । सहमतीय मोडेलको संविधान खासगरी दुई तिहाइको समर्थनमा सरकार बन्ने र ढाल्न पनि दुई तिहाइ नै चाहिने बलियो संवैधानिक व्यवस्था भत्काएर प्रधानमन्त्री बन्नु गलत कदम सावित भयो । सहमतीय मोडेल भत्काएर बहुमतीय मोडेलमा गएपछि संविधान बन्ने भन्दा सरकार बन्ने र भत्काउने खेल हुने स्वतःसिद्ध थियो । सोही कर्मको प्रतिफल प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा प्रचण्डको कार्यकाल पाँच वर्षबाट छोट्टिएर केवल नौ महिनामा सीमित भयो ।

शक्तिशाली प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा प्रचण्डले सेनापति हटाउने गरी गरेको निर्णय तत्कालीन राष्ट्रपतिले उल्ट्याउँदा राजिनामा दिन बाध्य हुनुपर्‍यो । उनी काम गर्न नपाइकन बिदा हुनुपर्‍यो । त्यसो त अत्यन्त छोटो समयमा तयार गरिएको बजेटले नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रलाई नयाँ मोड दिन सफल भयो । उनले दक्षिण फर्केको बजेटमा उत्तर–दक्षिणको सन्तुलन कायम राख्न प्रयत्न गरे । दक्षिण केन्द्रित विनियोजन बजेटमा समग्र सन्तुलन कायम गर्न प्रयत्न गरे । पूँजीको अभाव व्यहोरिरहेको मुलुकका लागि अथाह राजस्व संकलन गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने पुष्टि गर्दै खर्च गर्ने क्षमता बढाउन मिहिनेत गर्नैपर्ने बाध्यात्मक सन्देश दिए । ‘जनयुद्ध’का शहीदहरूलाई राष्ट्रिय शहीदको मान्यता दिए । साना किसानको ऋण मिनाहा गर्दै किसानहरूका तर्फबाट राज्यले बैंकको ऋण तिरिदिएर किसानलाई ऋण मुक्त गरिदिए ।

खिमलाल देवकोटा

यी उल्लेखनीय कामका आधारमा पहिलो कार्यकालको मूल्यांकन गर्नुपर्दछ । त्यसो त आफंैले ल्याएको बजेट कार्यान्वयन गर्न नपाएको अवस्थाका बावजुद पनि गणतन्त्र कार्यान्वयनसँग सम्बन्धित कानुनहरूको निर्माणले मुलुकलाई राजतन्त्रबाट गणतन्त्रको संक्रमण सहज बनायो । आर्थिक समृद्धिको सपना र आश्वासन नै सही जनताको अवस्था बदल्ने बाहेक राजनीतिको अर्को ध्येय हुनुहुँदैन भन्ने तथ्य स्थापित गर्न सके । गरिब किसानलाई ऋणमोचन गर्न प्रयत्न गरे । यी कामका आधारमा उनले पहिलो परीक्षाको सामना गरेको बुझ्न जरूरी हुन्छ ।

पहिलो कार्यकालमा उनीसँग भारी बहुमत थियो, क्रान्ति र जनआन्दोलनको रापतापसहितको सरकार थियो । यद्यपि अपेक्षाकृत सफलता हासिल नभएको भन्न हिच्किचाउनुपर्दैन । पहिलो कार्यकालको अनुभव र शिक्षाको आधारमा दोस्रो कार्यकालको थालनी गर्न प्रचण्ड स्वयंलाई बाध्य बनाउँछ भन्ने लाग्दछ ।

दोस्रो कार्यकाल

पहिलो कार्यकालको तुलनामा दोस्रो कार्यकाल तुलनात्मक रूपमा कमजोर थियो । उनी असहज परिस्थितिबाट मात्रै उक्त पदमा उक्लिएका थिए । विनाशकारी भूकम्पले सिर्जना गरेको नयाँ परिस्थितिलाई क्यास गर्न माहिर प्रचण्डले संविधान निर्माण गरिछाड्ने अभियानको थालनी गरे । सरकारको नेतृत्व सुशील कोइरालाको भए पनि समग्र अभियानको नेताका रूपमा प्रचण्डलाई दुनियाँले मानेको छ । संविधान जारी गर्ने कामका सन्दर्भमा यो कुरा मान्नै पर्छ कि हाम्रो संविधान मुद्दामा सहमति भएर होइन, शक्ति बाँडफाँडमा भएको सहमतिले मात्र जारी गर्न सम्भव भएको हो ।

