Opinion
Impact of impeachment
You can take away corruption from politics, but you cannot take away politics from corruptionThe climax of the Lok Man Singh Karki saga that began after the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority’s (CIAA) actions against Kanak Mani Dixit on April 22 reached a new height with the filing of an impeachment motion against Karki in Parliament by 157 MPs last week. This is more than the 25 percent of MP signatories required to file an impeachment motion. Passing it, however, requires a two-thirds majority. It is not a sheer coincidence that MPs from rival political camps—the CPN-UML and the CPN (Maoist Centre)—came together to file the motion.
So far, the Nepali Congress, the largest party in Parliament, has remained silent and without its green signal, the vote will not be upheld. It has been reported that the top three leaders had an informal meeting before filing the motion. It is also no coincidence that the motion was filed hours after the formation of the Impeachment Committee in Parliament. Had the motion not been filed on that day, the House sessions would have
been abrogated the following day and the Speaker would be visiting Switzerland to attend a conference starting October 21.
Furthermore, an interesting point is that, on October 19, a few hours after the filing of the motion, Karki returned to Kathmandu after spending a month-long foreign junket. Karki must have been in mid-air when the impeachment motion was tabled against him. Two other politically significant events taking place on October 20 in Kathmandu also need to be noted: the two mass gathering of Hindus, one inaugurated by former King Gyanendra and another by President Bidya Devi Bhandari. Political events in the country are unfolding in such a rapid manner that they can be easily noticed.
Tacit support
There is a famous line in anticorruption literature: you can take away corruption from politics, but you cannot take away politics from corruption. Either by design or default, we have come to a chaotic situation where corruption and politics are indistinguishable from each other. Imagine what would have happened if the impeachment motion got delayed by a day. It would not be Karki who would have been suspended, it would be Prachanda. Remember the CIAA’s investigation into cantonment corruption? The situation here is analogous to a last minute showdown in a movie where the one who pulls out the gun faster wins.
I will also ask the readers to imagine a hypothetical situation where the impeachment motion fails to garner the required two-thirds majority. Basically, this implies turning Karki into an invincible, unstoppable anti-corruption giant. A mere possibility of that will result in the motion being passed; it must be and will be passed unopposed in the House—unless the country’s politics takes a different turn in another 30 days or so. The Nepali Congress also must have given tacit support to the impeachment motion. However, this does not mean there is no circulation of a conspiracy theory—a political move by the communists to put the NC in a difficult situation. The political impact of the impeachment is gradually simmering in the country.
Now the important question to be asked is: has the problem been (re)solved? I will say no. Before going into the possible impacts of the impeachment motion, there is one more question to answer: will Karki tender his resignation to save face? Given the situation of the devil and the deep blue sea—the Supreme Court reviewing his appointment and Parliament initiating an impeachment process against him—it seems sensible for Karki to quit. But I have my doubts. Here is the reason: On April 3, prior to the onset of this saga, the CIAA chief contributed a piece in one of the English broadsheets published in Kathmandu. Here is an excerpt from the article: “With a tremendous sense of pride in my heart, I would happily accept death than to kneel down before the coteries of corruption.” One can infer from this statement that Karki is a person determined for a decisive fight.
A distraction
Let me now go back to the possible political impacts of impeachment. I have written in this paper before (‘Karki and Anarchy’, May 14, 2013) that it was a mistake to appoint Karki as the head of the constitutional anti-graft agency. By resorting to an impeachment process, if our political leaders are trying to correct the mistake they made in the past, then I would say they are making another mistake. Two wrongs do not make a right.
All over the world, the tenure of the chief of the anticorruption agency (ACA) is, to a fair extent, guaranteed autonomy, freedom in operation and protection from possible political encroachments. In Sri Lanka, the chief of ACA recently resigned after having a difference of opinion with the President. Impeachment demands an extreme situation. Going through the list of reasons mentioned in the impeachment motion, they seem to have been taken from the pamphlet prepared by the supporters of Dr Govinda KC. By and large, the present move has been triggered by Dr KC’s fast-onto-death strikes. The present impeachment process will set a (bad) precedent and will eventually affect other constitutional bodies. What is more worrisome is the possible emergence of a totally chaotic situation in the county’s anticorruption drive.
If the intention of the drafters of the new constitution was to kill the anticorruption bird called the CIAA, they could have done it right at the time of the constitution’s writing. By tampering with the mandate of the CIAA—by appointing the commissioners purely under a political bhagbanda (sharing) system and now resorting to an extreme measure like an impeachment process—the political leaders are creating a chaotic situation. This is not to imply that Karki is an anticorruption hero; but by resorting to an impeachment process, our political masters have set back the country’s anti-corruption drive. It will probably take ages to undo this.
Political corruption—the biggest corruption in Nepal, which Karki has so far failed to do anything about—will come as a free-for-all. We will come to a situation where the marriage between politics and corruption will be seamless.
One reason why I thought it was mistake to appoint Karki in 2013 was that it was the time for the government to engage in holding an election to the Constituent Assembly, not in appointing political honchos here and there. If our political leaders were so worried about corruption in the country, why did they leave the CIAA without a chief commissioner from 2006-2013? In a same manner, I would say now is the time for political leaders to be engaged in preparing for elections and in amending and implementing the constitution. This is definitely is not a time get distracted by an impeachment process. Imagine the void we will be creating when there will be no elections by January 21, 2018!
Manandhar is a freelance consultant