Among the first few people to seriously think about a Constituent Assembly in Nepal was Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. It was proposed as a 'compromise formula' between the Rana rulers and King Tribhuvan who were trying to work out a viable power-sharing arrangement. Nehru had seen for himself how the Indian Constituent Assembly had been able to successfully accommodate vastly different regions and ideologies under B.R. Ambedkar, a Dalit who served as the Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee in the Indian CA. Nepali political actors heartily welcomed Nehru's idea made in good faith. But it would be another 60 years before Nepal was able to elect its Constituent Assembly. In 2008, the first CA polls were successfully held and for the first time in the country's 250-year-old history, the sovereign people would have been able to write their own constitution. This was why the CA polls were hailed the world over as a milestone in the building of a New Nepal where people from every socio-economic strata and every part of the country would be treated as equals. Unfortunately, the balance of power inside the first CA was such that a compromise constitution could not be worked out and the assembly was dissolved in 2012.All the major political actors—Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, UCPN (Maoist) and new Madheshi forces—went into the second CA polls in 2013 determined not to repeat past mistakes. All of them canvassed for votes by promising to people that if they got elected again, they would write new constitution as outlined in their election manifesto. It would be different this time, they tried to assure the skeptical public, since all of them had internalized the need to tide over the wrenching political transition if Nepal was to achieve its dream of lasting peace and prosperity. As it transpired, the people this time decided to give the leadership of the constitutional process to Nepali Congress and CPN-UML; the two parties together bagged nearly three-fourths of all contested seats. The Maoists came third, with nearly a sixth of CA seats; fourth was Bijaya Gachhadar's MJF (D). The four main parties between them held more than 90 percent of CA seats and represented every region and ethnic group in the country. So the argument that these four, together, didn't have the mandate to write the constitution on people's behalf was ludicrous. In essence, this was (and is) an argument against the democratic process itself.
So while some members of the international community, including India, might have legitimate concerns regarding the ongoing constitutional process, mainly regarding representation of the marginalized communities, they shouldn't do anything to subvert the democratic process. Of late there has been a massive misinformation campaign being undertaken by some vested interests to discredit the legitimate political actors engaged in constitution-making. In their reckoning, it is not enough to have 90 percent lawmakers back the new constitution; apparently, each and every member of the Constituent Assembly (and many more outside) should also be pleased. But if there is one lesson from the five-odd years of the Nepali CA process, it is that such absolute consensus is impossible in such a diverse country. In fact, that would be true anywhere in the world. Again, if our international friends are concerned about continued marginalization of certain regions and communities, they can push for amendments in the new constitution. Prime Minister Sushil Koirala has repeatedly expressed his willingness to amend the constitution as per the wishes of Nepali people, starting the day after its promulgation if need be. Another way our international friends can help is by expressing their unreserved faith that all outstanding issues can be resolved from within the democratic process.
With the passage of time, the Nepali constitutional process has been getting more and more complicated. The number of vested interests looking to play in the constitutional vacuum has increased dramatically in the last few years. This is why we have been repeatedly emphasizing the need for a timely constitution. Otherwise, there is a risk that as the number of actors multiplies, and everyone tries to push their own agenda, the second CA might also meet with the fate of the first CA. In the future, there might never be a situation whereby 90 percent of legislators are in one place, certainly not in such a polarized polity like Nepal. The ongoing constitutional process, in fact, might be the last chance to write a constitution through the CA mechanism. So we would like to urge all our international friends to support the constitutional process even as they continue to push our national leaders to address the concerns of marginalized communities. A constitution is not something written in stone. Like India's constitution, the constitution of New Nepal will always be a work-in-progress, its clauses liable to future improvements. It is in this spirit that our all foreign friends should be engaging the Nepali actors.
Related story
No one should dream of going against democracy: PM Deuba
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