पहिलो कार्यकाल एमालेलाई, दोस्रो प्रचण्ड र तेस्रो कार्यकाल देउवाका लागि छुट्याइएको थियो । यो भागबण्डामा दलहरू सहमत भएपछि मात्र संविधान जारी भएको थियो । यो अभियानको नेतृत्व प्रचण्ड स्वयंले गरेका थिए । संविधान त जारी भयो तर सहमति बमोजिम सत्ता हस्तान्तरणमा व्यवधान आयो । सहमति कार्यान्वयन गर्न अविश्वासको प्रस्तावको सहारा लिनुपर्नेसम्मको स्थिति बन्यो ।

उक्त असहज स्थितिको सामना गर्दै उनी प्रधानमन्त्री बने । उनको काँधमा स्थानीय तहको पुनर्संरचनासहित निर्वाचन सम्पन्न गर्दै संविधान कार्यान्वयनको पहिलो आधारस्तम्भ तयार गर्ने जिम्मेवारी थियो । उक्त जिम्मेवारी पूरा गर्न उनी सफल भए । सोही सफल सुरुवातका कारण स्थानीय तहको दोस्रो निर्वाचन पनि सम्पन्न भइसकेको छ । यसरी संविधान जारी गर्ने र अग्रभागमा रहेर स्थानीय तहको पुनर्संरचना र निर्वाचन सम्पन्न गर्ने कामका आधारमा प्रचण्डको दोस्रो कार्यकाल पनि सफल भएको मान्न हिच्किचाउनुपर्दैन ।

अब तेस्रो कार्यकालको परीक्षा सुरु भएको छ । प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा प्रचण्डका लागि यो कार्यकाल अत्यधिक चुनौतीपूर्ण छ । उनी क्रमशः खस्किंदै गएको शक्तिको नेताका रूपमा सत्तामा उक्लिएका छन् । भलै, उनलाई संसदको असाधारण समर्थन मिले पनि सरकार टिकाउन कमजोर र पातलो बहुमतको टालाटुलीको सहारा लिनुपर्ने अवस्था छ ।

भूराजनीतिक संवेदनशीलताको चपेटामा नेपाली राजनीति र नेतृत्व उभिएको छ । आर्थिक संकटका बाछिटा देखिन थालेका छन् । यी सबैको सकारात्मक सम्बोधन आजको आवश्यकता र प्रधानमन्त्रीको चुनौती दुवै हो ।

यो अवस्थामा संविधानले संस्थागत गरेको संघीयताको सफल कार्यान्वयन उनका लागि पहिलो चुनौती हो । संघीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रको संविधान जारी भएको एक दशक नपुग्दै संघीयताका विरुद्धमा औपचारिक आवाज उठिरहेका छन् । संघीयताको कार्यान्वयन भइनसक्दै कार्यान्वयनलाई बीचैमा रोकेर संघीयता खारेज गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने आवाजहरू सुनिन थालेका छन् । केही राजनीतिक दलले उठाएको सो आवाजलाई जनताको स्तरबाटै चासोका साथ हेर्ने–सुन्ने गर्न थालिएको छ । संविधानरूपी घरलाई धानेका चारमध्ये संघीयता एक तर महत्वपूर्ण पिलर हो । त्यसका बारेमा प्रश्न गर्ने भनेको सिंगो संविधानरूपी घर नै गल्र्यामगुर्लुम पार्ने षड्यन्त्र बाहेक अरू केही होइन । यो षड्यन्त्रको सामना गर्ने काम प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा प्रचण्डको कठिन परीक्षा हो । यसरी हेर्दा साततिर फर्केका दलहरूको गठजोड सरकारका लागि बहुमत पुर्‍याउनुपर्ने र सो बहुमत धानेरै राख्नुपर्ने बाध्यता प्रचण्डको अर्को परीक्षा हो ।

संविधानका समर्थक र विरोधी, गणतन्त्रवादी र राजावादी, संघीयता पक्षधर र विरोधी, समावेशिताका पक्षधर र विपक्षी सबै एकै ठाउँमा उभिएको खिचडी सरकारको नेतृत्व गर्ने काम कम चानचुने छैन । तर सबैको साझा प्रस्थानविन्दु भनेको संविधानसभाबाट जारी भएको संविधान नै हो । त्यही संविधानमा टेकेर सबका सब संसद प्रवेश गरेका हुन् । त्यसैले आफैं संसद प्रवेश गरेको द्वारको रक्षा गर्न सबै राजनैतिक दल बाध्य छन् । बाध्य बनाउन प्रचण्ड सफल देखिएका छन् र यसको निरन्तरता जोगाउन सके प्रचण्ड तेस्रो परीक्षामा पनि पास हुनेछन् ।

