The latest draft doesn’t have a clear model of federalism, ignores marginalised groups, isn’t inclusive enough, and has racist and patriarchal citizenship provisions
The problematic clauses in the much-awaited draft Constitution of Nepal and the subsequent flood of opinion produced a ‘comedy of errors'. After the massive earthquake that ravaged the country, the Constitution was expected to get an improved response from political class. But alas! there was no end to the absurdity. The new draft fails to cure the ills or build on the opportunities that came with 2006 Jana Andolan and the 2007 Madhesh Movement. The well-meaning elements of the 2007 Constitution and the progressive drafts prepared by the first Constituent Assembly (2008-2012) were negated.
The sense one gets from reading the latest draft is how public aspiration and political action is sharply polarised. The draft makes a mockery of ‘citizenry rights', for which, Nepal struggled and stays troubled. The major contentious issues are: First, no clear model of federalism that can accommodate the diversity of the nation; Second, supremacy of non-inclusive principles; Third, an ever-reduced space for political representation of the Madhes and gross apathy towards welfare provisions for marginalised groups; and Finally, racist and patriarchal citizenship provisions.
It is unlikely that without resolving these issues, there will be any scope for the political class to make the new draft functional. Instead of taking concrete steps, the weak Government, led by a not-so-proactive Prime Minister, wastes time by staging demonstrations disguised as ‘opinion seeking'. Also, the populist measures backfire on technical matters. This shows how misplaced was the idea of seeking public opinion through a referendum. To streamline things in a just and effective way, a progressive and representative review system, that acts in unison and reaches a consensus after getting over the flaws, is needed. The consultation at this level can have in-fold the views of civil society but without creating a dramatic scene of mass public opinion hunting, which is good for nothing except photo-opportunites.
The discriminatory provisions against women in the new draft falsify the promise of gender-friendly citizenship, equitable representation in Government and reproductive rights. The new draft makes citizenship through the mother next to impossible, as applicants have to prove that both parents are Nepali. This also punishes all Nepali citizens who marry foreigners.
The new draft also has provisions that could turn Nepal into a police state and allow politicians to have their say more than deserved. Much greater sensitivity is required in handling Nepal’s diverse ethnicities. The aspirations of the Janjatis need to be made compatible with the ideals of progressive nationalism. For this, the basic prominence of centrism has to be maintained and jingoism rejected.
Kathmandu's administrative moves have been discriminatory towards the people from the plains. The low representation from Madhes in almost every walk of life has only made matters worse. After almost two and half decades of political transition, democracy is the supreme state on the land. Also, there is no monarch to distract from its fullness. There is no looking away from the fact that the current crop of politicians are solely responsible for producing a sub-standard Constitution that mars the expectations of masses.
A complete rejection of the new draft will take us back to the long and painful process of Constitution-making. Hence, wisdom lies in reforming the current draft. There is no alternative to strong will and hard work — and this saying should come from the politicians, who otherwise, will not be blameless like Caesar’s wife. A new approach to politics is the need of the hour in Nepal, as there is an erosion of values in the existing order of things. This should worry even those who benefitted during troubled times.
Notwithstanding sudden developments on the Constitution-making front, the aforementioned issues have to be sorted to free the country free from poverty, unemployment and migration. Nepal also needs to worry about how it imports practically all goods consumed at home. Nepali politicians, traveling abroad, need not worry about foreign endorsement. They should pursue their interests and work on time at home. This applies equally on radicals, pacifists and centrists.
Unlike the magnanimity of opportunities and challenges, India and China are entitled to — Nepal's quest for development is economical in stature. And there are good chances of it being on the desired track of progress. The rest depends on the movers and shakers in Kathmandu, the politicians who do politics.