Category: Interviews

Print Edition – 2017-09-18 | Interview

Nepal marks the second anniversary of the constitution promulgation on Tuesday. Despite the failure of two constitutional amendments and the dissatisfaction of Madhesi-parties, the establishment of federal states as per constitutional guidelines has been progressing and things seem to be on track regarding Nepal’s development as a federal nation.

In this context, Kamal Dev Bhattarai and Binod Ghimire spoke to constitutional expert and Dean of Kathmandu University’s School of Law, Bipin Adhikari about Nepal’s progress under the new federal structure, the implementation of the constitution, the failure of the recent constitutional amendment, issues of inclusion and proportional representation, and Nepal’s growing geopolitical significance.

How do you evaluate the two-years of constitution implementation?

In my opinion, something is better than nothing. It is essential to realise that the promulgation of the constitution is a huge step forward. Issues with the implementation of the constitution may exist to a certain degree, and so positive development may be hampered somewhat, but the crux of the matter remains that we are at least progressing in a positive direction now.

The constitution has a number of flaws, of which its supposed non-inclusivity is the main cause for debate at this juncture. Do you think this argument is justified?

The issue of non-inclusivity in the constitution is purely a result of political discontent. The constitution is inclusive and has a number of pro-people clauses. What is integral now is for the implementation of the clauses calling for inclusivity in our constitution; we may have the structure and principles in place for inclusivity now, but we need the legal structures and law-making bodies in place to implement them on a broader context. The handing-over of power, how the central government nurtures these newly created local bodies, and how they allocate resources to these entities will ascertain the success of the constitution.

So was the call to amend the constitution on the basis of greater inclusivity erroneous?

Nepal marks the second anniversary of the constitution promulgation on Tuesday. Despite the failure of two constitutional amendments and the dissatisfaction of Madhesi-parties, If amendments could be made for increased inclusion, then it would not be entirely remiss. There can always be positive steps made in this regard. However, the amendment was not passed because it failed to garner a two-third majority required to pass a bill in Parliament. This is the way our society is run; this decisive majority will lend strength to a confident system of governance and provide political impetus for the functioning of the state.

The Nepali Congress (NC) – Maoist Centre (MC) coalition could not make good on their claim to push through the constitutional amendment. They could not garner a two-thirds majority. I believe this was a political stunt. NC is assuming a sympathetic stance to the argument of inclusivity and is taking advantage of the situation.

If an agenda fails to garner a two-third majority, it will not be eliminated. Those who are pushing for the failed agenda can seek an alternative route. They can appeal to their constituents for votes and thus develop their political clout over time. By doing so, they will eventually be able to garner the required majority.

What progress have the major state institutions made in implementing the constitution?

The state is responsible for electing leadership for the implementation of the constitution; the problem is that our government has changed four times following the promulgation of the constitution. So their focus has not been towards the fulfilment of the constitution.

Even within constitutional bodies, a number of issues have arisen in terms of implementation of the constitution. For example, the state has the authority to fix the dates for the election, but they have no power to decide on the phases of elections. This authority has been ceded to the Election Commission (EC), however, the EC has not been able to exercise this authority and has gone along with the government’s dates instead. The failure of the EC to assert their authority has led to debates regarding their lack of decision-making leadership power.

Another issue has arisen in terms of the Constituency Delimitation Commission (CDC). They were given a difficult task to complete within a very limited timeframe, however, the allocation of 90 percent weightage to population and 10 percent weightage to geography while allocating electoral constituencies is not justifiable. Districts in the rural, mountainous areas have only been given one constituency each, whereas, the hills and low-lands districts have a population advantage. Those minority populations living in the rural, mountainous areas will suffer from lack of representation. However, delineation has brought stability in discourse to a certain degree and will promote the success of the elections.

Are there any broader weaknesses in terms of the implementation of the constitution?

There is definitely an issue with law-making. The Ministry of Law, Justice, Constituent Assembly, and Parliamentary Affairs has said that there is a need for about 126 new rules for the proper implementation of the constitution. There has been no expected progress in formulating such rules. The government could have taken advantage of the considerable expertise in Nepal and formed a number of task forces. These task forces could have made a number of recommendations that could then be finalised by the government. This would have allowed a number of inroads in terms of regional decisions, and a number of frameworks and legislation could be brought into effect.

Given these problems, how will the elected bodies help the country progress under the new federal structure?

Change cannot occur through one election alone, especially with the presence of a number of issues that hinder progress. In the face of these problems, we need a magnanimous central government that can help local bodies to establish themselves. The central government should facilitate progress and avoid confrontation. If problems arise between the central and local bodies, transfer of power will be slow and the governance system at the local level will be weak.

Many people believe that Nepal’s bureaucracy has not been able to reconcile themselves with the fact that Nepal is now a federal state; they have not been able to realise that the power base is no longer within the Capital. I believe that once the elected government starts functioning, the central government will be required to toe the line. The constitution has established institutions for the benefit of federalism.

For example, the Inter-Provincial Council is a political body that allows discourse for political dissent, and the central government will act according to the commission’s decision. The National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission is another such institution that has been established to decide on the collection and distribution of national revenue on the basis of the equalisation policy. A constitution bench has also been created in the Supreme Court; if the government proposed a bill that understands the federal system, is functional, and broad-based, this bench has the authority to pass it. With these three institutions in place, positive steps can be taken.

I am also of the view that these local bodies will establish their own independence very quickly. They will have to be democratic and truly reflect local needs and decisions; we need to see how this can accomplished and how the state can help in this regard. The rule of law has to be maintained under all circumstances and if it is followed, self-governance will be a fait accompli.

What geopolitical challenges could hamper the implementation of the constitution?

Nepal’s geopolitical position between India and China affords it considerable economic and political significance but also makes the situation particularly sensitive. India has been involved in Nepali politics since 1947, when BP Koirala sought refuge in India and looked for arms to storm Kathmandu. Since then, India has constantly sought Nepal’s support to bolster its regional political position. China, on the other hand, has only recently extended overtures towards Nepal, and has shown that Nepal could benefit considerably from this particular relationship. However, they seem to respect that Nepal is a sovereign state that retains its independence.