विगत पाँच वर्षको अनुभवले संघीयता कार्यान्वयनमा गम्भीर चुनौती खडा भएको छ भन्ने कुरामा कुनै विवाद छैन । समन्वय, सहकार्य र सहअस्तित्वको सिद्धान्तमा आधारित संघीयता कार्यान्वयनको सफलता संविधानले परिकल्पना गरेका समन्वयकारी संयन्त्रहरूको क्रियाशीलतामा भर पर्नेछ ।

राजनैतिक विवाद समाधान गर्ने अन्तर प्रदेश परिषदको बैठक झण्डै पाँच वर्षदेखि बसेको छैन । राष्ट्रिय समन्वय परिषदको मनोनयन गर्ने काम पनि भएको छैन । त्यसको बैठक बस्ने र त्यसले कामको प्रतिवेदन दिने त धेरै परको कुरा भयो । राष्ट्रिय समन्वय परिषदको विषयगत समितिको क्रियाशीलताले दिनानुदिन आइपर्ने समस्याको समाधान दिन सक्छ । तिनको क्रियाशीलतामा संघीयताको कार्यान्वयनसँगै प्रधानमन्त्रीको सफलता पनि जोडिएको छ । त्यसैगरी प्रदेश समन्वय सम्बन्धी कानुन बनाउने कुरा र सो बमोजिम समन्वय र राजनैतिक विवाद समाधान गर्न प्रदेशका मुख्य मन्त्रीहरूलाई सहजीकरण गरिदिने कुरा पनि प्रधानमन्त्रीको पहलकदमीका दृष्टिले उचितै ठहरिनेछ । यसो गर्न सक्दा संविधानको कार्यान्वयन, संघीयताको कार्यान्वयन र प्रदेशको क्रियाशीलतामाथि उठाएका प्रश्नहरूको सकारात्मक जवाफ दिन सफल हुनेछ । यसो गरिसक्दा संघीय लोकतान्त्रिक गणतन्त्रात्मक संविधानको कार्यान्वयनको कोसेढुंगा सावित हुनेछ ।

यसैगरी भूराजनीतिक संवेदनशीलताको चपेटामा नेपाली राजनीति र नेतृत्व उभिएको छ । आर्थिक संकटका बाछिटा देखिन थालेका छन् । यी सबैको सकारात्मक सम्बोधन आजको आवश्यकता र प्रधानमन्त्रीको चुनौती दुवै हो । यी र यस्तै मुद्दाहरूको सकारात्मक सम्बोधनले मात्रै प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा तेस्रो कार्यकालको सफलतासँगै संविधानको सफलता र संविधान कार्यान्वयनबाट प्राप्त हुने समृद्धिको सफलता समेत गाँसिनेछ ।

अन्त्यमा, प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा प्रचण्डले विगतका अनुभवको सदुपयोग गर्ने र गल्तीबाट पाठ सिक्ने बताइसकेका छन् । उनले यो कार्यकालमा क्रान्तिकारी आवेग ब्युँताएर काम गर्ने प्रतिबद्धता जनाइसकेका छन् । प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा अनुभवले खारिएको र आशालाग्दो व्यक्तित्व पनि बनेको छ । उनले आफूलाई सबैलाई जोड्न सक्ने नेताका रूपमा स्थापित गर्दै लगेका छन् ।

साथसाथै राजनैतिक दलहरूमा परिपक्वता बढ्दै गएको छ । यो पक्ष प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा प्रचण्डका लागि दृढतापूर्वक निर्णय गर्न र सोको कार्यान्वयन गर्ने महत्वपूर्ण आधार हुन् । अब ती आधारहरूको सदुपयोग कति सार्थकताका साथ हुन्छ, त्यो हेर्न बाँकी छ । जनताका अपेक्षा कुन स्तरबाट सम्बोधन हुन्छन्, दलहरूको परिपक्वताले कस्तो आकार लिन्छ, यसैमा प्रधानमन्त्रीका रूपमा प्रचण्डको तेस्रो कार्यकालीन परीक्षाको परिणाम प्राप्त हुनेछ ।https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2023/01/1246044 

