The party establishment must explain why it wants to change its earlier decision and go for a directly-elected prime ministerial model. After all the decision to strike a deal with the Nepali Congress and go for a prime minister elected by parliament was taken by the UML politburo meeting chaired by Chairman Khanal himself. According to the UML statute, such crucial decisions need to be endorsed by the party’s central committee. While this particular decision has not been endorsed by the central committee it has also not been withdrawn by the politburo. Instead, the UML parliamentary party, which is not a decision making body, has engaged in a fierce debate on what the party’s stance should be. It is unfortunate that the UML remains divided on such a key constitutional issue even after a vote in the CA committee and just 123 days before the deadline for writing the new constitution.
The UML should immediately convene its central committee meeting, the highest decision making body in the party, and take a final decision. So long as the party remains divided over this matter it will further complicate negotiations in the CA on the system of governance. Once the major parties become clear on their individual stances regarding the key constitutional issues it will provide a basis for further negotiations in the CA. Both the directly-elected and parliament-elected prime ministerial models have their strengths and weaknesses. Instead of engaging in unhealthy position-taking we urge the UML party to begin a substantive debate on the pros and cons of each of the two models. That will be good for the party and also good for the country.
Related story
Amid deepening rift within ruling CPN-UML, Madhav Nepal-led fac...
