Birendra P Mishra

The fact that the NA is a permanent House was never taken seriously by any prime minister.

Recently, 19 members of the National Assembly (NA) have retired. Now, there remain only 19 members in the House, which has never sat after dissolution of the House of Representatives about three years ago. On their retiring day an informal function was organised without any formal speech or representation of the political parties. Some retiring members vented their resentment over the denial of a role to the NA in the past. They criticised the three prime ministers appointed by the King after Oct. 4, 2004 when the King dismissed the elected government of Sher Bahadur Deuba. The Constitution of Nepal has envisaged the NA as a permanent House with sixty members. Article 46 (a) provides, “Ten members to be nominated by His Majesty from distinguished persons who have rendered eminent service in various fields of national life.” Clause (b) provides, “Thirty members, including at least three women members, to be elected by the House of Representatives according to the proportional representation system by means of a single transferable vote…”. Clause (c) provides, “Fifteen members at the ratio of three members from each of the Development Regions to be elected by an electoral college consisting of chairmen and deputy chairmen of village and town level local authorities and chairmen and deputy chairmen, and members of district level authority, by means of a single transferable vote, as provided in the law”.

Any serious observer who has any interest in the functioning of the parliamentary system in Nepal will not take the resentment of the retiring MPs seriously. After the restoration of the parliamentary system in 1990, the ruling party or its leader never paid any serious attention to it. While nominating 10 members to NA from the start to the last, Clause (a) of Art.46 was not followed in the true spirit of the Constitution. It was reported that the Cabinet did not exercise its right to nominate the members. The practice continued till its logical culmination when a nominated member was ordered to resign which he did humbly.

The election of three women members to the NA on the basis of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote (Clause B of Art. 46) always remained suspended as only one woman member was being elected every third year for which the single transferable voting system does not work at all. The single woman member was being elected on the basis of majority votes in the Lower House, contrary to the provision of the Constitution.

The election of fifteen members from the five development regions in accordance with Clause (c) of Art, 46, too, remained inoperative for more than six years as one member was to be elected from one region every third year as a single transferable voting system is not effective for one seat. The CPN-UML boycotted the elections, and the Nepali Congress got its candidates elected unopposed. The elections took place only after the law was amended as per recommendation of the Election Commission offering an alternative for getting votes transferred from one candidate to another.

Some NA members used to complain that the House did not have enough business to conduct. In the first House, when Daman Nath Dungana used to preside over the Lower House, all bills except financial ones used to be introduced in the Upper House. This practice was later on discontinued, which resulted in less business of the House. The fact that the NA is a permanent House was never considered seriously by the leader who headed the government. For the first time, the Lower House was dissolved in 1994 without passing the annual budget. The budget was announced (read) by the finance minister in an international hall meant for public meetings. It could have been presented in the Upper House as well. In the NA, at that time, the ruling Nepali Congress had a clear majority. Moreover, there was nothing to fear, as the NA has no constitutional right to reject or pass the budget. Unfortunately, the next prime ministers, the late Manmohan Adhikari, and Deuba, too, dissolved the Lower House without passing of the budget. They followed the earlier example by reading the budget speech in a meeting hall, not the Upper House. Had GP Koirala established the convention of passing the budget by the parliament even after the defeat of the motion of thanks to the King, with the co-operation of the other parties, the whole political

scenario would have been different. His decision to dissolve the House before passing of the budget has deprived the parliament of its sovereignty which has been accepted in all nations following parliamentary system. As a matter of fact, passing of the budget is the sole business

of the parliament. It appears to be futile to deliberate on the effectiveness of the Constitution at this juncture, which has either been reduced to non-existence, or to the One Article Constitution.

Prof Mishra is a former Election Commissioner