संसदको कार्यभार : मतदाता र सांसदले बुझ्नैपर्ने कुरा

नवनिर्वाचित सांसदहरूले पद तथा गोपनीयताको शपथ लिने मौसम छ । कतिपयको मनमा होला- सांसद भइयो, अब नीतिनिर्माणमा हस्तक्षेपकारी भूमिका निर्वाह गरिन्छ । कतिपयको मनमा लघुताभाषजन्य मनोविज्ञान पनि होला । उनीहरू केही जानेको छैन भन्दै अल्मलिइरहेका होलान् ।

कतिपयलाई नयाँ क्षेत्र हो, सिक्नुपर्छ भन्ने लागेको होला । कतिलाई आफू योग्य भएरै जनताले जिताएका हुन्, चल्छ भन्ने होला । यो पृष्ठभूमिमा नयाँ संसदको कार्यभारबारे सांसद मात्र होइन, मतदाता पनि स्पष्ट हुनुपर्छ । यो आलेख यही विषयवस्तुमा केन्द्रित छ ।

विधायक कि विकासे एजेन्ट ?

हाम्रो संविधानले सुधारिएको संसदीय व्यवस्था अवलम्बन गरेको छ । यो प्रणालीमा विधायकका रूपमा सांसद चुनिन्छन्, कार्यकारी होइन । संसदमा बहुमतसिद्ध गर्न सक्ने सांसद कार्यकारी प्रमुख (प्रधानमन्त्री) हुन्छन्, उनैको तजबिजमा मन्त्रीहरू नियुक्त हुन्छन् । प्रधानमन्त्रीको नेतृत्वमा रहने मन्त्रीहरूको समूह -मन्त्रिपरिषद)ले संविधान र कानुन बमोजिम कार्यकारी अधिकार प्रयोग गर्छ ।

शक्तिपृथकीकरणको सिद्धान्तअनुसार मन्त्रिपरिषद (सरकार)को कामलाई नियन्त्रण गर्ने संसद (व्यवस्थापिका)को मुख्य भूमिका हुन्छ । संसदद्वारा नियन्त्रित सरकार लोकतान्त्रिक हुन्छ ।

शक्तिले मानिसलाई भ्रष्ट बनाउन सक्छ । राज्यशक्ति प्रयोग गर्ने कार्यकारीलाई भ्रष्ट हुनबाट रोक्ने र लोकतन्त्रलाई दिगो बनाउने भूमिका संसदले खेल्नुपर्छ ।

सांसद आफैं विकास आयोजना बाँड्ने वा विकासका आश्वासन दिने वा बजेट बाँड्ने पद हैन । त्यसैले संसदमा प्रवेश गर्नुअघि सांसदले मनन गर्नैपर्ने विषय हो- म विकासे एजेन्ट हैन, विधिनिर्माण गर्ने विधायक हुँ ।

यो पक्कै कठिन छ । सांसदहरू विकास दिने (कार्यकारीको भूमिका खेल्ने) नाराबाट चुनाव जितेर आएका छन् । मतदाताले पनि सांसद भइसकेपछि उसबाट असल विधि निर्माण हैन, विकास खोेजेका छन् । संवैधानिक व्यवस्था र वास्तविकता बीचको यो अन्तरविरोधमा विगतबाटै सांसदहरू फस्दै आएका छन् ।

यसको हल खोज्न सक्दा नवनिर्वाचित सांसदहरूको सफलता पुष्टि हुनेछ । कार्यकारी भूमिका र विकासे एजेन्टको अवस्थाबाट मुक्त गर्न सक्दा मात्र सांसदहरू विधायकीय भूमिकामा देखिनेछन् ।

सांसदको काम सरकारले संसदमा पेश गरेको बजेट अनुमोदन गर्ने, विधेयकमाथि छलफल गरी पास गर्ने, सरकारको काम-कारबाहीको अनुगमन र जनआवाज मुखरित गर्ने हो । नवनिर्वाचित सांसदहरू जम्माजम्मी यही चार भूमिकामा केन्द्रित हुन जरूरी छ ।

बजेट अनुमोदन

सांसदको बोलीमा निरन्तरता, तादात्म्यता र विश्वसनीयता छ/छैन भन्ने कुरा पनि त्यत्तिकै महत्वपूर्ण हुन्छ । कुनै एउटा विषयमा फरक समयमा फरक धारणा आयो, सत्तामा रहँदा एक बोली, विपक्षमा रहँदा अर्को बोली भयो भने तादात्म्यता र विश्वसनीयता रहँदैन

