After the Gen-G movement succeeded and an interim government was formed, the heated debate over directly elected executives has resumed. When the movement was initially announced, no Gen-G group was demanding a directly elected executive. However, after Kathmandu Metropolitan City Mayor Balendra Shah and some Gen-G leaders made such a demand, a powerful wave has been created in Nepali politics.

Not only Mayor Shah and some Gen-G leaders, but also Maoist coordinator Pushpa Kamal Dahal and former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, who abandoned the Maoists a decade ago and has been advocating alternative politics, have also raised the issue of a directly elected presidential system. There was extensive discussion, debate and controversy about the presidential system in the first and second Constituent Assemblies. But after the parties could not reach an agreement on the presidential system, a compromise was finally reached on a reformed parliamentary system and a mixed electoral system. 

Has the failure of the parliamentary system created a situation for the adoption of a directly elected executive system? What are the positive and negative aspects of a directly elected executive system? Is there political stability in a system where the direct executive is elected? If it is a directly elected executive system, is it a prime ministerial system or a presidential system?

Unanswered and complex questions such as is the only solution to the existing political instability? have also been raised along with the debate. These are not just emotional and reactive questions, since the form of governance is an important issue, it would be appropriate to objectively study its theoretical aspects and the results seen in practice and reach a concrete conclusion.

Why a directly elected executive?

According to the existing form of governance and electoral system, there is no possibility of any party gaining a majority and forming a stable government. The parliamentary system, in which the Prime Minister is elected by the parliament, is the main source of political instability and crisis. Instead of such a failed and unstable system, it is necessary to adopt a directly elected executive system for political stability. This is the only solution to the current crisis in Nepali politics and the right time to make such a decision is now. Only a directly elected executive system runs the state in a manner that is responsive to the people and also guarantees development, good governance and delivery. These are the arguments, debates and advocacy of the parties, groups and individuals in favor of the directly elected executive system.

On the one hand, the past two elections have proven that the possibility of a single majority has diminished except in special circumstances. On the other hand, history is a witness that even with a single majority, political stability has not been achieved. In 2048 and 2056, the Congress had secured a clear majority. But not only could it not guarantee a stable government, but the game of instability began after mid-term elections were announced both times.

Similarly, in 2074, the then NCP, formed after the unification of the UML and the Maoists, had a Prachanda majority. But due to internal disputes and power struggles within the party, the House of Representatives was dissolved twice, while the NCP itself was divided. Therefore, even though both the Congress and the Communists formed a majority government, they failed to maintain stability. No matter how unpleasant and bitter it may be for parliamentary democrats, this is the political reality.

In such a scenario, it was not unusual for a positive debate to take place on the proposal of a directly elected executive. The proposal is not only logical and appealing, but is also partially true. Such a proposal seems to be more relevant at a time when the vicious cycle of political instability and the production of Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and ministers is going on due to the disgusting game of power. Due to such obscene scenes of parties for power and political instability, which have created discontent among the people, questions have been raised not only about the form of governance, but also about democracy and the constitution. Therefore, it is inevitable to reach an appropriate conclusion regarding the form of governance, not only from the perspective of political stability, but also from the perspective of the future of democracy and the constitution.

Directly elected Prime Minister or President?

From the beginning, the Maoists and the Upendra Yadav-led JSP have been in favor of a directly elected presidential system. The Rastriya Swatantra Party, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, and the Janmat Party have been advocating for a directly elected prime ministerial system. The Congress and the UML, which are in favor of parliamentary democracy, have not yet commented on the new debate on the form of governance and have not even made their new perspective public.

Some Gen-G leaders have been demanding a direct election of the Prime Minister on Falgun 21. But the reality is that this is an election for the House of Representatives, not a direct election of the Prime Minister. The reality that they need to accept is that constitutional amendment is not possible without parliament and there is no possibility of changing the form of governance without constitutional amendment. If the form of government is to be changed, its supporters should go to the people in the upcoming elections with that agenda and amend the constitution through the upcoming parliament. Otherwise, there is no justification for political childishness.

Let us look at the international practice and results of the directly elected prime minister system. The only country to practice such a system is Israel. Israel has been following a parliamentary system since it became an independent and sovereign nation in 1948. It adopted a directly elected prime minister system from 1996 to 2001. The prime minister was elected three times in the six-year period from 1996 to 2001

. In the first direct election of the prime minister held in 1996, the current prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was elected. However, after a conflict with parliament and the government could not even formulate the necessary laws, another election had to be held within three years, even though it was directly elected for five years. Ehud Barak was elected in the second election held in 1999. But the fate of the Barak government was the same as that of its predecessor Netanyahu, and Ariel Sharon was elected again in the next election held in 2001 less than two years later. 

But when the Sharon government was also unable to solve the problem, Israel finally amended the constitution in 2001 and returned to the parliamentary system. In this way, the directly elected prime minister system adopted for political stability became another source of political instability, so there was no other better option. Therefore, the directly elected prime minister system has been proven to be a complete failure from both theoretical and practical points of view. If Nepal is to adopt a directly elected executive system, it should adopt a presidential system, not a prime ministerial system. Therefore, those who support the directly elected prime minister system need to reconsider their proposal. 

In which country, what system?

According to Freedom House, a Washington-based think tank that has been studying and researching democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and human rights since 1941, more than 100 countries have adopted a democratic system. More than 60 countries, including Britain, India, Japan, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Israel, Pakistan, Bangladesh, have followed the parliamentary system. This is more than 60 percent of the total number of democratic countries. More than 25 countries, including America, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Kenya, Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Ghana, Egypt, Taiwan, have followed the presidential system. This is more than 25 percent of the total number. Similarly, countries such as France, Portugal, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, Finland, Romania have followed the semi-presidential system. 

