We do not allow elections taking place under party-less system: Dev Gurung (Secretary, CPN-Maoist)
There is no provision of appointing Chief of the Judiciary as the Chief of the Executive. We protested the decision of taking the country towards party-less system in the name of removing the difficulties of the constitution. The move is against the principle of the constitution and sprite of the people. We initiated efforts for making the President, who is the guardian of the constitution, aware about such situation and requested him to correct the issue but as he failed to do so, we were compelled to go to the street.
The major political parties have been saying that the move is important to give outlet to the present political stalemate why you were not convinced?
It was not necessary to go to the Chief Justice for finding political outlet. The major issues is what type of system we want to establish but the four major political parties do not pay heed in this regard. If the major parties wanted to go for party-less system and want to establish autocracy in the country why did they struggle against the monarchy and party-less panchyat system? The major parties have to answer the question. The recent move proves that the parties, which consider them as the guardian of the democracy, breached the democratic principles and their move would not give political way-out to the country. The Four political parties have been pushing the country into crisis. The move is not justifiable from the point of view of national sovereignty. This is also invalid from the point of views of democracy and constitution among others.
Was it possible to give outlet to the political stalemate through the Articles of the Constitution?
If the political parties do not want to go through the articles of the constitution why they did not turned-down the constitution? There is no need of having discussions for drafting the constitution if the major players do not abide by the constitution and keep on amending the constitution whenever they like. If the constitution became dysfunctional why the major parties did not agree for holding the round-table conference among all political parties and go for some other alternatives as proposed by our party? They should have incorporated all the political forces to find new mandate once the Interim Constitution which was issued on the basis of people’s movement became dysfunctional. We are not raising new issues but the major parties tried to move forcefully.
There are various changes in the country on the basis of political consensus. Why don’t you adopt this political consensus?
Yes many things were done on the basis of political consensus but you should be clear which political forces forged consensus this time. If the decision was taken through political consensus why many political parties are in the street? The consensus should be made based on some values and principles but you can’t do haphazard things in the name of consensus. If you see the representation at the dissolved constituent assembly two third members of the assembly have been saying that the decision of the four political parties is irrelevant and may lead the country towards complication. In this scenario how they (major political parties) who are in minority can take decision proclaiming themselves as major parties and saying the force which is in majority as fringe parties?
Do you want to disrupt the agreement among political parties by raising different issues?
The principle issue of the country at the moment is whether to protect the national sovereignty or not and the second major issue is whether to protect the democracy or not.
How can you claim that the national sovereignty is at risk after the formation of the government led by Chief Justice?
The proposal of forming the Chief Justice led government was not designed in the country. The proposal was made by some foreign power centers. The risk to the national sovereignty by forming the C led government could be seen gradually. The foreign power centers promoted for dissolving the Legislature parliament. Dissolution of the parliament has weakened the executive and they are finally trying to destroy the judiciary of the country. If all three organs of the state got destroyed how the national sovereignty can be protected?
The proposal was floated by Prachanda. Isn’t it?
I don’t need to clarify who floated the proposal. UML chair Jhalanath Khanal is claiming that he floated the proposal; Prachanda is also claiming that he floated the proposal and leaders of Nepali Congress are also claiming that the proposal came through consensus. In this scenario it is known to all that from where the proposal came.
You were in favor of removing Baburam Bhattarai from the post of Prime Minister at any cost. In this context you need to be happy from his removal. Isn’t it?
We demanded removal of Baburam Bhattarai due to his actions which were against the interest of the people and country. We were not intending to bring such situation after his removal. The situation is worse than the Bhattarai government.
Then you are not preparing for polls even if other political parties are doing so?
We could not take part in the attempt to finish democratic system, which is achieved through different people’s movement, in the name of elections. We are still urging to suspend the unconstitutional move of March 14 to appoint Chief Justice as the chief of Executive and move ahead by holding the round-table conference. If the major political parties neglect our call and try to move ahead unilaterally there is no option other than going for the agitation. It is not important whether we go for the elections or not, the important issue is that in which type of system we are going to hold the elections. We do not take part in the elections at the present context. If they want to go forcefully we will disrupt the process. There is no question of taking part in the elections which is taking place to finish democracy.