At this juncture, Nepal has to maintain a balanced position between China and India; for this we need strong and stable leadership, we also need to manage internal dissent and maintain our independence.
 

नेपालको संविधान जारी भएको दुई वर्ष पुग्न लागेको छ । संविधान जारी भएको दिन नजिकिँदै गर्दा सरकारले राष्ट्रिय उत्सवका रुपमा संविधान दिवस मनाउने तयारी गरेको छ । २०७२ असोज ३ गते जारी भएको बहुप्रतिक्षित संविधान कार्यान्वयनका लागि अहिले गृहकार्य भइरहेको छ । यद्यपि संविधान कार्यान्वयनको गतिले तिब्रता पाएको छैन । जारी भएको दिनदेखि हालसम्म संविधानलाई लिएर थुप्रै विवादहरु सतहमा आएका छन् । कार्यान्वयनको ढिलाईले संघीय संरचना र संविधानको भविष्यमै प्रश्नहरु उब्जिएका छन् । तर, पछिल्लो समय प्रदेश र प्रतिनिधिसभाको निर्वाचन मिति घोषणा र दुई चरणको स्थानीय तह निर्वाचन सम्पन्न भएसँगै मुलुक स्थायित्वतिर लम्किएको बुझ्न सकिन्छ । तर, अब स्थायित्वका लागि संविधानको मर्मलाई कसरी व्यवहारमा उतार्ने ? यसै सन्दर्भमा हामीले संविधानका अध्येयता डा. विपिन अधिकारीसँग कुरा गरेका छौँ ।

अब हाम्रो संविधानले कार्यान्वयनको बाटो समात्यो भन्ने अवस्था आयो ?
ट्रयाकमै छ । ट्रयाक छोडेको छैन । अलिकति ढिलाई भएको हो । खासगरी सरकार र प्रतिपक्षले निर्वाचनप्रतिको प्रतिवद्धता सुरुमै व्यक्त गर्नु पर्दथ्यो, त्यो भएन । म आशावादी नै थिए । आउँदो माघभित्रै निर्वाचनको कार्यभार पूरा हुनेछ । संघीय इकाईहरुका बीचमा जुन अधिकारको बाँडफाँड छ, त्यो कार्यान्वयनमा जान्छ । र, त्यसले परिणाम तुरुन्तै दिन सुरु गर्दछ ।

अहिले स्थानीय तह र केन्द्रबीच विवादका श्रृंखलाहरु देखिन थालेका छन् । अब भविष्यमा प्रदेश र संघबीच पनि देखिएला अथवा प्रदेश र स्थानीय तहबीच पनि विवाद देखिएला, यो श्रृंखलाहरुको कसरी निरुपण हुन्छ ?

यी केही विवादहरु अन्योलताले सिर्जना गरेको हो । केही नबुझेर पनि हो । अहिले स्थानीय तहको निर्वाचन सम्पन्न गर्न पाँच महिना भन्दा बढी समय लाग्यो । सरकारले एकै चरणमा गर्ने तयारी पनि गर्न सकेन । र, निर्वाचन आयोगको दृष्टिकोण लगभग प्रष्ट भइदिएन र निर्वाचन आयोगसँग जुन् संवैधानिक अधिकार थियो, त्यसलाई राम्ररी प्रयोग गर्न नसकेको परिस्थिति रहयो । यो मैले निर्णयको सर्न्दभमा भनेको हुँ ।

संविधानमा स्थानीय तहलाई प्रसस्त अधिकार दिइएको छ । अधिकार प्रष्ट दिइएपनि त्यसलाई ‘ट्रान्सफर’ गर्ने प्रक्रिया संविधानमा दिइएको छैन । ‘ट्रान्सफर’ गर्नका लागि न्यूनतम रुपमा कानुन बनाएर मात्रै प्रक्रिया सुरु हुन्छ । कानुन बनाउने सन्दर्भमा ढिलाई भयो । अहिले कसरी गर्ने भन्नेमा अन्योल छ ।

स्थानीय तहको निर्वाचन भयो । निर्वाचित निकायहरुले आफ्नो अधिकारका विषयमा संविधानमा हेरे । संविधानमा स्थानीय तहलाई प्रसस्त अधिकार दिइएको छ । अधिकार प्रष्ट दिइएपनि त्यसलाई ‘ट्रान्सफर’ गर्ने प्रक्रिया संविधानमा दिइएको छैन । ‘ट्रान्सफर’ गर्नका लागि न्यूनतम रुपमा कानुन बनाएर मात्रै प्रक्रिया सुरु हुन्छ । कानुन बनाउने सन्दर्भमा ढिलाई भयो । अहिले कसरी गर्ने भन्नेमा अन्योल छ । सरकारले यो प्रक्रियालाई सहयोग पुगोस्, कम्तिमा पनि बजेट तर्जुमा र स्वीकृति क प्रक्रिया राष्ट्रियस्तर मा चले बमोजिम होस् भनेर नमुना ऐनहरु ल्याइदियो । त्यो नमुना ऐनहरु विभिन्न विषयका छन् । आर्थिक पनि छ, प्रशासनिक पनि छ । तत्कालका लागि स्थानीय तहको माग र आवश्यकता कसरी पूरा गर्न सकिन्छ भन्ने आधारमा त्यो ल्याइयो । त्यसमा गलत मनसाय कतै पनि छैन । सबै स्थानीय तहले आफ्नो राष्ट्रियस्तर कायम गरुन भन्ने मनसाय हो । त्यही आधारमा ल्याइएको हो । पारित गर्ने त आ–आफैले हो । आ–आफ्नो क्षेत्र, आ–आफ्नो अधिकार अन्तर्गतको कुरा छ । त्यो ल्याइदिएको तत्कालका लागि हो ।

