Obstructionist culture

A few weeks ago, rival petrol tanker associations obstructed the supply of petroleum products, creating serpentine queues at petrol pumps in the capital. A few days ago, transporters announced strikes in the far western region after district administrations there ruled against local transport syndicates that were ripping off the public. And this obstructionist culture that is fast becoming the mainstream in our society was on grand display in parliament on Thursday when the United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) -- an alliance of Madhes-based parties-- obstructed the government´s announced plan to unveil the new budget. UDMF said that it was obstructing the budget for two reasons—one, its suggestions on the budget were ignored, and two, it has been completely bypassed by the three largest political parties on key political issues. If you decode this grievance, UDFM is basically saying that UDFM’s programs should be incorporated in the budget, and secondly, it should have a share in political appointments and a say on major political issues.



There are two problems with UDFM´s demands. First, the UDFM is not a part of the ruling coalition; it´s in the opposition along with the main opposition party, Nepali Congress. How can parties in opposition demand incorporation of their programs and policies in the budget? A basic rule of democracy is that a party or coalition of parties that has a majority in parliament forms the government and implements its policies and programs, while the parties in opposition can critique those policies and programs and wait till the next general election in the hope that the people will agree with them and give them a chance to form a new government. The demand of the opposition parties that the government incorporate their programs and policies is, therefore, against a basic tenet of parliamentary rule. By the same token, UDFM´s demand for a share in political appointments is illegitimate, to say the least. Isn’t the culture of sharing plum political appointments among major parties-- irrespective of whether they are in government or the opposition—comparable to the rent-seeking syndicate system that petty transporters run on our highways?



But it’s not just the Madhesi parties that are demanding a slice of the political pie. Even the main opposition Nepali Congress is pressing for its share in appointing the chiefs at constitutional bodies. The major constitutional bodies have remained without chiefs for so long not because the political leadership hasn’t found competent and deserving individuals to lead these vital institutions but because they haven’t yet figured out how to distribute such posts among their respective cadres. Madhesi parties are, however, right to demand that they be consulted on major political issues. There is no doubt that UDMF is now a fourth political force in the country and represents a strong constituency. Without bringing it on board it will be virtually impossible to promulgate and implement the new constitution— a good enough reason to carry UDFM along on key political issues.

Related story

'Cycle Culture in Painting' workshop organized to promote cycle...