A serious political and constitutional debate has started after ex-president Bidya Devi Bhandari announced the return of UML to active politics in a program held last Saturday on the occasion of the 74th birth anniversary of public leader Madan Bhandari. Like Bhandari, Nanda Bahadur, who was the vice president for two terms, has become the vice president of Maoists a few months ago.

It was not unusual for the former president and former vice president to enter into party politics at a time when controversial debates were going on about the democratic republic established by the 2062/063 people's movement. While Bhandari was President and again Vice President, they had additional political interests and activities, and their roles were controversial. After retiring from the presidency, Bhandari, who has been continuously involved in political dialogue and activities, has not only signaled her return to party politics, but has been giving a clear message. So his political comeback was not unexpected, no. 

But the president is not a person, but an institution. The symbol of the republic is the president. If the current or former President-Vice-Presidents are in conflict, the institution of the presidency itself becomes conflicted, unpopular and weak. Which has a direct negative impact on the republic. Therefore, how appropriate is it for former presidents and vice presidents, who have become the president and parents of the nation, to enter party politics? What kind of political precedent and culture will be established due to the political comeback of Bhandari and Pun? What will affect the democratic republic? Some complex and controversial questions have been raised.

Therefore, it seems inevitable to answer such questions based on the letter and spirit of the Constitution of Nepal, the principles and values ​​of the democratic republic and the international practices of the democratic republic. But due to the fact that they are against the political activism of the former President-Vice Presidents, the equation and polarization within the UML after Bhandari's return, the power struggle between Bhandari and KP Oli or a possible reunion, will not enter into the UML's internal affairs and mathematical calculations. Why

Bhandari and re-party politics?

Bhandari from a normal family of Bhojpur and a tribe born in a normal family of Rolpa again reached the highest institution of the state, succeeded in becoming the guardian of the nation. They achieved the highest political success. But again what is the purpose of being active in party politics? For position or for power? Bhandari, who has become the Supreme Commander of the Nepali Army, will now be the guardian of the nation or the UML's henchman?

Honorable President or Comrade Vidya? The question may seem targeted, but it's not. The question is not the person, but the method. The question is not the party but the system. The question is not about power, but about institutions. The question is not only the constitution, but the principle. The question is not only of law, but also of morality. Nepal's constitution did not envisage former presidents and vice presidents re-entering party politics. Therefore, nothing was mentioned in the constitution about this. Because this is the tradition, practice and culture established in a democratic republic. 

But Bhandari has entered into party politics to achieve her insatiable desire for power by putting not only the dignity and prestige of the presidential institution at stake, but also the republic itself. Analyzing on the basis of his expressions and activities, whether he was in office or after his retirement, it seems that he has fierce political ambitions. Where is the final destination of such ambition? President of UML or Prime Minister?

Bhandari, who created history by becoming the first woman president, now seems to be returning to politics with the ambition of becoming the first woman president of UML and then the first woman prime minister. The republic and even the presidential institution can be the victims of such unwanted desire for power. Is the democratic republic established by the Nepali people through sacrificial struggle to satisfy Bhandari's insatiable and unwanted thirst for power? 

The announcement of Madan Bhandari Foundation's entry into active politics, which seems to have been staged after long political homework and choreography, is meaningful and meaningful in itself. Mentioning the quote of her husband Bhandari that "there is no term for fatigue in politics", wife Bhandari claimed that she came into active politics because she still has the feeling of contributing to the country and serving the people. But even now, what 'contribution' and what kind of 'service' does he have to do to the country? If she does not return to party politics, it will be the greatest contribution to the country and the greatest service to the people. 

President, Vice President may have had some state secrets while performing their duties. There may have been sensitive issues related to national interest, security and foreign policy. But after they enter party politics, the risk that such confidentiality will not be maintained or that a particular party may misuse such confidential and sensitive matters is also increasing. What could be a greater misfortune for a democratic republic and a presidential institution?

Vidya's controversial past

After Madan Bhandari's untimely death in a mysterious Dasdhunga accident, wife Bhandari, who entered politics based on sympathy, went on to become an MP, minister, vice president of UML for two terms. Even though there is a long line of able, qualified and contributing leaders in UML, its past is not without controversy as it has been taking one political leap after another with the blessings of Oli. Not only the term of the vice president of the minister and UML, but also the term of the president is equally disputed because they are not able to perform a fair and neutral role according to the spirit and spirit of the constitution. Although there were other reasons, his tenure was controversial for three reasons in particular.

First, the unconstitutional dissolution of the House of Representatives. When the internal conflict of the then CPN reached its climax, she unconstitutionally dissolved the House of Representatives on 5th January 2077 on the recommendation of the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. The dissolution, which was done against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, was undemocratic and unconstitutional. With such unconstitutional and undemocratic tendencies of Bhandari and Oli, the basic value and spirit of democracy and constitution was attacked. Therefore, on February 11, 2077, the Supreme Court made a historic decision to restore the House of Representatives, holding that it was unconstitutionally dissolved. The decision of the Supreme Court corrected the mistake made by the President while protecting the Constitution. 

