The government should take as a positive lesson the Supreme Court's stay on the implementation of the government's decision to recall ambassadors from 11 countries and abolish the Land Disputes Resolution Commission.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The Supreme Court has reminded the government of its limits after making a decision that has no connection to the election and will have long-term implications.
The government should take the Supreme Court's stay on the implementation of the government's decision to recall ambassadors to 11 countries and abolish the Land Dispute Resolution Commission as a positive lesson. Only such an effort will give the government the self-confidence to remain calm and focus its activities on the elections.
At the same time, a government formed for a short period of time will avoid unnecessary controversies, creating political/social tension, and being a factor in the risk of postponing elections. Therefore, the government should take the Supreme Court's order as an opportunity to understand the complexity of the situation rather than considering it as an interference in its executive powers and a matter of prestige.
The current government had decided to recall Nepali ambassadors to China, Germany, Israel, Malaysia, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Britain, America, and Japan on 30 Asho. Based on the recommendation made by the KP Sharma Oli government on 14 Shrawan 2081, 17 ambassadors were appointed in phases. 11 of them have been recalled. The process of appointing and recalling ambassadors in Nepal has long been ongoing and is controversial. Therefore, the government's decision to fall into controversy at this time can be linked to that process. But if we look at it that way, the situation cannot be truly explained. Because, this is not a regular government. It is not desirable for a government with a term of office of 6 months and the purpose of holding elections to be interested in decisions that have no relevance to it and that have long-term effects. If such a decision-making tendency is encouraged, the government may go astray further. It may create uncertainty in the elections itself.
In the ‘Guidelines on the Appointment of Ambassadors, 2075’, the government has provided the facility to recall the ambassador before the completion of the term if it deems it necessary. Therefore, the government can recall the ambassador at any time. However, such a decision should not be guided by an arbitrary tendency, but should be driven by a sense of responsibility. Mainly, public justification should be established. It should be ensured that the government's core responsibilities are supported. It should be such that it is believed that the decision was taken with awareness of political and diplomatic damage. The government has not formally given a reason why the ambassadors working in whichever country were recalled. Such a decision, which does not match the time context and does not establish a suitable reason, reveals the arbitrariness of the government.
The current government leaders should realize that not all decisions made by the previous government can be revoked. The state is an indivisible institution. Some decisions can be revoked on the basis of justification, while others can be improved. But it must give a sense of positive purpose. The continuity of the state mechanism must be ensured. Otherwise, it gives the impression of revenge or revenge. Moving forward in this way will weaken the credibility of the state. Although it is easy to recall ambassadors at this time, it is difficult to complete the appointment process.
Because, although the recommendation for the appointment of ambassadors is made by the Council of Ministers, their appointment is made only after approval from a parliamentary hearing. Currently, there is no situation where a parliamentary hearing can be held in the situation where the House of Representatives itself has been dissolved. On the other hand, a government formed for election purposes cannot recommend the appointment of an ambassador with a four-year term and long-term importance. In this way, old ambassadors will return but it will be difficult to appoint new ones, creating a situation where there will be no Nepali ambassador in the relevant country for a long time. The government should analyze all such aspects seriously.
The most important issue that needs to be paid attention to is the main responsibility of the government. On 27 Bhadra, President Ram Chandra Poudel appointed Sushila Karki as the Prime Minister of the interim government with the aim of holding another election for the House of Representatives within 6 months. On the same day, the House of Representatives was dissolved on the recommendation of Prime Minister Karki and elections were scheduled for 21 Falgun. Therefore, the main responsibility of the government is the election. Since the government was formed on the foundation of the Gen-G movement, good governance, investigation and action against incidents of repression and arson during the movement can also be considered as the 'mandate' of the movement. However, it is not appropriate to create political conflict through other activities and create unnecessary issues of controversy in the country, pushing it towards confusion. If the government takes the Supreme Court's order as a decent message and takes inspiration to move forward in a restrained and well-considered manner, the journey towards the main objective will be smooth.
