Former minister and Nepali Congress (NC0 leader GOVINDA RAJ JOSHI is a person with a wide base in his party. Joshi has seen many ups and downs in his political career. From occupying center-stage of Congress politics to facing politically-humiliating alleged charges on corruption, Joshi has witnessed all kinds of political maneuvering as well as vendetta against his career. Like many other politicians, former minister Joshi, who backed prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala’s stand to challenge the Commission of Investigation of Abuse of Authority in Supreme Court, was at the center of power when he was inexperienced and when he took some controversial decisions. When he could work with abundant experience, Joshi, who always maintains his strong grass root politics, has been cast outside the power. Former minister Joshi, who was recently given the clean chit by the Special Court on corruption charges, spoke with KESHAB POUDEL on various issues of contemporary politics . Looking at the present political situation, how do you see the future political course? Our whole priority now should be to focus on how to hold the elections for Constituent Assembly in free and fair manner. It is necessary to bring political stability including peace, development and restore the sovereignty of people. At a time when the environment is deteriorating, how do you foresee the possibility of holding the elections for CA? Of course, the situation is heading towards wrong direction but we have to bring the normalcy to hold the elections for CA because it is now the political reality. Before holding the elections for the CA, all major political issues have to be resolved with the consensus of 13 political parties which are represented in the parliament and other major political forces outside the parliament. Most important thing is all these political forces have to reassure people that the result of CA election will not go against the Nepal ’s independence, democracy and supremacy of the people. As this interim constitution does not recognize role of other political parties, how is it possible to bring all political forces together? The constitutional and political questions are two different things. One has to work under a broader approach to overcome the country’s political crisis. If political forces of the country can reassure themselves and reassure people that the outcome of the constituent assembly can be the medium to solve country’s ongoing political crisis, then only the election for Constituent Assembly will be held and it will bring political solution. How do you see the possibility of holding the CA elections with the consensus of eight parties only as perceived by the interim constitution ? There is no political sense if the elections for constituent assembly is held without participation of all these forces. We have seen many elections in the past but such elections failed to find the political solutions. Thus, efforts should be made to create conducive atmosphere to hold the elections by inviting all political forces for negotiations and dialogue. Conducive environment must be created paving the way for participation of all political forces in elections. Then, only the elections for CA will bring long lasting political solution in the country. How do you view the over all political situation? We have made many progresses in the political front after successfully launching People’s Movement II which aimed to bring long lasting political solution in the country. The new interim constitution, though there are many lacunae, has already been promulgated and interim parliament has been constituted. The process for constitution of interim government has begun. Our priority now should be on arms management. At a time when many accuse that the recent interim constitution has restored the sovereignty of eight parties instead of making all citizens sovereign, what do you say? Certain articles of interim constitution raise such questions. However, one of the universal characteristics of democracy is the recognition of supremacy of people and they are the ultimate power. If they are really supreme, political parties need to respect them in taking any decision even if certain articles are not at par with it. How do you see the special privilege given to the leaders of eight parties? Of course, the constitution gives certain constitutional prerogative to leaders of eight political parties. It is just for interim period or for shorter time. I don’t think it will be developed as a permanent system. Although we have claimed that people are made sovereign, the situation is still that people are fearful of arms and people are unable to express their views freely against or for political leaders and political party. People are yet to have confidence that they are really sovereign. Why are people still suspicious? Despite the seven parties and Maoist agreement, the country is yet to see long lasting peace as some other groups in terai have again launched another phase of violent insurgency. Although we have made agreement with one group of insurgents, the upsurge of another group in terai has definitely increased psychological terror among common people who do not feel completely safe from violence. What is the challenge for now? The present challenge is to give credible assurance to common people that they are really sovereign and there is no threat to their life and property. The leaders of eight political parties must show through their action that the agitation launched by them was just not to make their government but to bring favorable results in the forthcoming elections to their party. By ignoring the