अहिले त स्थानीय व्यवस्थापिकाहरु आइसकेको अवस्था छ । जिल्ला समन्वय समितिहरु बनेका छन् । अब ठण्डा दिमागले सोचेर, विज्ञहरुको समेत सहयोग लिएर, कर्मचारीतन्त्र जुन छ त्यसको पनि सुझाव लिएर उचित निर्णयहरु गर्दै जाने हो । र, जुन स्थानीय कानुनहरु चाहिन्छ, आफुलाई सुहाउँदो र आफ्नो स्तरबमोजिम निर्माण गर्ने हो । त्यसका लागि राष्ट्रियस्तर के त ? हेर्नु पर्यो; जथाभावी गर्न मिलेन । यस्तो होला भनेर सघाउने उद्येश्यले नमुना कानुनहरु ल्याएकोमा सरकारले गरेका कामहरुलाई उच्च मूल्याङ्कन गर्नुपर्दछ ।

कतिपयको सोचाइ के छ भने, केन्द्रका कर्मचारीले अधिकारको बाँडफाँड अनुसारको संस्कृति राखेनन् । यसमा डराउनु पर्ने कुरा छैन । हिजोको मानसकिता र अहिलेको आवश्यकतालाई हेरेर निर्धारण गरिएका नमुना ऐनहरु हुन् । केन्द्रीय कर्मचारीतन्त्रले प्रस्ताव अनुसार नै गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने पनि छैन । ‘मोडल’ त जस्तो पनि दिन सकिन्छ । त्यो मोडललाई आफ्नो क्षमता अनुसार लैजाने दायित्व सम्बन्धित स्थानीय निकायको हो । सम्बन्धित निकायले बुझ्नु पर्ने हुन्छ । कार्यान्वयनमा लैजानलाई जुन कानुनी पूर्वाधार तयार गर्नुपर्छ, त्यसतर्फ सबै लाग्नु पर्‍यो । जुन कुरामा सरकारले बलमिच्याइँ गर्छ, त्यस्तो कुरामा सम्बन्धित निकाय अदालत जान सक्छ । संविधानको सर्वोच्चतालाई स्थापित गराउन मद्दत गर्न सक्छ । तर, अहिलेको अवस्था त्यस्तो रहेजस्तो लाग्दैन ।

‘मोडल’ त जस्तो पनि दिन सकिन्छ । त्यो मोडललाई आफ्नो क्षमता अनुसार लैजाने दायित्व सम्बन्धित स्थानीय निकायको हो । सम्बन्धित निकायले बुझ्नु पर्ने हुन्छ । कार्यान्वयनमा लैजानलाई जुन कानुनी पूर्वाधार तयार गर्नुपर्छ, त्यसतर्फ सबै लाग्नु पर्‍यो । जुन कुरामा सरकारले बलमिच्याइँ गर्छ, त्यस्तो कुरामा सम्बन्धित निकाय अदालत जान सक्छ । संविधानको सर्वोच्चतालाई स्थापित गराउन मद्दत गर्न सक्छ । तर, अहिलेको अवस्था त्यस्तो रहेजस्तो लाग्दैन ।

अहिले सरकारले नमुना बनाउँदा र दिँदा हुलमुलमा गरिएको छ । जस्तो, बजेट ल्याउनै पर्दथ्यो । बजेट सडकबाट ल्याउन सकिँदैन, त्यसको कानुनी पूर्वाधार पूरा गर्नु पर्दछ । वरिष्ठतम् कर्मचारीहरुले विभिन्न कुराहरुलाई ख्याल गरेर गरे । कानुको पूर्वाधार त उनीहरुले बनाएकै हुन् । अब, आगामी दिनमा कसरी गर्ने भन्ने कुरा स्थानीय व्यवस्थापिकाले सोच्नु पर्ने हुन्छ । र, स्थानीय व्यवस्थापिका कसरी चलाउने ? कसरी स्थानीय कार्यपालिकालाई नियन्त्रणमा राखेर संघीय शासन पद्दतीका आधारहरुलाई कसरी परिमार्जन गर्दै लैजाने ? संविधान स्पष्ट छ । त्यसलाई प्रयोग कसरी गर्ने भन्ने कुरामा त आ–आफ्नो दृष्टिकोण, स्थानीयता, आवश्यकतालाई सम्बोधन गर्नु पर्ने हुन्छ । त्यसो हुनाले म धेरै ‘क्रिटिकल’ छैन । के कुरामा ‘क्रिटिकल’ छु भने, यो ढिलाई गर्नु हुँदैन । जुन् सहयोग गर्ने संयन्त्र छ, प्रधानमन्त्री कार्यालय, सम्बन्धित मन्त्रालयहरु उनीहरुमा फुर्ति आउनु पर्यो । र, उनीहरुले यो ‘ट्रान्सफर’को प्रक्रियालाई सजिलो बनाइदिनु पर्‍यो।

अहिलेसम्मको गतिविधि हेर्दा हामी संघीयतामा, संरचनागत ढंगले नै लागिसक्यौ भन्न मिल्छ ?

भन्न मिल्छ । जुन संरचनाको तपाई कुरा गर्दै हुनुहुन्छ । स्थानीय तह, प्रदेश र संघ । त्यो संविधानमा स्पष्ट रुपमा आएको छ । त्यो संरचनाले राष्ट्रिय परिवेशमा कसरी काम गर्ला ? र, कसरी गर्नुपर्छ भन्ने कुराहरु त विकसित हुँदै जान्छन् । समस्याहरु आउँछन्, त्यसको निराकरण पनि हुन्छ । कतिपय कुराहरु सरकारले पूरा गरिदेला, कतिपय संसदले गरिदेला । कतिपय कुराका लागि अदालत सहयोगि बन्ला । तर, अन्ततः सबैका लागि मापदण्डहरु छन् । त्यो संरचना छ, अब त्यसलाई कसरि कार्यान्वयन गर्ने भन्ने कुरा निष्ठामा पनि भर पर्छ । धेरै मान्छेलाई त मुलुक संघीय भइसक्यो अब केन्द्रीय सरकार किन चाहियो भन्ने लागेको छ ? त्यस्तो चाँहि होइन ।

