The country must now focus on nation-building
Exactly a decade after the civil war in Nepal came to an end, the Himalayan nation is now finally on its way to becoming a Republic. After years of failed negotiations and much political bickering, the Constituent Assembly finally voted in favour of a Constitution on Wednesday that will come into force on Sunday. Out of the 601 members of the Constituent Assembly, 507 voted in favour while many of the smaller parties stayed away. The new Constitution will replace an interim version that has been in effect since 2007, as political parties struggled to put together a final document that would address all concerns and aspirations of the diverse Nepali population. In fact, so severe was the logjam in the Constituent Assembly, which was elected to power in 2008 and brought the Maoists to the helm in Kathmandu, that it collapsed in 2012, after missing several deadlines and despite several multi-point agreement deals. Fresh elections were held in November 2013 which brought the Nepali Congress to power and pushed the Maoists to third spot, with the Communists taking the second. But even though the power equation had changes, the politicking clearly hadn’t. The new Constituent Assembly faced the same issues as its predecessors, and the situation in Kathmandu had stagnated even as there was growing unrest among the people, who felt they were being cheated out of their democratic peace dividends by a corrupt and narrow-minded political class. However, the devastating earthquake earlier this year, which claimed nearly 9,000 lives, quite literally shook the nation. The politicians especially came in for a lot of criticism as the lack of effective governance structures and administrative facilities made it incredibly difficult to mobilise rescue efforts. This prompted Nepal’s three leading political parties— the Nepali Congress, the CPN(UMl) and the Maoists — to reconcile their differences and start afresh. The most contentious bit in 2015 was the still the same as it was when negotiations started in 2007 — the form and structure of federalism in the country. In fact, even after an agreement on this issue has been formulated and passed by the Constituent Assembly, there is still no consensus on among the public.
And so it was that a historic moment such as this, which defines a nation, was marred by violent protests. At the crux of the matter is the Constituent Assembly’s decision to demarcate the country into seven Provinces. While the framers of the Constitution argue that this sets the framework for a model of cooperative federalism that will allow Nepal’s many ethnic and linguistic minority groups to preserve the identities and flourish, the latter believe that the manner in which the provincial borders have been drawn actually diminishes their voice. They worry that the new lines split their votebanks, making it difficult for them to electorally pressure the Government in the future. There are also other points of concern in the Constitution, such as how difficult it makes for Nepali mothers who have children with non-Nepali fathers, to pass on citizenship rights to their children. But it is the federalism issue that remains the biggest point of disagreement. While it is understandable that in a situation like this, not all parties can be pleased, it would have been in the fitness of things had Nepal’s political leadership worked harder to bring the dissenting parties on board.