people, somebody can feel stronger for a short time but all have to pay heavy price in the long run. How do your see the recent violent agitation of two regional groups called Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha and threat of Indigenous groups who are also warning of agitation? As a liberal democratic party, it is our duty to bring all the groups into political mainstream. If we are able to bring Maoists into political mainstream, it is not impossible to bring Terai-based Jantantrik Morcha and other indigenous groups into mainstream. I hope prime minister Griija Prasad Koirala will take necessary steps to address these problems. I hope he will invite them for negotiations. How do you explain your party’s identity? Is it still liberal, centrist democratic party? Nepal Congress is a social democratic party and it is not an extremist political party at all. There is no history in the world where extremism has brought solution of any political problem. As a centrist party, it is our duty to convince all extremists whether from right or left to join the political mainstream. Even prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala has repeatedly stressed the need to bring two guns to the middle path. His indication is towards two extremists: leftists and rightists. He argued that the King and Maoists have to give up their weapons to bring the peace in the country. As a centrist party, we need to maintain balanced relations with them. Your party’s recent activities have already created wide rift with other political forces including the traditional forces. How do you look at it? We launched the agitation when the door for competitive politics was completely shut down. We still believe that competitive politics is one of the best political systems of the world. From the King to Maoists and other communists, we are able to show that competitive politics has no alternative. The credit to bring the political process in middle path should be given to Nepali Congress leader Girijababu. Whatever you claim, your party seems to be giving up the middle path by its actions ? Of course, some time you can see certain degree of deviation from one end to another. In fact, Nepali Congress cannot go beyond its charted course of middle path. We believe in competitive politics and supremacy of the people. Middle path is not a smooth road as it is a graveled road which is bumpy and difficult to walk. But there is no alternative to it. How do you see the concerns expressed by people on the working style of leaders of eight political parties? The concerns expressed by people of different walks are genuine on the issue of supremacy of eight political parties. If this kind of decision making process continues, it will ultimately be the people who will be casualty again. I think this is just an interim measure. What will be the implications to the role of parliament? Such system will make the parliament just as a rubber stamp. People are posing many questions. If every decision is taken by leaders of eight parties, what is the need of interim parliament or legislature? Whether parliament has right to take decision or not? What is the status of members of parliament? If members of parliament do not have any right to express his/her view, why is there any need to hold the elections for Constituent Assembly? What are the political and constitutional implications of this kind of system? Such practice is basically against the letter and spirit of parliamentary pluralistic democracy. Supremacy of the parliament means supremacy of the people. If the leaders believe that they are sources of all power, whey should not they make the constitution? If the forthcoming constituent Assembly has to endorse the constitution framed by the leaders of eight parties, whey do we need to spend a lot of money to hold the elections for Constituent Assembly? How long will the present system last? I don’t think it will last for long as our political leaders do not have such intentions. Naturally, people have questions in mind. In interim constitution; there are two articles that stress for national consensus in taking major decisions. Two articles of present interim constitution mention that the decisions taken by the leaders of eight parties is the decision of national consensus. Even prime minister Girijababu expressed his anguish over it. Some party leaders are saying that there must be supremacy of the party since people vote political parties’ program? Of course, we have to follow the party whip in parliament but one cannot deny the right to express his or her views in discussion. In present parliamentary system, we have to follow the whip issued by our parliamentary leader. It does not mean that we don’t have any right for discussions and dissension. As a democratic party, our party guarantees rights to dissension and respects plural opinions. Your leaders have been arguing that they have right to take decision in the context of supremacy of parliament? Supremacy of parliament does not mean the supremacy of leaders of eight parties but supremacy of people. Supremacy of political parties is only possible in communist system not in democratic system. A member of parliament is accountable to the people. Of course, we have to follow the party’s stand but it does not necessarily mean that we don’t have right to express our views in the party’s forum in accordance with parliamentary democratic system. If we develop parliament as merely a rubber stamp of leaders of eight parties to endorse their proposals, it will gradually create resentments against whole system and ultimately democracy will be the loser. In such system, the leaders of