अब केन्द्रीय सरकारले गरेका स्थानीय निकायलाई दिनुपर्ने काम कारबाही स्थानीय तवरले सक्षम छैन भनेर रोकिराख्ने कुरा पनि हुँदैन । हामीसँग समन्वयात्मक भूमिका हुनै पर्छ । सहयोगको भावना हुनै पर्छ । माग्नेले पनि संविधानलाई टेकेर माग्ने । दिनेले पनि संविधानमा टेकेर दिने । र, जहाँजहाँ केन्द्रीय सत्ताले कानुन बनाएर पूर्वाधार तयार गर्नु पर्छ । जस्तो, ‘फ्रेमवर्क लेजिस्लेसन’ का कुराहरु छन् । त्यसमा केन्द्रीय सरकारको स्फूर्ति चाहियो । जहाँ स्थानीय सरकारले जिम्मेवार बन्ने ठाउँहरु छ । त्यसमा उसले जिम्मेवार पनि बन्न सक्नु पर्दछ । त्यसैले त संघीयता भनेको ‘अटोनोमस रुल’ मात्रै होइन; ‘शेयर्ड रुल’ पनि हो भनिएको हो । यो एकतन्त्रीय शासन होइन, यो सामूहिक शासन हो, भन्ने कारण यही हो ।

त्यसका लागि लामो अवधि लाग्दछ । जतिपनि संघीय देशहरु छन् । कोदालोले माटो खनेको जसरी संघीयता खनेको, बनेको होइन । संघीयता बन्नलाई कलाकारको दृष्टिकोण चाहिन्छ । कुचि लिएर बस्नुपर्छ, रङ लिएर बस्नपर्दछ । त्यसलाई मिलाएर कस्तो चित्र कोर्दैछौँ भन्ने रुपरेखा संविधानले दिएको छ । कसरी लक्ष्यसम्म पुग्ने भन्नका लागि समायोजन गर्दै अघि बढ्नु पर्दछ । यहाँ समायोजनको कुरा आयो कि सरकारले आफ्नो ‘मसल’ देखायो भनेर भन्छन् । त्यो होइन । त्यो ‘मसल’ देखाएको होइन। मैले अघि ‘ट्रान्सफर’ को कुरा भने । त्यो चाहिं हो I अहिलेसम्म केन्द्रीय रुपमा भएका कामलाई संविधान बमोजिम प्रदेस र स्थानीय तहमा लैजानु पर्‍यो। यसमा केन्द्रीय सरकारले मात्रै बल गरेर हुँदैन । प्रादेशिक सरकारले पनि आफ्नो अधिकारहरु प्रयोग गर्दछ । स्थानीय तहको सन्दर्भमा कतिपय ऐनहरु प्रादेशिक सरकारले बनाइदिने भनेर संविधानमा लेखिएको छ । केन्द्र र स्थानीय तहकोबीचमा प्रदेशको उपस्थिति पनि महत्वपूर्ण हुन्छ । त्यो उपस्थितिलाई पनि स्वीकार गर्दै लैजानु पर्दछ । त्यो प्रक्रिया लामो हुन सक्दछ । कानुनका कुरा स्पष्ट भए पनि ‘ट्रान्फर’ का कुराहरुले समय लिन्छ । त्यो समय लिदा अलिकति सहिष्णुता राख्नु पर्दछ । अहिले घरबहाल करकोबारेमा एउटा विवादको उठान भयो । स्थानीय तहले लिने कि केन्द्रले लिने भनेर । संविधानले स्पष्टरुपमा घरबहाल कर भनेको स्थानीय तहले प्रयोग गर्ने अधिकारका रुपमा अथवा स्थानीय शक्तिका रुपमा स्वीकार गरेको छ । आजका मितिसम्म त्यसका लागि जुन प्रचलित कानुनहरु छन् । त्यसले केन्द्रीय सरकारको उपस्थितिलाई देखाउँछ ।

त्यस्तै उठेको पैसा कसरी वितरण गर्ने भन्ने कुरा चैँ ‘ईस्यु’ हुन सक्छ । जबसम्म कानुनलाई परिमार्जन गरेर लगिदैन तबसम्म त्यसमा सुधार हुँदैन । कानुनको अनुमतिविना कर उठाउन पाइँदैन । नीतिगत निर्णयका आधारमा संविधानले कर उठाउन दिँदैन । कार्यान्वयनका लागि नीतिगत निर्णय गर्ने र कानुका रुपमा पारित गराउने र केन्द्रीय सरकारको सहयोग लिएर जाने हो I अब तिम्रो दिन सकियो, अब हामी गर्दै छौँ भन्ने हो । तर, यसमा केन्द्रीय सरकारको उपस्थिति र सहयोग त्यतिकै जरुरी हुन्छ । आजसम्मको कानुनको मापदण्डलाई छोडियो भने अराजकता आउँछ । त्यो अराजकता पैसाको कुराबाट सुरु भयो भने, संघीयता कार्यान्वयन हुन सक्दैन ।

असोज ३ गते आउन आउन धेरै दिन बाँकी छैन, एक वर्ष अघि तपाईले धेरै ठाउँमा अन्तरवार्ता दिनु भएको थियो, त्यतिखेर तपाई अलिक धरै ‘क्रिटिकल’ हुनुहुन्थ्यो, संविधान कार्यान्वयना ढिलाई भइरहेको छ भनेर । एक वर्ष अघिको त्यही कुरा मैले अहिले सोधे, संविधान कार्यान्वयनको अवस्था के छ ? भन्दा तपाई त्यतिनै ‘क्रिटिकल’ हुनुहुन्छ ?

