The brief but heated argument between Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and Maoist forest minister Matrika Yadav, which resulted in the exit of the Maoist ministers from the meeting that was later postponed, represents perhaps the first such incident in Nepal’s cabinet history. The meeting between Koirala and Maoist chairman Prachanda later that day may have calmed things down, but the episode raises some questions regarding the running of the eight-party government, which had jointly launched and led the successful Jana Andolan of last April, which has given them the mandate to steer the country through the constituent assembly (CA) polls. The altercation reportedly erupted when Koirala chided Yadav for accusing the Nepal Army, in a public speech a couple of days ago, of being involved in poaching wildlife and speaking of taking action as the forest minister. Koirala’s contention was that Yadav had poached on defence ministry, the jurisdiction of Koirala himself. Yadav stuck to his guns by saying that he had every right to speak as the minister without Koirala’s permission. Both sounded impulsive and excited. Koirala asked him to leave the meeting, and he left, followed by the other Maoist ministers.

The dispute brings to the fore the need to develop a coalition culture of governance in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Interim Constitution (IC), which stresses consensus and agreement as the basis for interim governance. Both Koirala and Yadav could have done better without their angry and discourteous styles of presentation. The once-rebels should learn the polished manners needed in democratic governance, and Koirala would do well to realise that he is now not the Prime Minister under the prime ministerial system as envisaged under the erstwhile 1990 constitution, even though the problems of both Koirala and Yadav, used to different ways of working, may also have to be understood in the initial stages.

It would have been better if Koirala and Yadav had talked to each other directly and separately. What the eight parties should do now is to turn this row into a blessing by developing guidelines for the behaviour and speech of the cabinet members and the Prime Minister. But, in order to prevent further disputes and misunderstandings in future, those areas not addressed by the existing code should be covered. The question of jurisdiction is also an important one. The Prime Minister sounded angry probably because the minister touched a raw nerve — the Nepal Army. Koirala has otherwise rarely, if ever, publicly taken exception to ministers speaking on issues falling in their colleagues’ territory — for instance, finance minister pontificating on education policy, foreign minister commenting on defence, defence minister treading on the communication ministry’s turf, and so on. At least, Yadav can claim that he spoke of action against the guilty because the matter was the direct concern of the forest ministry. But it is no use blowing the issue out of proportions. Consequently, if the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues get wiser, it will be a real gain for governance.