The biggest political event of 2012 was undoubtedly the unceremonious demise of the Constituent Assembly (CA), the most representative elected body in the country’s history. The CA had for the very first time given the sovereign Nepali people total power to write their own Constitution through their elected representatives. The postmortem into CA’s death continues to this day, but the sense of frustration among the people, who had so enthusiastically taken part in the 2008 CA polls, hoping for genuine change, is still palpable.[break]
So what went wrong? The most contentious issue going into May 27 was federalism. Till date, the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML blame the Maoists and the Madhesi parties in the ruling coalition for going back on the 11-state, mixed-identity model agreed among the four major forces on May 15. As per the agreement, the federal states would have been decided on the basis of ethnicity, geography, and language, while their names would be determined by elected state assemblies. But the Maoist and Madhesi parties were forced to back down from the agreement at the last minute due to the unrelenting pressure of Janajati and Madhesi lawmakers who felt left out of the agreement settled behind closed doors among a small clutch of leaders.
Even so, the CA could still have been salvaged, argue the Maoist and Madhesi parties, if NC and UML had been willing to accept one of two state models on the table: the 14-state model (proposed by the CA State Restructuring Committee) and the 10-state model (backed by majority vote in the State Restructuring Commission). But since the two parties were unwilling to give due recognition to marginalized groups, the argument goes, no deal could be reached.
Even those directly involved in the Constitution-making process acknowledge that the political parties’ failure to set goalposts on what kind of constitution they wanted doomed the process right from the start. Going into CA polls, the Maoists wanted a ‘people’s constitution’, the Madhesi parties one with strong identity and regional component while the traditional parties like NC and UML were still largely in favor of a ‘democratic constitution’ with more emphasis on ‘decentralization’ and ‘empowerment’ of traditionally marginalized groups.
Had there had been prior agreement on the basic framework of Constitution, post-polls negotiations, irrespective of the relative size of individual parties, it would have been much easier. The same argument holds true even now: since the old CA could not give the country a constitution in four years of its existence, what is the guarantee that its new avatar will be any more successful, if the parties still don’t see eye to eye on even the basic constitutional framework?
Dipesh Shrestha/The Week File Photo
But the ruling and opposition parties are so far apart on most constitutional issues that emerged during the tenure of the last CA, such a prior agreement is once again unlikely to materialize. (Perhaps for the better, since people will once again get to express their mandate based on the performance of their elected representatives and the agendas they carried in the last four years). The hope is that the parties have learnt their lessons, and once the current ‘battle of egos’ cools down, they will earnestly embark on constitution drafting exercise, this time making the process truly inclusive by taking all relevant stakeholders into confidence.
There has been a great deal of criticism of top political leaders who relied (unsuccessfully) on closed-door discussions rather than bringing the contentious issues up for discussions on the CA floor, as should have been the case. For a viable Constitution, it is extremely important that all new CA members are allowed to feel a part of the constitutional process, and important issues are thrashed out on the CA floor.
During the four years of the last constitutional exercise, the international community also came under a lot of flak for their ‘biased’ roles. While India was blamed for inciting the Madhesi parties to push the demand of ‘One Madhesh’ and single-identity provinces, Nepal’s European partners stood accused of playing up the ‘divisive’ issue of ethnicity. India, once again, will have a very important role in the new constitution making exercise. In the future, despite repeated exhortations of Nepali leaders of all persuasions to meddle on their behalf, which the New Delhi establishment will continue to receive, India would do well to resist, and to let important constitutional issues in Nepal play themselves out. And now that the issues of identity and group rights are firmly entrenched in Nepali society, other international actors too should desist from further ‘educational’ initiatives.
But perhaps the biggest factor that will decide whether the country will have a new Constitution in the foreseeable future (and which was also the decisive factor in the failure of the old CA) will be if the parties will be able to bridge their immense trust deficit. NC and UML will have to learn to come to terms with the reality that Nepali polity has come a long way since 1990, and their continued relevance depends on their ability to accommodate new forces. The Maoists will have to forsake all ‘ultra-revolutionary’ trappings and express their firm commitment to democratic polity (and they will have a wonderful opportunity to prove their democratic credentials in the upcoming general convention). The Madhesi parties, for their part, will have to rise above regional politics and show the willingness to work in the interest of the whole country.
Nepal is all set to embark on another uncertain future. As prior agreements on a new Constitution are unlikely, and another fractured mandate in new CA polls a near certainty, Nepalis can look forward to more years of bitterly contested politics. In this climate, the biggest risk would be a resurgence of the regressive forces that are waiting in the wings to fish in dirty waters and reverse the progressive changes of the last six years. It is in the interest of the whole political class that believes in democratic values to work together to find timely solutions, for their continued relevance, if nothing else.
The writer is the op-ed editor at Republica
Related story
Manchester City's ban from European football overturned - CAS
