Separation of Powers Crucial for Democracy, Concerns Arise Over Potential Executive Overreach

The principle of separation of powers holds great importance in a democracy. If the executive, judiciary, and legislature or legislative bodies are independent and autonomous, then the situation of 'check and balance' or balance of power is maintained, which strengthens democracy. 

The independent existence of these three bodies does not allow any one of them to become dominant. In reality, for democracy to function well, freedom of speech, freedom of organization, human rights, and periodic elections are not enough. As long as the separation of powers cannot be maintained, democracy cannot be sustainable and risk-free.

However, some recent political developments have led to analyses in political circles that the principle of separation of powers is being challenged. The controversy that arose regarding the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has raised questions about the independence of the judiciary. 

The violation of the seniority rule in the appointment of the Chief Justice has raised the question of whether the executive is trying to control the judiciary. In a democratic system, the legislature makes laws, and the executive implements them because executive power is vested in it. And, the judiciary's role is to examine whether the actions taken by the executive are correct or not, and to alert or correct it if it tries to do wrong. 

Thus, the balance of power between these three bodies protects democracy and keeps it alive. But if the executive starts interfering with the judiciary or starts asserting its authority, a healthy democratic system cannot be sustained in the long run.

Currently, the Rastriya Swatantra Party is not only leading the government. It has a situation of nearly two-thirds majority in parliament. The presence of the opposition in parliament is very weak. The Nepali Congress and CPN-UML, the second and third largest parties in the House of Representatives, are so badly entangled in internal disputes that they are unable to play the role of opposition in parliament, let alone show their presence properly. 

In such a situation, there is always a danger of the government becoming autocratic. For democracy to remain strong, the opposition needs to be strong. It is a common understanding that a weak opposition cannot protect democracy.

Thus, the Rastriya Swatantra Party has a strong hold on two of the three pillars of the government. If it also dominates the third pillar, the judiciary, it will not strengthen democracy at all. Let us hope that even if the executive played some role in the appointment of the Chief Justice, the leadership of the judiciary will not compromise its responsibilities. They will maintain the dignity of an independent judiciary. Let us believe that other judges of the Supreme Court, the Bar Association, and all personalities in the legal field will contribute positively to this. 

There is a saying, 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Power corrupts people, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Corruption is not limited to financial matters. It also refers to moral decay, intellectual decay, or depravity. 

Therefore, even in a democratic system, if the ruling party becomes too powerful or the opposition group is weak, there is a risk of the government moving towards dictatorship or autocracy. Therefore, in such a situation, the judiciary and parliament can play an important role in performing the function of check and balance. However, if the judiciary and parliament also tend to praise the ruling party, then autocratic tendencies may develop in the rulers.

In recent days, there have been reports of attempts by the government to control the press. The monopoly of government newspapers in government advertising is strangling private presses. Similarly, indirect control attempts have been heard regarding government information. 

Recently, during the reporting of news about bulldozing settlements of squatters and housing displaced people in holding shelters, complaints were heard from some journalists about not getting access or having limited access. If all three pillars of the state and the so-called fourth pillar, the press, are also allowed to be under the indirect surveillance or control of the government, how can democracy flourish? 

Furthermore, there is a tendency on social media to become intolerant of even minor criticism of the government and to resort to abusive language. A democracy that cannot hear the voice of its opponents, a democracy that applauds some and abuses others, is certainly not what we seek.

On the other hand, due to the Prime Minister himself not appearing in parliament to answer important questions and issues raised by the opposition, parliament has been obstructed, with daily incidents of sloganeering and boycotts. In a democratic system, parliament is considered an important forum. The people's representatives are the members of parliament, and the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, who hold executive power, are collectively responsible and accountable to parliament as mandated by our constitution.

Except in special circumstances such as the Prime Minister being unwell or abroad, his presence in parliament is mandatory under normal conditions. It is natural for parliamentarians to seek redress for their grievances, answers to their questions, and solutions to their queries directly from the chief executive. In a democracy, parliament always belongs to the opposition, and the Speaker should also prioritize the opposition's views. 

If the government is not accountable to parliament, or if the head of government ignores parliament, and the Speaker pushes ahead with his activities by suppressing the opposition, then such a situation can be understood as a characteristic of an autocratic system rather than a democratic one. It is not unnatural to raise the question in the current context whether we are pushing the parliamentary system towards autocracy.

It is true that some steps taken by the government are commendable. For example, the government's activeness in issues of good governance and the steps taken to end delays are praiseworthy. Similarly, the steps to bring corrupt individuals within the purview of the law with zero tolerance for corruption are certainly welcome. 

However, if democracy, human rights, and the fundamental rights of the people are not protected, if freedom of the press is curbed, or if parliament is bypassed, then such a democracy will be merely in name. In such a democracy, the dark shadow of autocracy begins to fall, and it cannot be sustainable. In the current situation, the government is popular among the people, and the people seem to support the government in all its actions. 

However, under the guise of popularity, the serious question arises in the current context whether autocracy is taking hold.

Currently, questions are also being raised about the active role that opposition parties should play in parliament. The second, third, and fourth largest parties in parliament seem to have disappeared somewhere. The fifth force, the Shram Sanskriti Party led by Hark Rai, seems to be making some effort to amplify the voice of the opposition in parliament, while other parties seem confused, perhaps due to internal divisions. The role of the opposition is to support the positive actions of the government and to hold it accountable for negative or erroneous actions, but this does not seem to be happening. 

Faint voices are being heard; is the country moving towards benevolent dictatorship or popular autocracy? If so, it will be unfortunate for us. The current government, formed with the support of Gen Z and highly trusted by the Nepali people with nearly a two-thirds majority, has absolutely no excuse for failure, no excuse for ignoring the problems of the people, no excuse for trampling on the sovereignty vested in the people or curtailing the people's rights, and absolutely no excuse for attacking press freedom. 

It is true that drawing any conclusion at this moment may not be appropriate. At least one hundred days must pass to observe the government's activities. However, it is also the responsibility of the fourth estate to provide timely warnings or alerts on certain matters. Let's see how the government presents itself in the coming days.