Different tunes

The antagonism between Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai and his deputy, Narayan Kaji Shrestha, who is also the foreign minister, over the conduct of foreign policy appears graceless. Returning from the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Tehran, Shrestha did not appear beside the PM during the press conference arranged at the Tribhuvan International Airport. Ostensibly, this was to show his displeasure over the “deep humiliation” he felt when Bhattarai did not include him in his meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the NAM summit.  In doing this, Shrestha has succeeded in undermining the PM and added fuel to the accusations of breach of diplomatic conduct. The episode brought to surface the fraught relationship between the two, although they belong to the same party. The differences in fact are symptomatic of a lack of coherent foreign policy. This points at a larger malaise: if two prominent leaders of the same party cannot agree on the  fundamentals of governance, how, then, are the people to expect an across-the-board agreement?

There are lessons to be learned here. The first is that the PM needs to be able to take into confidence his deputy. Even in the best of times, managing foreign relations is never easy for Nepali rulers given its difficult geopolitics and need to balance out competing foreign interests. But it’s not too much to ask that the country’s head of the government and his foreign minister work closely without allowing an ugly rivalry to brew. In this regard, the PM would do well not to engage

in conducting foreign relations in an atmosphere of secrecy. Part of the reason Shrestha, to this day, remains disgruntled with the PM is because he was never taken into confidence by the PM in the runup to the signing of Bilateral Investment Promotion and Promotion Agreement (BIPPA) with India, and during the signing in New Delhi. The BIPPA episode points to the penchant the PM has shown for being overly secretive, including on matters of vital national importance. This perhaps is a character flaw in a leader—instead of displaying enough confidence to build an opinion on a divisive subject, he often chooses to go it alone. In a democracy and open society that can be more a liability than a political asset in the long run.

Of course, the PM alone is not responsible for the lack of team work. As a member in the PM’s Cabinet, it is Shrestha’s responsibility to support Bhattarai. If Shrestha has serious policy differences, he should be able to convince the PM about the need to change policy positions. If he cannot, he should walk away from the government and stand by his principles. In a stable democracy, situations where cabinet ministers are defiant of the prime minister do not arise, and one who openly opposes the prime minister would have no business remaining in his cabinet. Competing ambitions in this phase of transition is no reason for an unsavoury dispute between the head of the government and his deputy.