The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is in the final stages of forming a new government with a two-thirds majority. Senior party leader Balendra Shah will be sworn in as the Prime Minister on Chaitra 13. However, the statement by the RSSW leaders that 'those who received political appointments from the previous government should pave the way for them from their posts' has now sparked a debate on political appointments. We have tried to explain why the RSSW leaders are saying this and how simple it is in 5 questions and answers.

What is political appointment?

In Nepal, the government appoints officials to various public positions, but not all of these appointments are the same. Some appointments are made through open competition, public service examinations or selection committees. However, some are also made directly by the Council of Ministers or ministerial orders. Appointments made directly by ministers and the Council of Ministers are called 'political appointments taken from the government'.

Such appointments include committees and boards of directors of various public institutions, ambassadors with political quotas, CTEVT vice-chairman, chairman of the National Examination Board, chairman of the Health Sciences Academy, chairman of the Teachers Service Commission, executive directors of Medical Education Commission, Medical Council, University Grants Commission, Bir Hospital, National Trauma Center, Gangalal and other federal hospitals.

In the case of ambassadors, 50 percent are appointed from foreign service officers and the remaining 50 percent from political quotas. The practice of recalling ambassadors with political quotas when a new government comes to power has been going on since the past.

Are all appointments political?

It is important to distinguish one important thing here. The Constitution of Nepal envisages three organs: the legislature, the judiciary and the executive, and their appointment processes are completely different.

The Constitutional Council recommends the heads and office bearers of 13 constitutional commissions, including the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, the Election Commission, and the Human Rights Commission. Although the Prime Minister is the chairman of the council, the members include the Chief Justice, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Chairman of the National Assembly and the leader of the opposition party. Appointments are made by the President only after the recommendation of all is made with the consent of all and approved by the Public Hearing Committee of the House of Representatives. In other words, the government does not have a sole role here.

Similarly, court judges are appointed on the recommendation of the Judicial Council. The members of which include the Chief Justice, the senior-most judge, the Law Minister, the Prime Minister's nominated representative and the Nepal Bar representative. There is no direct government interference in these appointments, but the government does have a place to play due to the influence of the Law Minister and the nominated person.

Why are the leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) making this issue public?

The RSS's argument on this issue is simple. It has been saying that the previous government appointed these people not on the basis of merit and ability, but on the basis of political beliefs, access and in some cases, financial transactions.

Although such arguments are not new in Nepali politics, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has brought it forward as an agenda for governance reform.

However, the RSS has two additional arguments in this regard. First, the party that is going to form the government with a historic majority in the elections held after the Gen-G movement should be allowed to form its own team to fulfill its vision, otherwise 'delivery' will not be possible. Their argument is that the old team has not cooperated with the new party's government in Nepal in the past.

Second, it is a moral obligation for those who have received political appointments to pave the way by respecting the new mandate. RSS MP Shishir Khanal has said, 'We are requesting those appointed on political grounds to pave the way to facilitate the government that has come with such a big mandate.'

Even though this is not an official decision, it would be easier for those who have received political appointments to leave spontaneously. The leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have not publicly clarified which positions they mean by political appointments.

Can this be done easily?

This is where the matter starts to get complicated. According to administrative expert and former Secretary to the Government of Nepal Kashinath Dahal, the government cannot directly remove those appointed to various positions in the state. He says that the process is even more complicated for officials of constitutional bodies. Because it is not possible without impeachment in Parliament.

For example, impeachment must be filed to remove the commissioners of the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority. That means it can only be passed by a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives. In other words, an impeachment must be registered with clear reasons to remove officials from the constitutional commission. Otherwise, they cannot be removed. According to administrative expert Dahal, even those who have taken government appointments other than constitutional appointments cannot be easily removed. If there is no efficiency and integrity, it is another matter, but if the process is not followed, it can become a court case, says Dahal.

'It is not possible to remove easily.' However, since the government has come with a new mandate, those who have been appointed can resign by showing ethics. That is the easiest way,' says Dahal.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has received a historic mandate and this step may be necessary to make it meaningful. But on the other hand, this decision should not be implemented by force of revenge - Kashiraj Dahal Although, most government appointments have a fixed term of three years for some, four years for others. There must be solid grounds for removal before that period is over, such as poor performance, irregularities or violation of the law. If the decision to remove is not based on these grounds, the matter will have to be taken to court. can.

There are many examples of courts reinstating officials who were removed without following the process. The most famous incident in recent times is the dispute between Kulman Ghising and Hitendradev Shakya. After the Gen-G movement, Kulman Ghising took over the Ministry of Energy and removed Hitendradev Shakya from the Executive Director of the Electricity Authority and appointed Manoj Silwal. Shakya immediately approached the Supreme Court and within a short time the court restored Shakya to the position of Executive Director .

This shows that even political decisions are not immune to legal scrutiny. A decision to remove someone without following the procedure can be reversed, which leads to further instability and chaos.

So, how right is this demand of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and how wrong is it?

The answer to this question is not simple. On the one hand, the practice of filling public positions based on political access is an old disease of Nepal. However, while saying this, Kashiraj Dahal says that meritocracy in political appointments must start at some point. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has received a historic mandate and this step may be necessary to make it meaningful. However, on the other hand, this decision should not be implemented on the strength of revenge.