In terms of the presidential system, America, Britain in terms of parliamentary democracy, and France in terms of the semi-presidential system are considered exemplary and successful countries. But all of them are developed countries in Europe and America. There is an understanding in Nepal that the President of America is elected through direct elections. But not through direct elections, but through the Electoral College. There are 538 electoral votes in 50 states, of which 270 are used to elect the president. In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton received 2.8 million more popular votes than Donald Trump. But Trump was elected by winning 304 electoral votes. The US House of Representatives and Senate are elected through a direct system. Therefore, serious questions have been raised in the US about the US electoral system.

Britain is considered the mother of parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is also called the Westminster system because the Parliament House is located in Westminster, England. The parliamentary system is an indirect democracy and a representative system, while the presidential system is a direct and participatory system. In a parliamentary system, the people elect the members of parliament and the parliament elects the prime minister. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is accountable to the people through parliament. Only in this system, which embodies the values ​​and norms of parliamentary supremacy, is the parliament truly sovereign. The President of France is elected through a direct election system. Since 1962, France has been following a directly elected presidential system.

International practice and disappointing results

In countries that were said to be followed for political stability, the presidential system gradually transformed into a totalitarian and authoritarian system. Directly elected presidents have become a symbol of totalitarianism and authoritarianism rather than political stability. The presidential system was followed in 17 Latin American countries that gained independence from colonialism after World War II.

But in 15 countries, except for Uruguay and Costa Rica, democracy eventually fell into crisis one after another. In those countries, either the elected presidents became totalitarian and authoritarian, or the elected president was overthrown in a military coup. Either the president himself, with the support of the military, staged a coup against the democratic system, or an undemocratic practice of overthrowing the government from the streets was carried out. But in no country did free elections, healthy democratic practices, and a peaceful transfer of power take place.

In terms of international practice, even if the president is directly elected, the president's party, with exceptions, is not found to have a majority in parliament. Without a majority in parliament, the government is in a minority from budget to lawmaking. Neither the budget is passed on time, nor the laws the president wants are passed. Therefore, international practice has confirmed that both the president and the parliament have failed due to the conflict between the president and the parliament. 

When analyzed from the perspective of economic development and good governance, seven of the world's 10 richest countries, including Singapore, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Iceland, have a parliamentary system. Of the remaining three, the United States and Guinea have a presidential system, and Taiwan has a semi-presidential system. Similarly, nine of the world's 10 poorest countries, including South Sudan, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Mozambique, Malawi, Congo, Liberia, Madagascar, and Niger, have a directly or semi-directly elected presidential system.

Countries such as Pakistan, Georgia, Lebanon, Armenia, and Iceland have abandoned the presidential system and adopted a parliamentary system. 

The parliamentary system seems superior to the presidential system in terms of functional democracy, institutional strengthening of democracy, separation of powers, rule of law, good governance, accountability, human rights and other indices. The presidential system, which was said to have been adopted for political stability, economic development, good governance and delivery, has neither been able to maintain political stability nor guarantee economic development, good governance and delivery. Political scientists such as Professors Juan Linz and Robert Dahl of Yale University, Professor Larry Diamond of Stanford University, Professor Stephen Alfred of Columbia University, who have been studying and researching parliamentary and presidential systems for a long time, have come to this conclusion. 

A suitable model for Nepal 

If the presidential system is followed in Nepal too, there is a high risk of it turning into a totalitarian and authoritarian regime like the countries mentioned above. Because if the Prime Minister who was elected through the parliament has been daring to be authoritarian and dictatorial, how much more will such a tendency prevail after being directly elected by the people? It is necessary to end political instability and ensure stability. But following an authoritarian or totalitarian system in the name of stability would be another mistake. On the contrary, an unstable government will be less harmful than authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Therefore, learning from this reality will be beneficial for the future of democracy.

Suppose, the presidential system is followed. Will the president's party also win a majority in parliament? Which seems unlikely. In the previous election, the UML won 26 percent, the Congress 25 percent, the Maoists 12 percent, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) 11 percent of the votes. Therefore, even a law cannot be passed by parliament without agreement or cooperation between two or more parties. In Nepal too, an undemocratic process of displacing the government from the streets or overthrowing it through a military coup, as in countries where the presidential system has failed, will begin. What greater misfortune could there be for democracy?

Based on the above national and international experiments and results, the parliamentary system is the most suitable for Nepal. The existing problems, distortions and anomalies of the parliamentary system should be resolved by amending the constitution and the electoral system, and this system should be made more advanced, responsible and effective. Adopting another authoritarian and totalitarian system in the name of political stability to escape the cycle of political instability is like the Nepali proverb of ‘a fish escaping from the frying pan falls into the sea’. Therefore, it will be healthy for the political interests and future of the parties themselves to amend the constitution to make it more accountable to the people and to adopt the following suggestions to ensure political stability.

One, every party should propose a candidate for the Prime Minister when it goes to the election. The party that wins the majority should be the candidate for the Prime Minister. If such a practice is followed, the unhealthy practice of becoming the Prime Minister within the party will end and the Prime Minister will be made more accountable to the people.

Two, the party that wins the majority becomes the leader of the parliamentary party of that party as the Prime Minister, which is a natural constitutional process. This has not been a matter of debate or controversy. If no party wins the majority, the President should appoint the leader of the parliamentary party of the largest party in the parliament as the Prime Minister. The provision that no no-confidence motion can be presented against the Prime Minister for two years should be continued. 

Three, if the government formed under the leadership of the largest party loses the confidence of the parliament or the government fails, the President should appoint the leader of the parliamentary party of the party that was in the opposition at that time as the Prime Minister. If that government also fails, there will be no better option than going to the people for a fresh mandate.