कोलम्बिया गएको टोलीले त्यहाँका ‘प्रचण्ड’ लाई भेट्यो

कोलम्बिया गएको टोलीले त्यहाँका ‘प्रचण्ड’ लाई भेट्यो: दक्षिण अमेरिकी मुलुक कोलम्बियाको भ्रमणमा गएको नेपाली संसदीय टोलीले त्यहाँका प्रचण्ड अर्थात

वाइयात कुरा गरेर प्रचण्डलाई फसाउन खोजिया : Khemlaldevkota || Aajakosanda...

Global Talk : संविधानमा लेखिएको ले समस्या पर्यो, प्रचण्ड विरुद्धको मुद्द...

Khim Lal Devkota: गलत नियतले द्धन्द्धकालिन घटनामा माओवादी अध्यक्षविरुद्...

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/