– ‘क्रिटिकल’ छु । क्रिटिकल के कुरामा छ भने, संघीयता भनेको अलिकति संवेदनशील प्रक्रिया हो । यो सोझो सजिलो प्रक्रिया होइन । यसमा सबैको सहभागिता सँगगँगै सबै प्रक्रियालाई जटिल नबनाएर चाँडो, चाँडो गर्नु पर्ने अवस्था हुन्छ । अहिलेको समस्या भनेको के हो भने, नेपाल सरकार कानुन मन्त्रालयले गरेको अध्ययन अनुसार एक डेढ सय नयाँ कानुन बन्नु पर्ने छ । अनि संविधानलाई कार्यान्वयन गर्नको लागि धेरै कानुनहरुलाई संशोधन पनि गर्नु पर्ने अवस्था छ । अहिलेसम्म संसदले जति कानुनहरुमा काम गरेको छ । त्यो मूलभूतरुपमा निर्वाचनलाई सम्पन्न गराउनलाई लक्षित थिए । उदाहरण लिनु पर्यो भने राजनीतिक दलसम्बन्धि, स्थानीय निर्वाचन सम्बन्धि कानुन लाइ अघि सर्न सकिन्छ । अहिले प्रादेशिक र संघीय संसदको निर्वाचनका लागि पनि कानुन बनाइएको छ । यसबाहेक नीतिगत विषयहरुमा एकदमै गति ढिलो भएको छ । केही ऐनहरु संसदमा विचाराधिन छन् । नीतिगत रुपमा सबै पक्षको कुरा मिलेको छैन । तर, अब गर्ने भनेको के हो भने, जति कुरा मिलेको छ, त्यसको आधारमा काम गर्दै जाने हो । पछि नयाँ निर्वाचन हुने वित्तिकै नयाँ जनमत आउँछ, नयाँ उत्साह आउँछ, नयाँ पार्टीहरु आउँछन्, नयाँ प्रतिवद्धता र कार्यक्रम आउँछ । अनि, अहिले जुन् पूरानो प्रक्रियाहरु छ, त्यसले नयाँ भेललाई थाम्न सक्दैन ।

त्यसैले कम्तिमा पनि अहिले के गरिदिनु पर्दछ भने, मूलभूतरुपमा ल्याउनु पर्ने कुराहरु अझ प्राथमिकता दिएर तयार गरिदिनु पर्दछ । ता कि नयाँ आउने सरकारको हातमा लठ्ठी पनि होस्, टेको पनि होस् । र, संविधानले दिएको निर्देशनका बारेमा पनि स्पष्टता होस् । त्यसो हुनाले चुनौतीहरु छन् । हरेक विषयमा सबै पार्टी भद्रगोल काम गर्ने, बहुमतले कामै गर्न नपाउने, नेपाल सरकारको जुन मसिनरी छ, त्यो मसिनरीलाई विश्वास नगरेर जे कुरामा पनि राजनीति गर्ने मान्छेले नै आफ्नो लठ्ठी ठड्याउने कारणले अफ्ठयारो भएको हो । यदि ‘व्यूरोक्रेसि’ को क्षमतालाई प्रयोग गर्ने हो भने, बाहिरका विज्ञहरुलाई पनि प्रयोग गर्ने हो भने, संसदीय प्रक्रियामा सबै पक्ष सहभागि हुनथाल्ने छन् । राजनीतिक मान्छेहरुलाई काँधमा हालियो भने, काम गर्ने भन्दा पनि राजनीति गर्नेमा बढी केन्द्रीत हुन्छन् । चुनौतीहरु धेरै छन् । तर, त्यो चुनौती धान्न नसकिने खालको भने होइन ।

जबसम्म निर्वाचनहरु सम्पन्न भइसक्दैनन् जुन सरंघीय ‘स्टेकहोल्डर’ हरु छन् ति सत्तामा पुग्दैन । अहिलेका जुन राजनीतिक दलहरु छन् , उनीहरुको एउटा राजनीतिक वर्चस्व छ । त्यो भनेकार ‘ट्रष्टि’को अधिकार हो । उमेर नपुन्जेलसम्म सबै नाबालकहरु बाबु आमाको विश्वासमा चलेका हुन्छन् । उनीहरुको हक अधिकार र आवश्यकताहरु आमाबाबुले पुरा गरिदिन्छन् । जसका आमाबाबु छैनन्, अभिभावकले नेतृत्व गरिदिन्छन् । अहिलेको राजनीति, अहिलेको सरकार, अहिलेको प्रतिपक्ष जुन–जुन पक्षहरु छन् । उनीहरु सबैको भूमिका त्यो हो । निर्वाचन भइसकेपछि के हुन्छ भने, अब ‘प्रिन्सिपल स्टेकहोल्डर’ जो हो, उ नै शक्तिशाली भएर आउँछ । अहिलेका जुन जोड घटाउहरु छन् । अहिले जहाँ–जहाँ जुन पार्टीको जे जस्तो हैसियत छ, त्यो परिवर्तन हुन्छ । सत्तामा नयाँ किसिमको हैसियत कायम गरेका पार्टीहरु आउँछन् । उनीहरु ताजा जनादेश लिएर आएका हुन्छन् । ‘म्यान्डेट्’ का आधारमा उनीहरुले काम गर्ने शैलीमा पनि परिवर्तन आउँछ । र, उनीहरुलाई के थाहा हुन्छ भने, अब हामी क्रान्ति गरेर टिक्दैनौँ । अब चाँही जनताको भोटले टिक्नु पर्छ । र, भोटले टिक्नका लागि सत्ता सञ्चालन गर्दा उनीहरुको जनताको मुख हेर्नु पर्छ भन्ने सोच्दछन् ।

त्यो चुनौतीहरु मध्यबाट एउटा निकाल्छु, निर्वाचनको पाटो, संविधानलाई सही रुपमा कार्यान्वयनमा लैजानका लागि निर्वाचन कति महत्वपूर्ण छ ?

