The sceptics have won

More than two months have passed since Khil Raj Regmi was sworn in as the head of Nepal’s interim government. Its singular mandate was to pave the way for another election to the Constituent Assembly by June 21. 

Regmi’s appointment of prime minister as a (largely) consensus candidate among the parties split opinion in the country, as most things in Nepal do. Some viewed it as an ingenious move of Bhattarai and the large political parties that could ultimately help resolve the rather longstanding limbo in the country. 

He was the Chief Justice and perceived to be a man of utmost integrity with no vested interests or political leanings. The move to appoint the Chief Justice as prime minister, certain legalities aside, was not without merit and offered a realistic possibility of getting things done. As a neutral of considerable public standing, Regmi was thought to be Nepal’s least bad choice for prime minister in the circumstances. Many alternatives had been tried, including a shambolic game of orchestrated musical chairs between the three key political parties, without yielding any results. 

Yet, his appointment had its share of sceptics. One kind, including this columnist, argued that his appointment could potentially create various conflicts of interest and scenarios that would become very difficult to resolve because the country simply did not have the mechanisms in place to address them. Were he to decide he quite liked his new title and post, there would be very few checks and balances on the power he enjoyed. Fortunately, his actions have largely been constitutional and not opposed to best interests of the country. 

The second bunch of sceptics believed that this was just an attempt by political parties to shift responsibility for the repeated failure to hold constituent assembly elections onto someone else. If anything, it would buy everybody more time and check increasing public discontent with the political parties. They believed from the beginning that the move to appoint the Chief Justice as the premier would only complicate things further and create another broker in a game that was already loaded with too many. 

The big doubt these sceptics have had is over the ability of chief justice — or any other institution of the state for that matter — to influence the ways and decisions of three big political parties. The political parties have refused to back down from their stated positions and the premier has been unable to set a date for the elections. An election that was supposed to be held by June 21 will definitely not happen by then and doubts are being cast over the likelihood of elections being held anytime this year. 

The political parties say they have still not been able to find common ground even after days of political parleys and meetings. Besides smacking of rather high levels of inefficiency, it is also hugely ironical that the parties want to arrive at common ground over everything before, rather than after the election. One would think the purpose of an election is for people to elect represent-atives who will stand for their different interests. Here, we are seeing a bizarre attempt by the political parties to go into an election with pretty much a common mandate. This is obviously beyond Regmi’s control. 

As we watch Nepal gradually become permanently interim, the sceptics have won. Yet again. 

(This was a column published in The Himalayan Times on 19 May 2013)