eight parties will be all powerful and the MPs will be merely pawns in their hands. How do you see the role of leaders of eight parties? If a member of Constituent Assembly will not have right to express any views on constitution, it is better to promulgate the constitution under the agreement of leaders of eight parties. It will save money and time. Whenever the parliament is defunct, the country faces one or other kinds of problems. During the twelve years period of parliamentary democracy, we had seen twelve governments. In that period, every effort was made to defunct and defame the parliament. At a time when some senior Maoist leaders have decided to stay outside the parliament, what, if any, difference will that make? Senior Maoist leaders like Prachanda, Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and Ram Bahadur Badal are out of parliament and even the leader of United People’s Front Amik Sherchan is not a member of parliament. In this case, the decision will be taken again by the leaders outside the parliament. In a parliamentary democracy, the country should be governed by members of parliament not by the outside leaders. Since there is an interim parliament, it should be given proper role in decision making. Taking decision by leaders of eight parties from outside the parliament will be undemocratic. Some members of your party have been saying that Nepali Congress has already declared itself as a democratic republican party. Actually what is the official position of your party? As a liberal democratic party, our party has various kinds of people including the followers of republic. As a democratic party, we believe in the verdict of the people. Our party has already made it clear that people will decide the fate of monarchy through the election for Constituent Assembly. Even eight parties have agreed that the first meeting of Constituent Assembly will decide the future of monarchy. It means nobody knows what opinion the people really hold on monarchy. People are supreme in democracy and our party will accept their verdict. Nobody has authority to decide otherwise. People should be given opportunity to cast their vote in free and fair manner and without any intimidation. Let the members of Constituent Assembly feel free to make a constitution as they like. It is immature to predict the choices of sovereign people now. If people want ceremonial monarchy, it is our duty to accept it. People never make a wrong decision. What is your party’s stand? The eleventh general convention of Nepali Congress had decided that Nepali Congress is not in favor of autocratic monarchy. That is the only decision we have taken. Our ultimate power rests in the general convention, it has not decided anything yet on republic. For the elections of CA, our party must clearly say what our stand is and what kind of political system we want in the country How relevant is B.P. Koirala’s views in your party? B.P. Koirala’s views are very much relevant in our party at this crucial juncture. Following eight years exile in India , B.P. Koirala returned to Nepal with a message of national reconciliation. His reconciliation was between nationalist and democratic forces. National reconciliation has two important parts – the unity between nationalist and democratic forces. B.P called reconciliation with the King because he was a nationalist force. How do you see Congress’ present alliance with communist against the traditional forces including King? Girijababu is trying to bring all political forces into the political mainstream though the consensus efforts. Our alliance is not against anybody but in favor of democracy and supremacy of people. Our party has not given up the ideology of national reconciliation. Our present alliance is just to make certain gains to make people supreme and sovereign. Having more than six decade long political experiences in politics, one cannot question his intention. Girijababu has not deviated from B.P. Koirala’s philosophy of national reconciliation. As B.P. said, we are not compromising at the cost of nationalism as well as at the cost of democracy. It seems that your party just negotiates with that party which holds the gun ignoring mainstream democratic peaceful parties. How do you look at it? Actually, Nepali Congress wants to bring all the parties into mainstream. We need to accommodate even United People’s Front’s two factions led by Chitra Bahadur K.C and Pari Thapa which were our partner in April’s people’s movement. There are also Rastriya Prajatantra Party, Rastriya Jansakti Party and Nepal Sadbhavana Party in interim parliament. Though they are not part of eight party alliance, we must give due respect to them. There are 13 parties in parliament but our unity is just among eight parties. We are by-passing five other parties. This is not a good sign. How do you see the leadership in your party? As long as Girija Prasad Koirala is there, we don’t have to worry as he is like an institution. As he is getting older, our party must do something for collective leadership. I am member of Nepali Congress central committee and I respect the decision of party. At his last leg, B.P. Koirala groomed collective leadership in the party. After his death, the leadership went to Ganeshmanji, Kisunji and Girijababu. Now, I don’t think the single leadership will prevail again. Girijababu has to groom collective leadership in the party. It is up to Girijababu to decide what kind of leadership he wants. How do you see the possibility of unification of Nepali Congress? Unity is inevitable in Nepali Congress. We are making alliance with communists. I believe that two factions of Nepali Congress will unite.