 |
| |
VOL. 28, NO. 06, Sept 26 , 2008 (Ashwin 10 2065 B.S.)
|
|
Again Soil and Climate Theory
Founders of one party philosophy are again reviving the political system based on soil and climate theory like that of Panchayat
By KESHAB POUDEL
"British forms of Parliamentary democracy system failed in Nepal and the country needs a political system that suits its climate and soil," declared Jhalnath Khanal, general secretary of CPN-UML. "We don't want parliamentary system of government which has already failed."
Weeks before declaration of Jhalnath Khanal, prime minister and CPN-Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal had made similar announcement. "We want competitive political system but it is neither like that of Indian parliamentary system nor that of British. Twelve years of experiences have already shown that Nepal needs its own system, which is suitable to our soil," thundered Prachanda, a hard core communist leader.
 |
UML Leader Khanal(Left): Harping a new theory |
Along with two communist leaders, Narahari Acharya, a follower of liberal Democratic Party Nepali Congress, too, joined the bandwagon for a political system based on soil and climate theory. "We cannot go for parliamentary forms of government because our experiences with it remain bitter," said Congress CA member Acharya.
In almost all countries of the region there are parliamentary forms of governments and the United Kingdom has proved it is a stable and fruitful form of government. What kinds of political systems do these leaders want is unclear.
While replacing parliamentary system with Panchayat, late King Mahendra had propounded soil and climate theory and introduced Panchayat system in 1961 .
"Parliamentary system failed in our country because it was not suitable with climate and soil. Panchayat democracy is suited to our soil and climate," the late King had said.
King Mahendra often argued that Nepal needs to grow a peculiar system which is viable in accordance with the climate of Nepal. As all communist parties had opposed King Mahendra's Panchayat system, it is surprising to see two communist leaders and a Congress dissenter Acharya arguing in favor of different model of democracy. What would that model be like?
 |
Koirala: In opposition |
Which pattern of democracy do they want? Is it going to be a North Korean model? Cuban model or a Venezuelan model?
What will be the role of opposition party in their wishful political system based on soil and climate? Previous political system did not recognize any role of opposition like in North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.
It seems that the political leaders want political system without any opposition. Opposing the parliamentary system means the government without any opposition which Nepal has already practiced in the last two years. The recent decision of Nepali Congress to play the role of opposition is much against what these three leaders have been saying.
"Nepali Congress will play the role of responsible opposition. We will be visible in Constituent Assembly, parliament and street as an opposition," Girija Prasad Koirala told Spotlight, Sunday, at his residence. "We need to be very cautious particularly in defending the democracy," said Koirala. "Parliamentary democracy is the best form of democracy."
Believing what G. P. Koirala, who is responsible for legitimizing anti-democratic forces, said, there is a hopeful sign for revival of democracy again. Otherwise, it is inevitable that we will see the revival of a political system based on soil and climate theory like that of erstwhile Panchayat in a new cover.
