On the second day of the two-day orientation program given by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to its MPs, President Ravi Lamichhane said that the ‘Right to Recall’ provision in the party’s statute will be strictly implemented. Speaking in the context of party discipline, Lamichhane reminded the MPs of the ‘Right to Recall’ provision. He had said , ‘Regardless of whether the government has a two-thirds majority, the number will decrease or the government will remain in the majority, the number will decrease, or it will fall into the minority… we will strictly implement the ‘Right to Recall’ provision this time.’

After Lamichhane instructed his MPs to remember the ‘Right to Recall’, this concept has come up again in the debate. This has raised an important question – do the people have the right to remove their elected representatives before their term ends?

In a democracy, are regular elections the only final step or do the people also have the right to intervene in the middle? What is ‘Right to Recall’ and is it an exercise done by the voters or by the party? How is this practiced? Is there a practice that can be used in Nepali politics? We have tried to explain it in seven questions and answers.

What is ‘Right to Recall’?

‘Right to Recall’ refers to the right of the people to recall their elected representatives before their term ends. It is based on the belief that whoever wins should also be able to remove them. If an elected representative loses the trust of the people, does not fulfill his promises, or acts against the public interest, the people can remove them without waiting for the next election. This concept comes from the basic democratic belief that ‘sovereign power resides in the people’. In this sense, ‘Right to Recall’ is considered an effective tool to put into practice the idea that the people’s representative is not the master, but the servant of the people.

However, it should be understood that having a ‘Right to Recall’ system and using it are two different things. Although this system exists on paper in many countries, it is rarely used in practice. But its mere existence is expected to make the people's representatives accountable.

Why is the 'right to recall' considered necessary?

In a representative system like ours, the people have to wait until the next election after voting once. Some have also interpreted this as a weakness of democracy.
If a representative becomes corrupt, does not act according to the manifesto, or acts against the public interest within five years, there is no option to immediately remove him. The concept of 'right to recall' was developed as a way to fill this gap. It is believed that it keeps the people's representatives under constant public supervision and makes them accountable.

But it also has its weaknesses. Although it looks attractive in theory, it is argued that it can increase political instability in practice. If 'recalls' are repeated, there may be problems in the operation of government. There is a risk of removing capable representatives based on political vendetta, emotional decisions, or momentary dissatisfaction.

In countries where this system is practiced, it is practiced in two or more stages. In the first phase, a certain percentage of voters in the relevant constituency (such as 25 to 50 percent) sign and demand a recall. Then the signatures are verified according to the country's laws. If the signatures are valid, an election date is set. If the majority decides to remove the representative, the person being recalled is removed from office and a by-election is held there.

In which countries is this practiced?

Some countries and states in the world have the practice of 'right to recall'. Some states in the United States have such a system. In California, even the governor can be removed through 'right to recall'.

In 2003, Governor Gray Davis was removed from there through this process, which is a very famous example. Similarly, in Venezuela, there is a system to remove the president in the middle of the term through a referendum, and this practice is also found in some local levels in Switzerland. In some states in India, there is such a system limited to the municipal or rural municipality level. It is also mentioned at various levels in Canada, Bolivia, and Ecuador.

But the important thing is that in many developed parliamentary democracies like Britain, Australia, and Japan, there is no such system for national parliaments. This shows that the ‘right to recall’ is applied to directly elected executive positions, but very little in the parliamentary system.

What is the legal system for removing MPs in Nepal?

According to the Constitution of Nepal, the post of MP becomes vacant in cases such as death, resignation, disqualification, dual membership, or party resignation. In particular, the provisions related to party resignation and whip violation are regulated by the law on political parties. Violating the whip on matters such as confidence or no-confidence motions, budgets, and policy programs can result in the loss of MPs.

Since there is no provision for ‘right to recall’, the general public does not have a direct role in removing MPs. Rather, it is limited only within the party. Therefore, the current system in Nepal is not ‘right to recall’, but only party discipline based on constitutional provisions.

Was the debate on ‘right to recall’ raised in Nepal before?

This issue is not new in the context of Nepal. In 2074 BS, a proposal was made in the State Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives that an MP could be removed if 25 percent of the voters demanded it. Various parties have also committed to bringing such a provision in their manifestos.

The constitution had made a provision for recalling members of the National Panchayat during the Panchayat period. According to Article 38, Clause (1)(f) of the Constitution of Nepal 2019, there was a provision that the post of a member of the National Panchayat would become vacant if he is withdrawn as provided in law. However, no law was brought in this regard during that period. Since the constitution stated it in accordance with the law, this provision could not be implemented. Are the actions taken by the party and the ‘right to recall’ the same?

No, these are two different things. The actions taken by the party are part of party discipline. The party can suspend or expel its members for violating the rules, disobeying the whip, or for other reasons. Such a decision is made by the party leadership.

Whereas ‘right to recall’ is the right of the people. In this, the people themselves remove their representatives by completing the process. Therefore, there is a fundamental difference between the party’s decision and the people’s decision. While party action is ‘control within the party’, ‘right to recall’ is ‘direct control of the people’.

So what is the ‘right to recall’ that RSP Chairman Lamichhane is talking about?

Some parties have used the word ‘right to recall’ in their statutes. But it is not recall in the real sense, because there is no role for the people. They have interpreted it in the context of the party leadership making such a decision.

The ‘right to recall’ mentioned by RSP Chairman Lamichhane seems to be used in the context of party discipline rather than the exercise of any legal system. He has warned RSP MPs that disciplinary action may be taken in the name of ‘right to recall’.