संसदमा सरकारले पेश गरेको नीति कार्यक्रमसहितको बजेटमाथिको छलफलमा आफ्नो राय-सुझाव राख्ने र अन्त्यमा पक्ष वा विपक्षमा मत हाल्ने काम सांसदको हुन्छ । बजेट निर्माणमा भने सांसदको कुनै भूमिका हुँदैन ।

संसदको नियमावलीको पूर्ण पालना भएको अवस्थामा संसदमा बजेट प्रस्तुत हुनुभन्दा अगाडि पनि छलफल होला, सरकारले बजेटका सिद्धान्त र प्राथमिकतामा संसदको राय माग्ला । सो सिद्धान्त र प्राथमिकतामा बजेट नआए सांसदले सोको प्रतिवाद गर्नुपर्छ । र पनि, बजेट पास भएरै छाड्छ । फेल भयो भने सरकार ढल्छ ।

संसदमा बहुमत सदस्य हुने सरकारको तर्फबाट अर्थमन्त्रीले पेश गर्ने नीति तथा कार्यक्रमसहितको बजेट पास भइछाड्छ । संसदमा प्रखर रूपमा आफ्ना धारणा राखेर जनताको मन जित्ने अनि बजेट कार्यान्वयनमा सरकारलाई सघाउने एक सांसदको भूमिका हुन्छ ।

कानुन पास गर्ने

कानुन पास गर्नु सांसदको मुख्य भूमिका हो । आर्थिक विधेयकका हकमा सरकारी र अरू विधेयक निजी रूपमा पनि संसदमा दर्ता हुनसक्छ । ती विधेयक विरोधको सूचनामार्फत संसद प्रवेश गर्नै नदिने वा दफावार छलफलमा सहभागी भएर संशोधनको माध्यमबाट परिमार्जनसहित पास गर्ने भूमिका सांसदको हुने गर्दछ ।

संसद नियमावलीको संशोधनका शर्तहरू पालना गर्दै विधेयकको मूल मर्मविरुद्ध नहुने गरी विधेयक उपर संशोधन प्रस्तुत गर्ने अवसर हरेक सांसदले पाउँछन् । संसदमा पेश भएको विधेयक जनताको प्रतिक्रियाका लागि पठाउने वा सदनमा दफावार छलफल गर्ने वा सम्बन्धित समितिमा छलफल गरी टुंगोमा पुर्‍याउनेबारे निर्णय गर्ने अधिकार संसदको हुन्छ ।

संसदको निर्णय बमोजिम प्रक्रिया निर्धारण हुन्छ । र, त्यो प्रक्रियामा सांसदको भूमिका रहन्छ । विधेयकका हरेक प्रावधानमा नियमावलीले निर्धारण गरेको शर्तका अधीनमा रही संशोधन दर्ता गर्ने, आफ्नो संशोधनमा अरू सांसदको समर्थन जुटाउने, अरूको संशोधनमा आफ्नो मत जाहेर गर्ने र विधेयकलाई परिमार्जन गर्दै समृद्ध पारेर पारित गर्ने काममा सांसदको महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका रहन्छ ।

छलफलको हरेक चरणमा सांसदले भूमिका निर्वाह गर्दागर्दै पनि सहमति हुन नसकेका विधेयकलाई मतदान प्रक्रियाबाट टुंगो लगाइन्छ । संविधान संशोधन र जनमत संग्रहको विषय दुईतिहाइ बहुमतबाट र अन्य विषय सामान्य बहुमतका आधारमा टुंग्याइन्छ । विधेयकमा छलफल र मतदानमा भाग लिने एक सांसदको भूमिका विधायकका रूपमा हुन्छ ।

सरकारलाई नियन्त्रण गर्ने

संसद र सांसदहरूको महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका भनेको सरकारलाई नियन्त्रण गर्नु हो । सरकारी कामकारबाहीको नियमित अनुगमन र नियन्त्रण गर्ने भूमिकामा खरो उत्रने सांसद ‘पार्लियामेन्टरियन’ कहलिन्छन् । राम्रो सांसदले खेल्नेमध्ये सर्वाधिक महत्वको भूमिका यही हो ।

