Bhattarai’s performance as prime minister must be judged on the basis of the progress made in the peace process under him, and his leadership qualities.[break]
First, the peace process. There is no denying one thing: Election of anyone other than Baburam Bhattarai to the post of prime minister would have been a non-starter for the peace process.
Invoking a Marxist interpretation of events, Bhattarai once told us that he became prime minister out of “historical necessity” as the interests of his own party, domestic forces (meaning other political parties) and international forces, mainly India, converged on his name.
Following the Dhobighat alliance between Bhattarai and Maoist Senior Vice-chairman Mohan Baidya, it became impossible for Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal to ignore Bhattarai. The Nepali Congress wanted to elect its own candidate as prime minister and yet many NC leaders knew deep down that it was neither going to be possible nor would it help kick-start the peace process.
That Bhattarai had been the only consistent champion of peace and constitution in the Maoist party made the NC less critical of him as a candidate for premiership and more hopeful that the peace process would move forward once he was elected. India, deeply suspicious of Dahal and hell-bent on keeping him out of power, thought that Bhattarai was more dependable both because of his commitment to peace and constitution and for his liberal views about the southern neighbor.
Bhattarai’s ascendance to Baluwatar, therefore, turned the environment conducive for the peace process and provided assurance to each of the three forces -- Maoists, NC and India -- that things wouldn’t go awry under him.
But his role and importance in moving the peace process ended right there -- in being the man of “historical necessity”-- since the negotiations on the nitty-gritty of the peace process, as seasoned observers would know, actually took place among Maoist Chairman Dahal, NC and India.
With the premature dissolution of the Dhobighat alliance, Chairman Dahal has once again consolidated his power within the Maoist party, leaving the Baidya group weighing options whether to split the party sooner than later, and Prime Minister Bhattarai in a very weak position in the internal dynamics.
It’s because of his poor grip in the Maoist party and the PLA that Prime Minister Bhattarai hasn’t played a substantive role in peace process negotiations, leaving that hard work to Chairman Dahal. Nor has he taken initiatives in implementing the peace deal. Take for instance, the matter of returning seized properties. As Maoist Chairman Dahal has backed down from his attempt to return the properties seized by his cadres, in the face of stiff resistance on the ground, Prime Minister Bhattarai has not taken any initiative of his own.
Chairman Dahal is, therefore, the man who has taken the lead in driving the peace process; has made bargains and concessions on behalf of his party and has earned the ire of his cadres. Bhattarai’s contribution in propelling the current phase of the peace process should, therefore, be seen in a proper perspective.
When it comes to his role as prime minister with regard to other issues, Bhattarai has put in below-par performance and has exposed his moral weaknesses.
His decision to ride a Mustang-Max was a publicity coup and won the hearts of tens of thousands of Nepalis who have come to see politicians as a corrupt, self-indulgent and self-serving bunch. But Bhattarai soon dashed their hopes when he constituted a 49-member cabinet, the largest ever in Nepal’s history. And he insulted the Nepali people’s intelligence by publicly arguing that the cabinet expansion was a price he had to pay for peace and constitution.
In reality, it turned out that it was a case of an exceedingly insecure prime minister nervously reacting to a false perception that his own party chairman was already working to topple his government. In inducting so many ministers into the cabinet from the Madhesi parties and from his own, he was creating a stake in the longevity of his government for as many lawmakers as possible in the hope that they would take his side if and when the situation so demanded.
Prime Minister Bhattarai has also compromised good governance and tolerated corruption under his very nose, fearing a backlash from coalition partners and ministers from his own party if he put his foot down.
Immediately after his election, Bhattarai had promised civil servants that they would not be transferred without reason and yet over 200 civil servants have been transferred in less than four months, the highest number of transfers immediately after the formation of a new cabinet.
Prime Minister Bhattarai is also found wanting when it comes to belief in the rule of law and the upholding of human rights. His refusal to take action against Minister Prabhu Sah, charged by Parsa police with murder, until the opposition parties stalled the House demanding his sacking, the clemency plea he forwarded to the president for Maoist lawmaker Balkrishna Dhungel, and his public views on a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (that the TRC will not indict anyone but forgive all human rights violations) expose his disregard for rule of law and human rights, the pillars of a functioning democracy.
In all, he has proven to be a weak prime minister, prone to putting his personal interests first and, for the sake of that, compromising the larger interests of society.
The prime minister, who used to routinely achieve distinction in the academic field, may have awarded himself a distinction for his performance as prime minister, but the public is painfully discovering that academic excellence does not automatically translate into good moral judgment and leadership qualities.
Related story
The real deal
