Nepal is currently experiencing a concerning trend towards the escalation of
criminal activities. The extent to which a nation moves in the direction of
criminalization can vary significantly, contingent upon its distinct legal and
societal contexts. Criminalization refers to the formal process through which
specific behaviors or activities are legally designated as criminal offenses,
potentially leading to punitive measures such as fines, imprisonment, or other
sanctions. Various factors and trends contribute to this growing phenomenon:
Legislative Changes: One approach to advancing criminalization within a
country involves the enactment of new laws or regulations that criminalize
previously lawful behaviors. This can occur in response to perceived social
problems, evolving societal norms, or political agendas. For instance,
certain countries have criminalized drug possession or the use of specific
substances, while others have made hate speech or various forms of online
harassment illegal.
It is crucial to note that the degree of criminalization in a country can have various consequences, both positive and negative. While criminalization can help maintain social order and safeguard public safety, it can also lead to issues such as overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and the unjust targeting of marginalized communities.
Public discourse, advocacy, and informed policymaking are essential components for assessing the impact of these criminalization trends. They play a critical role in ensuring that laws and policies align with the values and needs of society. Citizens, lawmakers, and legal experts often engage in debates regarding
the appropriate scope of criminalization and the potential consequences of thesechanges.
The Parliament of Nepal currently appears to be inactive, with people perceiving a lack of meaningful action. However, political parties remain actively engaged, primarily in the criticism of opposing parties and the pursuit of their individual interests. Parliamentarians are entrusted with the responsibility of
formulating appropriate laws and policies for the nation and are expected to exercise oversight over the actions of the executive branch. Unfortunately, it appears that inter-party collusion has taken root, driven by the fear of exposing their own errors. Leaders across all parties seem preoccupied with safeguarding
their personal interests and securing their family’s future. They predominantly engage in political bargaining, contributing to the corruption of the nation and obstructing further legal actions. A recurring pattern emerges, where political parties adopt a dual role—publicly espousing one stance while pursuing another, often in contradiction with the public’s interests. Holding them accountable is imperative, shifting the locus of judgment from party cadre to the people. Such accountability ensures alignment with social agendas and the voice of the society. The current state of the Nepali parliament suggests a concerning dysfunctionality.
The Executive branch is actively involved in amending the constitution and laws to secure the release of its leaders and activists who have faced criminal convictions. This trajectory underscores the country’s progression towards criminalization. We are witnessing instances where criminals are being acquitted,
at times through ordinances and sometimes through decisions of the Council of Ministers. The unquestioning approval of government proposals, despite their contravention of the constitution, law, statute, and principles of social justice by the President, exemplifies this dynamic. The President is supported by a team of advocates and advisers who evaluate the propriety of these proposals. The
national interest is compromised when the head of state sanctions misguided actions by the government without due deliberation. Consequently, such inconsiderate actions steer the nation further down the path of criminalization, contrary to the rule of law and societal norms. It is a grave concern when individuals affiliated with political parties engage in coercive tactics, disregarding the laws meant to protect citizens and perpetrating violence with impunity. Such actions pose a significant threat to the safety and well-being of our society.
Except for a few exceptions, the judiciary has largely assumed an unassailableposition. The decisions rendered by Nepal’s courts seemingly align with legal principles and the constitution. However, the executive and legislative branches’ interference has compromised the efficacy of the judiciary. Post-court decisions, the executive holds constitutional authority to execute judgments. Regrettably, the executive is extending pardons to criminals based on ordinances and recommendations from the council of ministers. The government’s preoccupation with power, financial gains, and personal interests takes precedence over political bargaining, diverting attention from executing judicial verdicts. Opting for amnesty rather than imposing penalties on criminals undermines the rule of law and deprives justice to victims. Granting amnesty to individuals convicted by the court under the guise of political expediency serves as a compelling illustration of the state inadvertently contributing to the country’s descent into a state of criminality.
Political polarization has driven the nation towards criminalization, transcending constitutional, legal, regulatory, social, ethical, and normative boundaries. To address political bargaining and polarization while countering impunity, it is imperative to undertake two simultaneous actions. Firstly, effective mass
mobilization is of utmost importance, coupled with the exploration of an alternative approach to foreign intervention. Given the precarious state of domestic institutions, the acknowledgment and enforcement of the rule of law by international bodies such as the United Nations are indispensable imperatives.
Mr. Mohan Ghimire is a distinguished legal practitioner and accomplished
author.
Comment