The solution to a Constitution in Nepal rests largely on the sagacity that Prime Minister Koirala and Maoist leader Prachanda must show. Qualities of statesmanship, not one-upmanship, are needed
Everybody, including its citizens, friends, well-wishers and even the United Nations, wants Nepal to have its Constitution in place at the earliest. Everybody except, it seems, political parties in Nepal, which continue to obstruct and delay the creation of the Constitution. What else can one surmise from the fact that lawmakers have missed yet another deadline, that of January 22, for the Constitution to be in placeIJ While there is no doubt that some of the issues that have come in the way of a broadbased consensus on the shape of the Constitution, are relevant and cannot be brushed aside, the truth also is that there appears a lack of accommodative spirit among the stakeholders concerned to the extent that the non-writing of a Constitution is being seen by parties as some sort of a political achievement. Instead of building on the doables to create an environment to iron out differences, parties have latched on to their respective conflicting positions to sabotage the goal. The end losers are the people of Nepal.
The tragedy is that there are wide gaps even on the basics; so, the less said about the complex ones the better. For instance, there is no agreement among the parties on the pillars on which new states will be formed in a federal set-up: On the geographical contiguity factor or on the basis of ethnic composition. Ironically, there is also no agreement on how the provisions of the Constitution would be adopted: Through general consensus or by a two-thirds majority of Parliament. New reports suggest that the two largest parties have decided to push ahead with voting, as together, they have the numerical strength to adopt the Constitution. But the prevalence of numbers in Parliament is not a lasting solution.
It’s not just the citizens of Nepal who are a frustrated lot; even lawmakers are their wit’s end. Parliament Speaker Subash Nembang, while adjourning a session after some lawmakers rushed into the well of the main chamber and disrupted proceedings, exasperatedly remarked, “If a culture of obstruction is allowed, there will be no Constitution.” For good measure, he added, “If political parties are not able to fulfil the commitment they made to the people, the latter will never trust us.” If there is anything that can make politicians to get their act together, it is the fury of the voter. The fear of the people’s anger remains the only light, albeit dim, in the darkness.
There cannot be any argument for rushing in a poorly drafted Constitution that satisfies few. But the task has been hanging fire for years now. Negotiations had begun as far back as the days following the end of a decade-long violent insurgency launched by the Maoists in Nepal. That insurgency came and went; the Maoists joined the mainstream, won power and quit in a blaze of controversy; many other Governments and Prime Ministers subsequently arrived and exited; even the monarchy ended after holding on tenaciously for as long as it could without being physically shown the door. But a Constitution which satisfies the stakeholders never came to be written. Friendly countries such as India have been gently pushing Nepalese lawmakers to expedite the process. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his first visit to that country, exhorted its lawmakers to be prompt in the process. He even gifted Kathmandu a video CD on the making of the Constitution of India, by way of guidance. Every political party claims its commitment to expediency, but does everything that helps delay framing of the Constitution.
It is no use for politicians to say — as some have been remarking — that the January 22 deadline had no legal sanction, that the deadline merely set a “moral and political commitment”, and that the parties still had time to frame the Constitution. If Nepal’s parties are this casual about their moral and political commitments, a legally binding deadline has little chance of survival too. In any case, there is no point in setting one ‘moral and political’ deadline after another if the intention is to not meet it on whatever grounds, seemingly valid or blatantly unreasonable. The ruling Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-leninist) hold a two-thirds majority in Parliament and are in favour of pushing through the provisions, but the alliance of more than 15 parties led by the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and comprising disparate groups representing ethnic classifications such as the Madhesis etc, wants a sweeping consensus. Since the two positions are poles apart, there is talk of finding a ‘middle ground’. But this compromise formula, the middle ground, remains as elusive and as much of a mystery as the final shape of the Constitution is.
The issue isn’t just about the absence of a Constitution — though countries like India and other democracies cannot even imagine a situation where they would have to function without a Constitution. The graver aspect is the kind of unrest it can lead to in Nepal. The country had been wracked by Maoist violence and an unpopular monarchy. Now that it has had a chance to get back on the rails of democracy and development with the monarchy having gone and the Maoists having joined the political mainstream, the last thing Nepal needs is a fresh bout of violent unrest that can set the country several decades back on growth and economic development, besides create problems in the neighbourhood.
There are elements in the UCPN(M) that are itching to return to the bad old days, and they would not hesitate to use the Constitution deadlock as an excuse to get disruptive all over again. On the other hand, the level of distrust that exists in the Nepali Congress over the intent of the Maoists, especially the ones led by former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, has pushed the ruling party into taking a hard stance. Given this situation, even a two-thirds endorsement of the Constitution is unlikely to quell trouble, since neither Prachanda’s Maoists nor his ethnic-based partners will accept it as fait accompli and take it lying down.
A delay in the creation of a Constitution can provide fertile ground for ethnic unrest to resume. The very raison d'être of ethnic-driven organisations is to push for the cause of their respective communities. They believe they can protect their interests through enabling provisions in the Constitution. If the Constitution gets repeatedly delayed due to lack of agreement on their issues, there is no saying how severe the backlash can be. Eventually, the solution rests largely on the political sagacity that Prime Minister Sushil Koirala and Maoist leader Prachanda can demonstrate. let’s hope the two leaders show qualities of statesmanship rather than one-upmanship.