The preparation of the ruling parties to elect a ‘non-political’ person as president has stirred a fresh debate and controversy in the wider political circle in Nepal. While a section of people have supported the idea of electing a ‘non-political’ person as the new president and even suggested a number of names for consideration, there are many who have rejected the proposal outright. Those who support the idea argue that the president, who is supposed to play a neutral role as envisaged in the constitution, has failed to play such a role. President, who has a political background and has allegiance toward a certain political party, is seen playing a role that suits the interest of his/her mother party. Certain decisions taken by former President Ram Baran Yadav and incumbent President Bidya Devi Bhandari are glaring testimony to this fact. Their decisions were as much controversial as politically-motivated. Those who have opposed the proposal also have compelling reasons for their support. Basically, they argue that there is no fault in the system of electing a person with a political background as president. But the fault lies on the persons who are elected to the post. They also argue that any such proposition is nothing but a recipe for a political disaster, possibly backtracking on the democratic achievements made so far in the country.

The post of president is largely ceremonial in terms of powers exercised in Nepal. Yet, there has been a practice of appointing a person with political background as the president, who serves as head of the state in Nepal, after the abolition of monarchy in 2008. Up until 1990, the incumbent king acted both as executive head of the state and head of the government. But after the restoration of multi-party democracy following a 30-year long partyless Panchayat system, king in his capacity as the constitutional monarchy started playing the role of a ceremonial head of the state. The first precedent of the appointment of ‘non-political’ person as head of the government was set in Nepal with the appointment of then Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi as the chairman of the Council of Minister in March 2013 following a political deadlock seen in the country after then Prime Minister Dr Baburam Bhattarai dissolved the Constituent Assembly that failed to promulgate new constitution. It is in the knowledge of everyone in Nepal that it was New Delhi’s proposal to appoint Regmi, who passed the verdict that the term of elected Constituent Assembly (CA) cannot be further extended, as the de facto prime minister. Former Chief Secretary Madhav Prasad Ghimire was appointed as foreign minister and home minister in the Regmi-led cabinet that had a mandate to hold the fresh Constituent Assembly elections. This particular move provided space for external powers to exert unwarranted influence in Nepal’s internal politics, leaving the country’s key political actors literally without any powers to shape the country’s political process. The appointment of Regmi as the de facto prime minister thus set an extremely bad precedent in Nepali politics and the latest exercise to find a ‘non-political’ person as the new president is set to be the continuation of the same.

The November 20 election has given a fractured mandate to the political parties. This means that two major political parties — either Nepali Congress or the CPN-UML — need to forge alliance with other parties to form a new government under their leadership. The ruling NC and the CPN (Maoist Center) have already reached an informal agreement to form a new government and share the post of prime minister for two and a half years each during the five-year term of the new parliament. But as the NC and the Maoists are set to take either the portfolio of prime minister or president at the beginning as a part of the power sharing deal, there will be a time when both the positions of prime minister and president will be held by the same party. Both the parties seem to have a fear that such a situation is likely to be a dangerous one as seen in the recent past when both the prime minister and president were of the same party. Parliament was dissolved twice by the then Prime Minister KP Oli, who is also the chairman of CPN-UML, with a tacit support of President Bidya Bhandari, who formerly belonged to the same party. The fear they have is understandable given the bitter sweet experience of the recent past. But the solution they are trying to find in the election of a ‘non-political’ person as the president is clearly not the wiser one. There is no guarantee that a person of ‘non-political’ background will act in a neutral manner unless there is a mechanism to make him/her accountable. Thus, it is high time Nepal’s domestic political actors worked together to make the president accountable to the constitution and oath he or she has taken while assuming the office. There are also questions if the proposal to elect a ‘non-political’ person as the president is home-grown, given that second-rung leaders of both the NC and Maoist Center say that no discussions have been held in the party over such a proposal. Thus, it is equally important that the political parties worked together to determine and shape Nepal’s domestic political process on their own. The  attempt to elect a ‘non-political’ person as the president will only set another bad precedent as seen already in Nepal’s chequered political history.

 
• non-political’_person
 
• President
 
• Nepal