The second, second unconstitutional dissolution of the House of Representatives. After failing to get a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives, she again dissolved the House of Representatives at midnight on May 7, 2078, on the recommendation of Oli, who became acting Prime Minister for the period until the formation of the next government. On the one hand, despite the support of the majority of MPs in the House of Representatives, she did not appoint Sher Bahadur Deuba, the leader of the opposition party at the time, as the Prime Minister. On the other hand, she again dissolved the House of Representatives challenging the historic decision of the Supreme Court on February 11, 2077. Therefore, not only Oli's but also Bhandari's role in the repeated dissolution of the House of Representatives against the spirit of the Constitution and the decision of the Supreme Court was equally disgraceful and malicious. But on June 28, 2078, for the second time, the Supreme Court overturned the unconstitutional dissolution and made another historic decision to restore the House of Representatives. 

Thirdly, as the president, she made controversial decisions according to the interests of the then Prime Minister Oli and UML. Although he was in the air-conditioned room of Shitalniwas, his attention was more focused on the hot environment of the UML central office. Perhaps she read the constitution of UML more than the constitution. Now that he has returned to the active politics of UML, this reality has been confirmed. Being the protector and guardian of the constitution, she neither protected the constitution nor followed the constitution. On the contrary, she violated the constitution and made unconstitutional and controversial decisions many times. Shouldn't he be accountable and responsible for these matters?

practice in America and India 

Although they are countries that have adopted democratic republics, America and India have their own government systems, forms and characteristics. The president of both the countries is the president. America is a country with a presidential system with an executive president, while India has a parliamentary system with a ceremonial president. As both Nepal and India follow ceremonial presidential and parliamentary systems, they have many similarities in terms of democratic system and governance. The institution of the presidency in India is not controversial. President's office is considered to be very dignified and prestigious. No President of India has ever taken a controversial decision. So no president was contested.

No one returned or entered active, official and party politics after retiring from the Presidency-Vice-Presidentship. Another noteworthy aspect is that India has never had a president from a communist background. Therefore, as is currently happening in Nepal in India, the former president-vice president can do active, official or party politics or not? No dispute has been created. 

Founder President George Washington, the supreme commander of the American War of Independence, who fought against British colonialism and built an independent and sovereign country, was offered to become a king or president for life. But Washington, motivated by democratic values, principles and culture, not only rejected both proposals, he also announced that he would only be president for two terms. Because he wanted to establish a new principle, culture and example in a newly established country and democratic system.

Since the president is very powerful and has all the power, there is also the possibility and risk of being authoritarian and totalitarian. But due to the principles, customs and practices established by Washington, there was no unwanted power struggle in the US and power has been transferred naturally and peacefully through periodic elections. This is the most remarkable and exemplary aspect of American democracy. No one served more than two terms as President except once. It was not mentioned in the constitution that the term of office of the President is two years. But it was an established principle, practice and tradition of American democracy. 

But in the specific period of the Second World War, the then President Franklin Roosevelt became president not only for two, but also for the fourth term. Whether Roosevelt was popular and successful as president after taking a leading role in defeating Hitler in World War II is a separate debate. But it created a serious political and constitutional debate and controversy in America. After a long debate, the 32nd amendment to the Constitution finally fixed two terms for the President in 1951. According to the same constitutional provisions, even now the president has only two terms. Therefore, learning from the democratic system of America and India, presidential practice and example will be beneficial for the health of the democratic republic of Nepal. 

The difference between Ram Varan and Vidya

In a country like Nepal with social, ethnic and gender differences, the first president from the backward Madhesi community and the second president from the women and the vice president from the tribal community is the most memorable and golden aspect of the republic period. Political, economic, social and cultural backgrounds of Yadav and Bhandari are almost similar in nature. Just like Bhandari was the Vice President of UML, Yadav was also the Congress General Minister before becoming the President. Yadav's tenure was not disputed except for one exception. After retiring from the presidency, Yadav did not enter party politics. Yadav was a democrat, a republican. So he followed democratic and republican values, principles and customs. 

But Bhandari was not a democrat, she was the leader of the Communist Party. He is initiated not from democratic values ​​and principles, but from Marxism, Leninism. Being a communist, she could not imbibe democratic values, principles and culture. This is the difference between a democrat and a communist. Therefore, it is necessary for the people to make an appropriate decision by knowing the democrats and communists well and distinguishing them. Because planting lemons does not produce oranges.

Yadav has been devoting himself to environmental destruction and protection of Churekshetra. Like Yadav, it would be preferable for all former presidents and vice presidents to play a leading role in socio-cultural and environmental campaigns. Bhandari and Pune can play a leading role in the field of judgment, distribution and reconciliation of the Armed conflict, the rights of the victims of the Decaded Armed conflict. That will be their natural roles and will support and support such an missionary.

ministers and former Pradhanants of the United States are led by a similar social, cultural, educational campaign and contributing from non-governmental areas. It would be appropriate to imitate such practice and culture in Nepal. & Nbsp;

conclusions & nbsp; Analyzing in

Nature Country Catical Canavas, not only unwragitive, impartial politics, but also the values, theory, theory, and practice of the democratic Republic. Such an unfortunate trends will cause more unpopular, weak, dispute and distorted. Such the tendency of the steward and Pune benefit the prejudice, monarchy, the monarchy, anti-regional forces, party and tendencies. So history and future generations will not forgive them. & Nbsp; This is not a Biblely communicative, not a personal subject for story-braake. According to Ram Baran Yadav and Sweethearted Political Politable Political Politable Political Politar, this is the same, and it is also the same idea. So it is necessary to protect the present and future storekeepers and republics. For that, these two proposals are equally needed to implement irrational.