–निर्वाचन असाध्यै महत्वपूर्ण छ । जबसम्म निर्वाचनहरु सम्पन्न भइसक्दैनन् जुन सरंघीय ‘स्टेकहोल्डर’ हरु छन् ति सत्तामा पुग्दैन । अहिलेका जुन राजनीतिक दलहरु छन् , उनीहरुको एउटा राजनीतिक वर्चस्व छ । त्यो भनेकार ‘ट्रष्टि’को अधिकार हो । उमेर नपुन्जेलसम्म सबै नाबालकहरु बाबु आमाको विश्वासमा चलेका हुन्छन् । उनीहरुको हक अधिकार र आवश्यकताहरु आमाबाबुले पुरा गरिदिन्छन् । जसका आमाबाबु छैनन्, अभिभावकले नेतृत्व गरिदिन्छन् । अहिलेको राजनीति, अहिलेको सरकार, अहिलेको प्रतिपक्ष जुन–जुन पक्षहरु छन् । उनीहरु सबैको भूमिका त्यो हो । निर्वाचन भइसकेपछि के हुन्छ भने, अब ‘प्रिन्सिपल स्टेकहोल्डर’ जो हो, उ नै शक्तिशाली भएर आउँछ । अहिलेका जुन जोड घटाउहरु छन् । अहिले जहाँ–जहाँ जुन पार्टीको जे जस्तो हैसियत छ, त्यो परिवर्तन हुन्छ । सत्तामा नयाँ किसिमको हैसियत कायम गरेका पार्टीहरु आउँछन् । उनीहरु ताजा जनादेश लिएर आएका हुन्छन् । ‘म्यान्डेट्’ का आधारमा उनीहरुले काम गर्ने शैलीमा पनि परिवर्तन आउँछ । र, उनीहरुलाई के थाहा हुन्छ भने, अब हामी क्रान्ति गरेर टिक्दैनौँ । अब चाँही जनताको भोटले टिक्नु पर्छ । र, भोटले टिक्नका लागि सत्ता सञ्चालन गर्दा उनीहरुको जनताको मुख हेर्नु पर्छ भन्ने सोच्दछन् ।

भनेको, निर्वाचन जति जरुरी छ, निर्वाचन आयोग पनि त्यतिनै जरुरी भयो हैन ?

निर्वाचन आयोगको भूमिका त अपरिहार्य छ । निर्वाचन आयोग अहिले पनि हात्ती जतिकै बलियो छ । र, उसको दृष्टिकोण कस्तो भयो भने, हामीले राजनीति हेर्नु पर्छ, हामीले परिस्थिति के छ त्यसको मूल्याङ्कन गर्नु पर्दछ, हाम्रो अधिकारहरुलाई ‘कम्प्रोमाइज’ गरिदिनु पर्दछ, नभए देश विग्रिन्छ, ‘डेमोक्रेसी’ जान्छ भन्ने धारणा बनाएर निर्णय गर्ने परिपाटी बसायो ।

सरकारले निर्वाचनको मिति तोकिसकेपछि, निर्वाचन आयोगले कुनै कुरामा पनि सरकारको मुख अथवा प्रतिपक्षको मुख हेर्नु पर्दैन । कुनै पनि अवस्थामा यो पर्दैन । निर्वाचनको मिति तोकेपछि निर्वाचनको कुरामा नेपाल सरकारको हैसियत केही पनि बाँकी रँहदैन । नेपाली सेनादेखि लिएर, नेपालको सारा सुरक्षा संयन्त्र र नागरिक समाजको सहयोग कसरी लिने निर्वाचन आयोगको कुरा हो । उसँग त्यो अधिकार छ । पैसा पनि छ । बजेट विनियोजन गर्दा जोड घटाउ गर्नु पर्छ I सरकारलाई निर्वाचनका लागि अरबौँ रुपैँया एउटा चेकबाट दिनु पर्ने बाध्यता छ । अनि त्यति ‘पावरफुल’ निर्वाचन आयोगले सिंहको भाषामा बोले हुन्थ्यो नि ! म्याउँ, म्याउँ गर्नु पर्दैनथ्यो ।

निर्वाचन आयोगले आफ्नो अधिकार चिन्न नसकेको हो ?

चिन्न नसकेकै हो । मैले त कतिपल्ट मञ्चबाट पनि भनेको छु । मिटिङमा पनि भनेको छुँ । सार्वजनिक रुपमा पनि बोलिएको छ । निर्वाचन आयोगको दृष्टिकोण नराम्रो नहोला तर, उसको जुन शैली छ, त्यो शैलीले प्रस्ष्ट पारिदिए राम्रो हुन्थ्यो । आयोग स्वतन्त्र हुनु र नेपाल सरकारको गृहमन्त्रालयको शाखाका रुपमा हुनुमा के फरक छ त ? गृहमन्त्रालयको शदासयता किन चाहियो ? निर्वाचन आयोगसँग तीन करोड जनता लठ्ठी लिएर उभिएका छन् । उसले निर्णय गर्यो । त्यो कार्यान्वयन हुन्छ । कार्यान्वयन गराउन सक्ने जनमत निर्वाचन आयोगसँग छ । दास्रो संशोधन आउला भनेर व्याक भइदिने ? एउटा कानुन बन्ला भन्दै आफ्नो समयको ख्याल नगर्ने ? आयोगले प्रेस वक्तव्य जारी गरेर काम गर्न सक्छ । नेपालमा त्यो गरिआएको पनि हो । निर्वाचन आयोग भनेको सुयोग्य संवैधानिक आयोग हो । अरु संवैधानिक आयोगहरुभन्दा फूर्तिलो पनि छ । काम गर्ने क्षमता पनि छ । पैसाको कमि पनि छैन । स्वतन्त्र मान्छेहरुको नियुक्ति हुन सक्छ । भएको पनि छ । यो प्रक्रियालाई नबुझेर देशबनाउन आत्मरतिमा निर्वाचन आयोग जानु हुँदैन । त्यसको ठेक्का त राजनीति गर्नेले लिनुपर्छ । आयोगले त संविधान बमोजिमको कर्तव्य निभाउनु पर्दछ ।

निर्वाचन आयोगमा सोर्स लगाएका मान्छेहरु नियुक्त हुने हो भने त निर्वाचन आयोग किन चाहियो र ? गृहमन्त्रालयले पनि त चुनाव गर्न सक्छ । बेलायतमा अस्तिसम्म स्वतन्त्र निर्वाचन आयोगको व्यवस्था नै थिएन । आज पनि हाम्रो जस्तो स्वतन्त्र निर्वाचन आयोग उनीहरुसँग छैन । वेलायती संसदीय व्यवस्था त्यति राम्ररी चल्या छ भने, हाम्रो पनि चल्थ्यो होला । निर्वाचन आयोग ल्याउनुको कारण के हो भने, निर्वाचन आयोगले जुन निष्ठा चाहिन्छ, प्रजातन्त्रमा निर्वाचन गर्ने संयन्त्रमा, त्यो प्रयोग गर्न सकोस् भन्नका लागि ल्याइएको हो नी !

