Nonetheless, it is very likely that a constitution will not be written within the slated time by the Constituent Assembly, a statement which is not earth-shaking. However, it astonishes me to find that my 9-year old fears the statement becoming a reality. On November 12, 2002, I had expressed my apprehension of a proposed constituent assembly being able to produce a constitution agreeable to the then hostile political forces in my article published in the The Himalayan Times. Then, there was a triangular fight among the royal, democratic and communist forces. Since then, the royal element has disappeared from the scenario but there are too many forces, now, in the fray to manage. Nine years ago there was, at least, clarity of the situation dominated by three divergent political forces. Now, there is a total confusion as to who really holds the key in fulfilling this historic task. There is no leader to play the central role in the whole exercise. On coming to main stream politics, Pushpa Kamal Dahal was once the leader but, over the five years since, he has become just a leader among so many. In that sense, there is no rallying personality to galvanize diverse interests in one direction.
Since no constitution would ever be able to satisfy all sections of the people divided as they are ideologically, socially, ethnically, linguistically and what not, a new constitution will provoke a new wave of protests, demonstrations and violence.
Let me refer back, if I may, to what I had surmised then and examine if it has relevance to present reality. "The Maoists and other political parties will cross swords as they hold divergent views on the concept and paraphernalia of democracy. The Maoists will find the liberal democratic principles like freedom of speech and press, independent judiciary and free economic enterprise too feudalistic and imperialistic. The liberal democrats like the Nepali Congress might not digest a philosophy of communist democracy, as it would appear too dictatorial." It is clearly reflected in the basic conflict between these two parties whether to adopt the parliamentary form of government, a favorite of Nepali Congress and a presidential pattern of government as advocated by the Maoist party. As the parliamentary system has failed to take roots in our society despite fully being practiced for over 20 years and over 60 years in fragmentary way, there is no justification to continue it. We should try to work out a better presidential system that is no less democratic than a parliamentary system. It is at times of national crises and political instability that a country needs a decision maker, which I believe, can be found in a president.
Is it not coincidental to see some truth ingrained in what was then said on current affair? "A free-for-all situation with no constitution in hand may arise in which those who have guns in hand will rule. With such an eventuality in mind, the Maoists will never agree to surrender their arms even if they join a government” (as written in the stated 2002 article). Not that it is being fully replicated in today´s context, but it can explain with much justification why the peace process has not been completed and the guns not parted from the rebels. It is great travesty of democracy that the political parties mistrust each other on the use of guns to settle their differences instead of the people´s votes. If they have good faith in the judgment and power of the people, the democrats have no reason to fear of a Maoist seizure of power and the Maoists have no rationale to be afraid of being sidelined.
The existing standoff on the question of PLA personnel is a glaring doubt they harbor on the strength of democracy in Nepal.
Despite the stalemate in constitution framing, all the political parties in the Constituent Assembly have made up their mind to extend the term of the body to such an extent that might not look too blatant and daunting to the people. The Supreme Court has already paved the way for such a strategy by stating that the Constituent Assembly can continue to function until the fundamental task of framing a constitution is done. Extension or no extension, there will be no constitution. If a hurriedly prepared constitution is declared to meet the deadline; it will be challenged on its legitimacy at the court and widely torn apart by those whose expectations would not be met. Since no constitution would ever be able to satisfy all sections of the people divided as they are ideologically, socially, ethnically, linguistically and what not, a new constitution will provoke a new wave of protests, demonstrations and violence. Willingly or not, we are caught in a trap. The May 28 is a dangerous deadline because if we have a new constitution it is sure to flare up public resentment. So, if we want to see a peaceful May 29, we had better not expect a constitution to come along the stated deadline. Very bad choices, indeed!
Writer is associated with Nepal Studies and Research Center and can be reached at adityaman@hotmail.com
Related story
Voter registration deadline expires
-1200x560_20230115125633.jpg)
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
