| ashu |
Posted
on 09-Jun-04 11:55 PM
The Party Is Over
What is interesting is that none of the Congressmen I spoke to in the immediate hours after Deubaýs appointment saw the problem where it lay: in their own leadership
BY SUMAN PRADHAN
http://www.nation.com.np/column_1.htm
Last Wednesday, soon after Radio Nepal announced the appoint ment of Sher Bahadur Deuba as the new prime minister, I began calling Nepali Congress stalwarts to gauge their reaction. Almost all of them professed disbelief. Some sounded dejected, and at least one was furious. ýThis is a joke,ý said the angry one. ýDeuba will run the country to the ground.ý
That may be an overly pessimistic assessment of the situation. But given the difficult times and his not-so-glorious past record, it is not surprising that many are wondering whether Deuba is up to the jobýa job which has become doubly difficult since he was last in office. Only time will give us the answer. But what is interesting is that none of the Congressmen I spoke to in the immediate hours after Deubaýs appointment saw the problem where it lay: in their own leadership.
Letýs recount what happened last week. After King Gyanendra issued a 24 hour ultimatum to the parties to come up with a clean name for prime minister, Congress leader Girija Prasad Koirala went all out to scuttle the selection of CPN (UML) leader Madhav Nepal as the five partiesý consensus candidate.
Congress insiders told me that Koirala opposed Nepalýs selection primarily because 1) A communist prime minister would send the wrong message to the international donor community 2) Congress cadres, who see the UML as their long-term rivals, would be angry and 3) Koirala himself wanted to become prime minister one last time so as to right the situation and leave behind a proud legacy.
The first argument doesnýt hold ground because diplomats have gone out of their way to tell anyone whoýll listen that they donýt oppose a communist prime minister. One western diplomat told me ýwe donýt care who becomes the prime minister as long as the parties get to agree on a name. Just send a name to the Palace.ý
The second sounds more plausible since the NC cadres, supporters and students do see the UML and its sister organizations as their greatest rivals. Indeed, if you look at the history of both the NC and UML, the two parties have often defined themselves in opposition to one another. Therefore, it could well be that Congress activists will find it difficult to accept a UML prime minister supported by their own top leaders.
The third argument, that of Koiralaýs legacy, is what is most interesting. As a political journalist over the years, I have watched and reported on Koiralaýs achievements and shenanigans. In that time we have all seen how a well-meaning and strong Prime Minister squandered not just the public goodwill of his Congress party, but together with other politicians, fed peopleýs apathy towards politics and democracy. That, in turn, gave rise to extremist forces in both the right and left. That same man now wants to become prime minister one last time to right his legacy.
If Koirala was really concerned about his legacy, he could have supported Madhav Nepal as the prime minister, and then gone about righting the situation in his own party by instituting much-needed reforms. Everyone knows the Congress is in tatters. The party is in denial mode, thereýs no internal democracy there, corruption and nepotism is entrenched. Above all, there is a succession issue to settle.
But Koirala didnýt do that. By opposing a consensus candidate, he made it explicitly clear that he was fighting for the chair. Not many know that, as it dawned that the King was about to appoint Deuba, a frantic Koirala tried till the end to thwart the selection, but without any success.
As I pen this column, I do not feel a particular sense of glee in having to write about Koiralaýs bad judgement. Rather, I feel sorry. There was a time when I, like millions of other Nepalis, really admired the man. We saw him as a strong leader during 1991-94 who surrounded himself with able men and women. These people pushed much-needed economic and other reforms on a reluctant electorate. But sometime in the middle of 1994, Koirala and his party lost the way. The slide since has been steep and precipitous, bringing the party to its present situation.
In any other democracy, a leader who runs the party to the ground would have long been nudged into retirement. But that most likely wonýt happen here, because this is Nepal and it is the Nepali Congress. There are many people within the Congress who owe their positions to Koiralaýs power of patronage. They wonýt let the leader bow out in silence because they too will have to bow out with him. This is why, the cry for reforms by young turks like Narhari Acharya is courageous and exciting.
Let us hope the Congress, and particularly Koirala, realizes that this is the partyýs last chance. Your legacy, dear leader, will be intact if you see the wisdom in your situation.
|