सरकारका नीति, कार्यक्रम, बजेट र विधेयकमाथि सदनमा बोल्ने, सरकारका हरेक कामकारबाहीबारे जानकारी माग्ने र गलत नीतिहरूको आलोचना गर्ने काम सांसदको हो । एक असल सांसदले यसरी सरकारलाई जनताको कठघरामा उभ्याउँछन् ।

हिंसासहितको राज्यशक्ति प्रयोग गर्ने वैधानिक अंग हो, सरकार । राज्य यस्तो वैधानिक संस्था हो, जसलाई बन्दुक चलाउन कुनै लाइसेन्स चाहिंदैन । राज्य हुनु नै बन्दुक चलाउने लाइसेन्स हो । अरूले चन्दा असुले त्यो गैर-कानुनी हुन्छ, तर राज्यले करका नाममा जनताबाट नियमित पैसा उठाउने अख्तियारी राख्छ । निर्वाध रूपमा हतियार र पैसा व्यवस्थापन गर्न पाउने एकमात्र औपचारिक संस्था राज्य हो ।

राज्यको यो काम सरकारले गर्छ । बन्दुक र पैसाले मैमत्त सरकारलाई निगरानी, खबरदारी र नियन्त्रण संसदले गर्छ । हरेक सांसद सरकारलाई संवैधानिक र कानुनी दायरा नाघ्न नदिने भूमिकामा हुन्छन् । नीतिनिर्माण र नीतिको सही कार्यान्वयनमा कार्यकारीलाई बाध्य बनाउने हदसम्मको भूमिका हो, यो ।

जनताको आवाज बोल्नु

सांसद सार्वभौम जनताको प्रतिनिधि हो । सांसदले संसदमा जनताको वारिसको रूपमा बोल्ने ठानिन्छ । संसदमा सांसद बोल्दा जनताको आवाज आउनु सर्वाधिक महत्वको विषय हो । संसदमा बोलेका कुराको अभिलेख रहने कुराको हेक्का सांसदहरूले राख्न जरूरी छ ।

संसदमा सांसदले उठाएको प्रश्नको जवाफ दिन सरकार बाध्य हुन्छ । कुनै एक सांसदको एउटा प्रश्न सरकारको कुनै नीति परिमार्जनको लागि काफी हुनसक्छ । सांसदको बोली त्यो स्तरको भयो/भएन भनेर दुनियाँले निगरानी गरिरहेकै हुन्छ ।

ख्याल गर्ने कुरा के हो भने संसदमा बोल्ने खास समय, तरिका र विषय हुन्छ । सभामुखको नियन्त्रण रहने संसदमा संसदीय भाषा बोल्नुपर्छ । असंसदीय भाषामा बोल्दा रेकर्डबाट हट्नेदेखि सांसद स्वयं निलम्बन वा निष्कासन खेप्न बाध्य हुनेसम्मको अवस्था आउन सक्छ ।

संसदमा उठ्ने आवाजको विशेष महत्व हुने भएकाले सांसदलाई अनेक पक्षबाट प्रभावित पार्ने प्रयास हुनसक्छ । यसमा हरेक सांसद चनाखो हुन जरूरी छ ।

संसदमा जनताको असल प्रतिनिधिले आफ्नो भूमिका पहिचान र आफैंले निर्धारण गरेको नियमको अधीनमा रही जनआवाज मुखरित गर्नु नै ऊबाट अपेक्षित भूमिका हो । कानुनहरू पारित गर्दा एक सांसदको भूमिका जनहित कि अन्य स्वार्थमा केन्द्रित छ भन्ने कुरा दुनियाँले हेरिरहेको हुन्छ ।

सांसदको बोलीमा निरन्तरता, तादात्म्यता र विश्वसनीयता छ/छैन भन्ने कुरा पनि त्यत्तिकै महत्वपूर्ण हुन्छ । कुनै एउटा विषयमा फरक समयमा फरक धारणा आयो, सत्तामा रहँदा एक बोली, विपक्षमा रहँदा अर्को बोली भयो भने तादात्म्यता र विश्वसनीयता रहँदैन ।https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2022/12/1238518?fbclid=IwAR0Re2EHjrqCukwspGTgirgPFdg0Tb_sk8amMkWJGc-Nw023kojnpObLU2Q 

हरेक दलको आँखा शीतलनिवासमा, सेरेमोनियल पदको दुरुपयोग गर्ने दाउ | Galaxy ...

बाह्य शक्तिको प्रभावमा सरकार गठन प्रष्ट || Samaj ra Sandarbha| Khimlal D...