यो त, नियुक्तिको कारणले पनि हुने भयो नि ?

होला । निर्वाचन आयोगमा सोर्स लगाएका मान्छेहरु नियुक्त हुने हो भने त निर्वाचन आयोग किन चाहियो र ? गृहमन्त्रालयले पनि त चुनाव गर्न सक्छ । बेलायतमा अस्तिसम्म स्वतन्त्र निर्वाचन आयोगको व्यवस्था नै थिएन । आज पनि हाम्रो जस्तो स्वतन्त्र निर्वाचन आयोग उनीहरुसँग छैन । वेलायती संसदीय व्यवस्था त्यति राम्ररी चल्या छ भने, हाम्रो पनि चल्थ्यो होला । निर्वाचन आयोग ल्याउनुको कारण के हो भने, निर्वाचन आयोगले जुन निष्ठा चाहिन्छ, प्रजातन्त्रमा निर्वाचन गर्ने संयन्त्रमा, त्यो प्रयोग गर्न सकोस् भन्नका लागि ल्याइएको हो नी ! निर्वाचन आयोगमा नियुक्त हुने मान्छे, सोर्स लगाएर, जागिर खोजेर हिड्ने, स्वतन्त्र हुनै नसक्ने मान्छे ल्याइयो भने कालगति पर्खिनै पर्दैन । त्यसले त संस्थाहरु कहाँ गएर झ्याम्म ‘कोल्याप्स’ हुन्छ भन्न सकिँदैन । त्यसो हुनाले निर्वाचन आयोगमात्र होइन, मानवअधिकार आयोग छ, महालेखा परिक्षकको व्यवस्था छ, अन्य आयोगहरु छन् । उनीहरुको हैसियत तब मात्र कायम हुन्छ, जब जागिरको ‘प्रमोसन’ होइन, संवैधानिक ‘पावर’को अनुभूति हुनसक्ने, स्वतन्त्रतालाई प्रयोग गर्न सक्ने दृष्टिकोण भएका मान्छेहरु त्यहाँ पुर्‍याउनु पर्ने हुन्छ । निन्ले पनि निर्णय गर्ने क्षमता राख्नु पर्‍यो ।

प्रधानमन्त्रीले त निर्वाचनका बारेमा आफ्नो आवश्यकता अनुसार भन्नु हुन्छ, प्रधानमन्त्रीको आवश्यकता निर्वाचन आयोगले हेर्नृे हो र ? केही विषय टुंगिएको छैन भने, सबै पक्षलाई डाकेर निर्णय गर्नु पर्‍यो । हिजोका प्रमुख आयुक्त र आयुक्तहरुले जहिले पनि स्वतन्त्र रुपमा निर्वाचन गराएको रेकर्ड छ । अहिले निर्वाचन आयोग अलिक कडा भइदिएको भए । ‘ट्रान्सफर’को धेरै प्रक्रियाहरु अगाडि बढिसक्थ्यो । निर्वाचन पछाडि छुटिसकेको हुन्थ्यो । त्यो गर्न नसकेकाले चार महिना समय भए गर्छौँ, तीन महिना, दुई महिना भए गर्छौैँ भन्नु हुन्छ । एउटा प्रेस वक्तव्य निकालेर काम गर्न सक्ने निर्वाचन आयोगले अफ्यारो मोल्न सकेन । असल नियत होला तर, त्यसले ‘इन्स्टिच्यूशन’ हरुलाई भड्खालोमा पारिदिन्छ ।

Eighteen months after the promulgation of the new constitution in September 2015, political parties have still not been able to resolve key issues. The attempt to amend the constitution for the second time has failed and the deadlock between three major forces and Madheshi parties has put May 14 local election in jeopardy. Is Nepal’s constitution fundamentally flawed and in need of repeated amendments? How do we see the third amendment bill registered in the parliament on Tuesday? What is the way out of this impasse? Constitutional expert and Dean of Kathmandu University School of Law, Bipin Adhikari, shared his insights with Mahabir Paudyal and Ashok Dahal.

• Both the amendment bills (the one that was withdrawn and the one registered on Tuesday) have been brought to prevent people from giving their verdict on the constitution.
• The new amendment proposal will disenfranchise around 1,488 members of local bodies of their right to choose National Assembly members.
• The amendment proposal seems like a coordinated conspiracy to thwart the emergence of competent leaders from the local base.
• Any boundary issue should be jointly resolved by the provincial and federal parliaments.
• There seems to be a plot to make this constitution redundant before people even realize what it has to offer to them.

There have been demands for the constitution’s wholesale amendment since the time of its promulgation in 2015. Is the new constitution so flawed?

In some places, our constitution is clumsy as it is heavily worded and there are many political statements. But, fundamentally, this constitution is a good one. It has brought a paradigm shift in Nepali politics on four fronts. One, the constitution has a clear roadmap to ensure inclusion.

Inclusion has been enshrined as a fundamental right. A Nepali can file a writ at the court if the state fails to live up to this promise. Second, the constitution has institutionalized federalism as a tool for self and shared rule. It has provided for three levels of government. The third tier, which is local government and which has direct bearing on lives of people at the grassroots, has been given special powers and functions.

Third, this constitution has created institutions like Madheshi, Women, Muslim and Janajati commissions so that the marginalized communities can have their voices heard and to ensure their meaningful participation in politics. Finally, we have adopted the most desirable electoral system. The first-past-the-post system allows the political parties to push their ideologies, while proportional representation honors ethnic and regional dimensions of representation. This is why I say this constitution represents a paradigm shift in our politics.

If it is so good, how do we make sense of persistent voices of protests against it?

