It is natural for the cabinet formed after the election to want to place officials who are favorable to it in positions where political appointments can be made.
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.
It is a common belief in democracy that whoever wins the election governs in his own way. For a government to be run in a way that suits him, the Council of Ministers alone is not enough; the organs connected to service delivery must also be in his favor. They must be supportive. They must be able to feel the message of the election and the working style of the new government.
Therefore, it is natural for the Council of Ministers formed after the election to want to place officials who are in his favor in places where political appointments can be made. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which won almost two-thirds of the seats in the House of Representatives in the February 21 election, seems to be trying to follow this belief.
Although the government has not yet been formed under the leadership of the RSS, the party's lower-level leaders are of the opinion that those who received political appointments during the previous governments should vacate their positions. This is creating both support and suspicion. Once the government is formed, this issue is likely to lead to further debate. Therefore, a party that is forming a strong government should tread a prudent path on such issues that are theoretically correct but practically complicated.
Many appointments made during the previous governments have been criticized. Political appointments made through the Council of Ministers and ministerial-level decisions have always been controversial. Questions have also been raised about appointments made on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council or the Judicial Council. In 2077 and 2078, a case was filed in the Supreme Court against the appointment process of 52 officials of various commissions who were appointed on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. There is a strong belief in society that such appointments are made mainly on the condition of ensuring party proximity or mutual interests.
The Election Commission led by Dinesh Thapaliya was accused of taking sides by not taking an immediate decision during the NCP controversy in 2077. He was accused of hesitating to take a decision because he was appointed as the choice of the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and it would be inconvenient for Oli. Similarly, the leadership of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, Prem Rai, is accused of only prioritizing minor corruption cases but being indifferent to major incidents involving political leadership. Due to such trends in appointments and working style, the previous governments could not instill trust in the citizens.
As the new government is being formed under the leadership of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), it should be allowed to create the governance environment it wants. For that, it is also appropriate for those who were appointed in the past on the basis of political proximity to leave office by showing ethics. That also establishes a strong standard. In addition, those who have won the hearts of the people also get the opportunity to govern as they wish and fulfill their commitments. However, it is not appropriate to create a narrative that none of the people appointed during the past government had any qualifications, but were appointed only on the basis of party proximity.
Because, the collective discretion of the then government, the Federal Parliament and the Supreme Court is used on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. Such appointments are not political either. On the other hand, the appointments made in various organs and their roles are not just applause in the working style of the Council of Ministers. The state is running according to the principle of 'checks and balances' between various organs and bodies. Such a situation should not be understood only as an obstacle to the government's work. It should also be understood as the roles and responsibilities of different organs and institutions.
At the moment, the leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are personally raising this issue. But they have not been able to clearly say which office bearers they want to leave. This has created confusion and fear. Therefore, the party itself should clarify it through an official statement. But what the RSP line should be clear about is that in the past, not all bad people were appointed and it is not practical to try to remove everyone at once.
Creating fear in the style of saying, "Let's come, clear the way" to the office bearers appointed according to the constitution and law is only an attempt to make all the organs its puppets. In the past, when some governments showed this style to one or two office bearers, there was protest and reinstatement from the court, but if a large number were tried to be removed, then there would definitely be a political uproar. The government itself would have to come out in protest and debate about it in parliament. Which makes it difficult to focus on the main work. Creating tension and spending a lot of energy on its management will not fulfill the main goal and responsibility.
This issue is not primarily about creating a fuss or pressure, but through the creation of practical laws and their application. Officials who are seen to be lacking in efficiency can be removed by completing the process envisaged by the existing law. Some issues also fall under the responsibility of the parliament. It should impeach. The discretion of the parliament is also noteworthy here. In conclusion, the upcoming government led by the RSVP should do this by paying attention to three aspects.
First, officials who have been publicly justified in being removed should be removed according to the current law and process. Second, constitutional and legal provisions should be ensured for the appointment process and removal process they want. Third, the RSVP government should make the appointments made in the future exemplary, so that a tradition can be established.
