Nepal in judicial crisis as another deadline slips by
The political deadlock preventing Nepal from holding elections and writing a post-war constitution is threatening to paralyze its legal system and other vital facets of public life, according to analysts.
Almost half of the country’s Supreme Court bench is lying vacant after the terms of five justices expired this week, while the remaining two members of the election commission are due to retire next month, with three already gone.
None of these vital public roles can be filled, according to legal experts, because Nepal has no parliament to rubber-stamp constitutional appointments.
Meanwhile the apex court, a vital legal check on government decisions as well as the country’s top criminal appeals tribunal, is drowning under a caseload of up to 200 new cases a day, clearing an average of just 20.
Although a budget has been agreed to take the country through the next seven months, no cash for development projects can be approved in a country in desperate need of roads, schools and hospitals without a green light from lawmakers.
Meanwhile international donors, who let go of money on the condition of matched funding from the government, are expressing concerns behind the scenes that their money could be better spend in more stable regimes.
Resolving the deadlock has assumed an added urgency since a deal on the make-up of a new government and clearing the legal and constitutional hurdles for spring elections is essential by mid-December.
“Nepali politics has been locked in suspended animation since the monsoon planting season and the autumn harvest festivals,” said Himal Southasian magazine editor Kanak Mani Dixit in a recent commentary.
“As we enter the traditional winter of discontent, before an accident occurs, the path must be cleared for elections.”
Nepal has been run by a caretaker Maoist-led government since the collapse in May of an interim Constituent Assembly that had failed in its main task of drawing up a new constitution following a 10-year civil war that ended in 2006.
Despite talks, a deal on power-sharing continues to elude the two biggest political forces, the former rebel Maoists and the opposition Nepali Congress (NC).
Leaders of all the main parties failed for a second time Thursday to strike a deal on the political makeup of a proposed Cabinet to take Nepal into polls for a new parliament set for next April or May.
Political commentator Yubaraj Ghimire said the Maoists were the main beneficiaries of the judicial crisis, with the Supreme Court the only real obstacle to their clinging to power.
Another six-day extension to the deadline for agreement has been granted but experts expect parties to miss that too.
The introduction of a republican constitution and elections were key conditions of a deal that ended the civil war in which more than 16,000 died.
But the transition to democracy has been beset by the ethnic, caste, religious and ideological differences that have made agreement among the country’s powerbrokers impossible.
Nepal has more than 100 ethnic groups, speaking 135 languages, and the average income is around $3 per day. Unemployment is above 40 percent.
Marginalized lower castes are pushing for more power and increased access to jobs and education after the abolition of the monarchy four years ago.
While the Maoists want the creation of up to 14 states named after ethnic groups, their rivals say the plan would fuel unrest.
Maoist chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal and his number two, Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, are locked in a power struggle with neither seemingly keen on polls.
Dahal, better known by his nom-de-guerre Prachanda, has floated the idea of a “neutral figure” leading the country but the plan has not gone down well in the Bhattarai camp or the Nepali Congress.
“Prachanda is still the decisive player and a dramatic development is possible if he asks Bhattarai to resign and accepts the NC-led government,” said political analyst Bishnu Sapkota.
“Another option would be a voluntary step-down by the prime minister without any new deal. In this case parties could conduct further talks and reach a compromise within three to four weeks.
“But they will not be able to meet the proposed time line for conducting polls by April or May.”