Two factors have contributed to this. Those who have seen, or have been made to see, only flaws in the constitution have either not understood the merits of this constitution or they are pretending they do not understand. They seem unaware of how the country will make a political and economic leap when the three levels of elections take place and local, provincial and federal governments start functioning. Or they have been misled. And then there is a deliberate attempt to turn this country into a collection of ethnic camps (jaatiya sibir). These people see everything through ethnic lens. If you read this constitution through ethnic lens you may not find anything worthwhile for you because the constitution does not create ethnic base (jaatiya purbadhhar) for every single ethnic community. Some forces want Nepal to be perennially instable. These elements are speaking against implementation of this constitution. In terms of its content, there is little to criticize in this constitution.

The government has withdrawn the second constitution amendment bill and registered a new one in the parliament. How are we to understand this?

In a democracy it is abnormal for political forces that promulgate the constitution to keep amending it without taking people’s feedback even once. Normally, framers of a constitution take the document to the people for their approval. They do so by holding elections as per the provisions of the constitution. Supporters of constitution persuade voters by defending the constitution. The dissenting forces point to its flaws, if any, to bring people to their side. But this is not happening in Nepal.

Election provides an opportunity for people to show whether they accept or reject the constitution. Those who are not satisfied with it can ask people to vote in their favor so that they can remove the supposed flaws in the constitution when they are elected. If people are not happy with the constitution, they will vote for dissenting forces.

Instead of letting people decide, the focus of our parties has been to amend the constitution. Both the amendment bills (the one that was withdrawn and the one registered on Tuesday) have been brought to deprive people from giving their verdict on the constitution. There is a visible attempt to entrap the country’s political leadership, by both domestic and foreign elements. This is wrong. The constitution should be amended only through a fresh mandate. Yes, the parties can question some provisions but they must take people’s mandate before seeking amendments. Today there is an attempt to completely ignore people’s aspirations.

In terms of its content, what is wrong with third constitution amendment bill?

There were problems in the second amendment bill as well. But the third bill is even more problematic. The constitution has provided for three levels of government. And the local government had been empowered because it is the one directly linked with the grassroots. As such the constitution had granted powers to the local level and made it an integral part of National Assembly. As per the constitution, the chief and deputy chief of local bodies become members of Electoral College that elects National Assembly, thereby making them custodians of the federal system. The new amendment proposal will disenfranchise around 1,488 such members of their right to choose National Assembly members. This is a direct attack on local government.
The local level can play an instrumental role in the development of local leadership. The leaders groomed and elected at local level have the potential to later assume leadership at provincial and federal levels. The amendment proposal seems like a coordinated conspiracy to thwart the emergence of competent leaders from the local base. Those at the negotiating table with the government seem to be guided by the fear that the competent leaders who emerge from the local level may make them irrelevant. They are trying to retain their space in provincial politics by decimating local levels. And they are doing this by putting the future of grassroots democracy in jeopardy. This is a big threat to our local government system. People should see through this design.

New amendment proposal states that federal parliament may alter boundary of provinces even without the consent of respective province. What do you make of this?

You can always find an international practice that backs your point of view. But each country acts as per its specific needs. The fundamental tenet of a federal system is that each unit of federal government exercises some independent powers and some shared powers. The power to amend the constitution falls under shared powers, which means both provincial and federal parliaments should have their say in such amendments. Reserving this right exclusively for the federal parliament violates this principle. You cannot take one province into confidence and ignore the aspirations of people of other provinces, for all provinces are equal stakeholders in federalism.
Shared powers of provinces and federal parliament should be decisive in altering provincial boundaries. What is objectionable about the current proposal is the provision that two-thirds majority of federal parliament can alter provincial boundaries if provincial assemblies have not been formed. The intention seems to be to tamper with provincial boundaries to suit certain interests.
The most ridiculous point in the new amendment proposal is the provision of a permanent federal commission to resolve boundary issues. The only thing that this will do is keep the old seed of discord alive in perpetuity by changing provincial boundaries without getting people’s feedback on this vital issue. Any boundary issue should be jointly resolved by the provincial and federal parliaments, and as per Article 274 of the constitution. A permanent commission is unnecessary.

Madheshi forces argue that local election is meaningless as local units can’t function unless provincial assemblies are first formed.

The general practice is to hold national election first. First the federal parliament election is held and then it finalizes legislation for provinces and local units. Then the provincial election is held followed by local election. This should have been the case in normal times. But these are not normal times. We must hold all three sets of elections before January, 2018. So where you start is a secondary issue. This is no time to debate which election should take first. We need to hold local election and then move towards elections of provincial and federal parliaments. Madheshi forces insist that local levels should remain under provinces. But this is not what the constitution has envisioned. It has envisaged three levels of government, each with defined powers and responsibilities. We should also understand that local units have been given requisite autonomy and powers so as to empower all local stakeholders including Janajatis, women, Madheshis and Dalits.

Let us assume local election is successfully held but the country is not able to hold the other two elections on time. Will the local units function then?

They will, for sure. But for this the current parliament needs to enact legislation to make them functional, in case federal election cannot be held. Elections should not be stopped under any pretext. Let the people choose their future leaders. Madheshis will decide whom to elect as their leaders for the future. So will Janajatis and other groups.

What in your view is the biggest challenge for the implementation of the new constitution?
The biggest threat to constitution implementation is this tendency to take vital decisions without letting people have their say on crucial political and constitutional issues. Proxy forces take decision in the name of people without consulting them. This tendency is dangerous. An overwhelming majority of people welcome this constitution and they want to participate in the political process as per its provisions. Let local election happen and let the people experience how the constitution has empowered them. There seems to be a plot to make this constitution redundant before people even realize what it has to offer to them. Any constitutional issue can be reviewed or changed, but only by elected provincial and federal parliaments. The 744 local executives which are going to be formed after May 14 election will change the political landscape of the country because this will bring to power Dalits, Janajatis, women and Madheshis.

But there has been a tendency in Nepal since the 1990 democratic changes of trying to push through with political agendas without people’s consent. An extra-constitutional force is created to derail the democratic and political process. The big challenge is to overcome this tendency. The first condition for effective implementation of the new constitution is holding all three elections by the January 2018 deadline.