Nepal Communist Party (NCP) Chief Whip Dev Prasad Gurung is also the party’s Standing Committee member. He says the rift between political leadership and bureaucracy on issues of federalism and development has adversely affected the government’s functioning. Rewati Sapkota of The Himalayan Times caught up with him to know his views on issues related to federalism, development and transitional justice. Excerpts: How do you assess the government’s one year tenure? The government’s performance should be evaluated on the basis of national and international political scenario. Considering the impact of rapid globalisation as well as dominance of capitalism, the government has done its bit in the attempt to achieve specific goals. In this context, the government has moved on the right track. It’s too early to make any negative comment on the government’s performance. The opposition claims the government has only succeeded in sharing dreams but has completely failed to deliver, resulting in anger and frustration among the general public. What do you say? The opposition’s charges are baseless and illogical. They (opposition) came to the fore to misinform people at a time when the government, as well as ruling partners, couldn’t properly disseminate information about performance to the general public. The opposition’s arguments are not at all convincing. What do you say about the widening rift among local, provincial and federal governments? As per the constitution, the country has moved ahead with the federal system. It’s impossible to manage all things in the preliminary phase. The political leadership has been elected, but most of the tasks ranging from introduction of laws to adjustment of civil servants will take time to complete. For instance, necessary laws have not been prepared to make the provincial and local levels fully functional. Provincial as well as local governments are yet to receive enough budgetary support from the federal government due to lack of such laws. It is a transitional phase. Once the laws are introduced, the system will guide the smooth functioning of local governments and there will not be any rift among different layers of the government. The federal government has snatched away provincial powers through umbrella laws. Don’t you think so? We are still discussing some important bills in Parliament. We have not reached any conclusion on the issues. The bills brought by the government in the Parliament are traditional in nature. When talking about the formulation of those bills, the bureaucracy wants more stake than the political leadership. Yes, there is serious concern about the devolution of powers to the provincial as well as local levels. Could these provisions be amended through the parliamentary process? The respective ministers clearly told the House that lawmakers could modify and amend these bills. As we have been practising a new model of federalism for the first time, the draft bills must follow the constitutional provisions to institutionalise federalism in the national context. Are there any challenging factors? We had practised unitary government system in the past, but the new constitution envisaged a three-tier system: federal, provincial and local government. The constitution has authorised parallel rights to provincial and local governments. There is not equal distribution of power among the three layers of government. For instance, the federal government has direct control over the local government. The provincial government can’t function properly as there is federal control over local level functioning. There are a few constitutional complications. The umbrella laws will, however, be made as per the constitutional provisions. We need to respect the rights of the federal and local governments on the basis of working procedures. Where are the ambiguity and dilemma? There is confusion on the issues. The structures have not yet been made in the local levels. The question is how power can be transferred without any structure in place. The issues are still under discussion.  In this transitional phase, provincial and local levels will have to act as per the federal laws unless they make their own laws. As it’s our new practice, there are certainly some dilemmas and ambiguities. But, the federal government will allocate authority to the provincial government and provincial government should do the same with local governments. Allocation of power to the provincial government should be made with consent from the local bodies. Capital expenditure is low. What’s the reason? Generally, the federal government runs mega projects while the remaining projects will be run by provincial governments. The provinces mainly lead infrastructure projects. Local governments should look after micro-projects and the delivery part. That is the roadmap. But, the necessary structures and laws have not been made in the provincial levels. Questions are being raised as to what will happen if the federal government runs mega projects on its own without consent from provincial governments. The provincial governments have also shown interest in running the projects in their own territory. It’s their natural right. Although these projects come under the provincial governments’ jurisdiction, the Parliament directed the federal government to complete the projects and hand them over to provincial governments. But, provincial governments have demanded all authority, including office structure, civil servants and budget to complete these projects. Handing over the under-construction projects to provincial governments without putting in place sufficient structure will be a wrong move. Hence, the projects should be completed by the federal government and handed over to the provinces. Still, there is a rift between the political leadership and the bureaucracy over running development projects.  Once the necessary laws and structures are in place, provinces will certainly be able to handle such projects on their own. The international community has raised concern about transitional justice. How does the government plan to address the issue? The joint statement issued by the UN and nine embassies, including that of USA, UK, and Germany, was an intervention in Nepal’s internal affairs. It was wrong and we had no option but to oppose it. Transitional justice issues are our internal affairs. They released the statement at a time when the Nepali leadership was trying to take decisions on the basis of the home-grown model.  We will not accept foreign embassies’ intervention. Nepal will resolve these issues through its own national structures. Policy issues should be resolved on the basis of political consensus and procedural issues should be resolved as per the rules determined by the commissions, the government, judiciary and the Parliament. We have already made laws related to Truth and Reconciliation Commission. What about your views on the Supreme Court’s order? The Supreme Court has raised some issues on the laws and passed order telling the government to amend those laws and effort is being made to amend those laws. In the beginning, when we drafted laws, we were of the view that the court should hand over conflict-related cases to TRC and CIEDP. But the court has rejected this, saying that the constitutional court cannot hand over cases to commissions that were created on the basis of an Act. Therefore, the government is trying to amend the law. The court has also said in another order that there cannot be blanket amnesty to serious human rights violators. The court said reconciliation should be encouraged on the basis of victims’ consent. The process of amending the law was delayed also because there were two schools of thought with some saying the law should be amended on the basis of the court order and some were for filing a review petition against the Supreme Court’s order. What would be the next step of the government? The government has prepared a draft bill to amend the TRC Act.  Human rights activists and organisations, including UNDP, Switzerland based Human Rights organisation and other human rights institutions have been lobbying the government and in some cases also exerting pressure on transitional justice issues. The government drafted the bill keeping in mind the country’s own scenario, but these organisations rejected the drafts. They are hatching plots, but we will not fall into their trap.  Political leaders are of the view that Nepal should draft a new TRC bill as per our necessity. As per our political discussion, the commission can look into cases which are in the courts now. We can also limit the negative list. Some human rights activists are also saying that some cases should be taken to the Hague but we cannot agree with them. They are also saying that all conflict-era cases should be taken to the court and the guilty should be sent to jail.  A special court can be created to settle serious cases as we discussed at the political level. How will the government and political parties deal with transitional justice issues? As per the spirit of the Comprehensive Peace Accord, constitution and political parties, the issue should be resolved through the legal process. The major issue was political therefore the issue should be resolved politically. Western forces are trying to establish that human rights violation issues were issues of crime. There are two schools of thought on this, with one side viewing it as an issue of crime and the other viewing it as a political issue. We have been trying to resolve the issue on the basis of consensus from the very beginning. If any human rights violation case is non-political in character, then that can be in the negative list which can be addressed through the legal process. Unnecessary intervention is at the root of the current delay in settling transitional issues. What is your view of the opposition party’s role in the parliament? Apart from some cases where the opposition parties’ roles were negative, their roles in other cases were positive. Although there are ruling and opposition parties, we need to develop our democratic system in a way that gives primacy to forging consensus between both the ruling and opposition parties. We have passed more than three dozen laws from the Parliament and most of the bills were passed on the basis of understanding and agreement between ruling and opposition parties except National Medical Education Bill, Civil servants adjustment ordinance and budget. We forged consensus not only for passing the bills, but also electing chairpersons of the House panels unanimously. It was an exemplary model of consensus.