Sujata Koirala was defeated by Madhesi Janadhikar Forum Chief Upendra Yadav in the Constituent Assembly elections last year. In theory, her political career should have been finished, at least until the next general elections.
But on Monday, Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal appointed her to the position of deputy prime minister. When asked why he did what he did, Nepal gave a distinctly non-prime ministerial answer: "I appointed her as asked by Girija Prasad Koirala." In other words, "Girija made me do it."
It doesn't matter how displeased or angry Nepali Congress members are with Sujata's new post. They can do their predictable song-and-dance routine: that is, pull long faces, hold meetings in windowless offices, condemn the PM's actions, pass resolutions, blame Sujata's father at press conferences and do everything that ends up as a spectacle on television.
If history is any guide, in just a few days, they will have shown signs of that great sense of Nepali resilience. It's the stuff that gets praised ad nauseam by amateur sociologists and drenched-in-positive-thinking pundits. It consists of reluctantly accepting what has happened and moving on to other matters without putting up a principled fight.
Principled fights, let us remember, often have uncertain outcomes and can be costly for careers. Given these odds, which non-Koirala Nepali Congress leader has the self-confidence or the public following to say: "Look, enough is enough. Either we seriously reform how our party is governed or completely erode public confidence in what we do for democracy..."? Not one.
In fairness though, there are some NC leaders who have workable ideas about how to reform the party. But unless they start taking intelligent risks to translate ideas into actions, their continuous claim to be working for democracy is laughable. If they can't even work toward turning their party into a New Nepali Congress, who believes them when they shout loudly about creating a New Nepal?
It's not enough to blame the father for what he has done. He's shown that he has calculated the odds, cast aside his scruples, and decided he can get away with doing what he thinks is right for his daughter's political future. The problem, broadly, is how Nepali institutions are governed in ways that are antithetical to democratic values and business success. Here's two rules of the game:
The Great Man approach: Usually, a public organisation is first led by an initiative-taking individual who shows more courage than anyone else. Once he's in a position of leadership, his enthusiasm, energy and activities are hailed by all, and he starts winning national and international acclaim. After some time, he gets comfortably settled in his role. He hires family members, gets defensive about criticism, and punishes those who disagree with him. He is insecure about sharing the limelight with others. So he surrounds himself with dwarves who sing the great man's praises, and when he promotes one dwarf, others may grumble but don't complain much because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Ignoring small problem approach: This happens when an organisation's leadership thinks it's beneath its dignity or that it does not have time to deal with small problems. Its approach is to brush away small problems, which then go on to fester and mutate into bigger problems in due course. When colleagues or employees see that small problems have been brushed aside, they allow the leadership to be more reckless in doing things that only create bigger problems.
The Nepali Congress leaders have only themselves to blame. That the Sujata episode has come to a head is symptomatic of their practicing both approaches at the expense of good governance.
READ ALSO:
The daughter also rises - FROM ISSUE #472 (16 OCT 2009 - 22 OCT 2009)
Family matters - FROM ISSUE #472 (16 OCT 2009 - 22 OCT 2009)
