Six years later, still no Constitution for Nepal
With the passing of January 22, yet another deadline has expired in Nepal with lawmakers still unable to frame the country's Constitution, a process that began six years ago. Yes, this time around the situation seems to have become especially problematic with Maoists enforcing a general strike across the country and Opposition members of the Constituent Assembly getting into a brawl earlier this week.
But at the end of the day, these are short-term problems that can be handled by law enforcement agencies. The more pressing issue here is the debilitating impact this has on the morale of Nepali citizens, their faith in the political class, and their support for the democratic process. After such a long wait for the Constitution, the average Nepali is tired and frustrated. The country's perpetually squabbling politicians and their inability to rise above petty personal and party interests to serve the national cause have sapped the public's confidence in their elected representatives. There is a real danger of popular unrest, which is already visible on the streets of Kathmandu.
Remember, the Constitution-drafting process began in 2008 after the first Constituent Assembly was elected. The Maoists, who had, only two years before that, laid down their guns and joined the political mainstream, were at the helm while Nepal's traditional policy-makers, the Communists and the Nepali Congress, were in the Opposition.
But they could not make any progress in the drafting of the Constitution. Several multi-point agreements, usually vaguely worded, were signed and trashed; deadlines came and passed; a slew of Prime Ministers and Presidents too sought to make their mark and failed. With no way out of the mess, a second election was held in November 2013 which reversed the old power equation — the Maoists, and the Madhesis, were moved to the Opposition while the Nepali Congress was voted to the helm, followed by the Communists. There was hope that the new arrangement, led by veteran leader Sushil Koirala, would deliver better results. On hindsight, perhaps, this was a little too much to expect given that it was still largely the same set of leaders driving the process.
Either way, the bottom line is that there is still no Constitution with little progress on the main contentious issues. These issues are the same as they were in 2008: The nature of federalism, the form of Government, the type of electoral system and kind of judiciary. No doubt, every one of these is an important question that will determine the future of the country, and they must be debated and deliberated upon, but at some point, definite answers must materialise. This means consensus but also compromise (and yes, some coaxing and cajoling too). The Maoists, who head the Opposition alliance, are surely to blame for the current crisis — they are opposed to the proposed voting system and want full consensus on all issues — but the other parties aren’t free from blame either.