The informal agreement among the constituents of the High Level Political Committee (HLPC) to promulgate a constitution within the first year of election of new Constituent Assembly-cum-legislature is a welcome development. It is nearly six years since the election of the last Constituent Assembly, which was meant to give the country a new constitution within two years.
Nearly all the contentious issues were thrashed out during the almost five years of constitutional exercise, both inside the CA and outside it in informal meetings among political parties. At least 80-90 percent of all issues have been more or less settled, with agreements outstanding on a handful of the most contentious ones like federalism and government form. [break]
If there is genuine political will, there is no reason the remaining issues cannot be settled within the first six months of election of new CA, irrespective of its size and composition. The danger is that the longer the debate over contentious issues drags on, the harder it will be to arrive at a negotiated settlement as positions harden with time.
But there is plenty of room to doubt the political parties’ intent. An ‘informal’ verbal agreement in Nepal counts for little, at a time when even elaborately-designed political agreements are being flouted with impunity. The reason so few top politicians have openly spoken in favor of the idea despite the agreement between closed doors is that they themselves are unsure the new CA will be able to deliver a constitution in (the proposed) four years of its existence, forget the first year of its election.
The best course of action, as a handful of leaders like CPN-UML’s Madhav Nepal have been championing, would be to set aside a year’s time for constitution making while the parliament remains in place for the next three. We support Nepal’s demand that the constitution be amended for the same purpose, rather than rely on what is ultimately likely to be a meaningless ‘gentleman’s agreement’.
There is no reason to believe that the contentious issue of federalism that has not been resolved in the last six years despite round the clock negotiations between the major parties in the lead up to the May 27 deadline of the CA last year can be settled in the next four years, if there is no political will. On the other hand, if the right problems can be identified and negotiations take place in a spirit of give and take, an agreement should not take more than six months.
The next six months can be used to debate its nitty-gritty and pass it point-wise. In the five years of last constitutional exercise, the two sides to the federalism debate seemed to be waiting for the other side to blink first. In the end, neither did and the most representative legislative body in the country’s history had to die without completing its one and only task.
It would be foolhardy to go the same path again. Learning from the failure of last CA, negotiators should come to the table with clear proposals and with a spirit of compromise. Absent this spirit, the already polarized political climate is all set for further fragmentation, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Related story
‘Enough is Enough’ campaigner participating in Satyagraha admit...
_20220508065243.jpg)
