It is already about five months that the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly (CA), on 28 May 2008, to abolish monarchy and declare the country a republic, was held. The Assembly is functionally without job since then.
There does not seem to be any hurry among the partners of New Nepal to move further. It appears as though their only job was to root out the indigenous monarchy from the land and proclaim a republic. The Rules of Procedures to be applied to the Assembly in drafting the new constitution remains stuck at the Rules of Procedure Drafting Committee. The Assembly cannot move without it. The resultant inertia has become a good instrument to let off steam. From the little that this author has found so far, the ruling coalition is still without any time plan for the Assembly’s constitution making business. It is not because there are far too many dull men in grey suits, who cannot plan anything, but because their leaders think their jobs are better done elsewhere.
Moreover, there have been little credible assurances from the Prime Minister and his senior cabinet colleagues that the CA will start its business within a few days. All recent cabinet meetings have been concluded without a single word about the bottlenecks before the Assembly, and the efforts of the government, if any, to remove them. Rebellion has been transferred into angst.
This lack of eagerness of the ruling coalition to begin the constitution making agenda, and the grand acquiescence of this delay by the Nepali Congress — theoretically, the main opposition in the CA — have not surprised anybody. Civil society leaders who supported the Maoist movement until last year have not found it worth their while to kick up a fuss about this issue. The so called independent media of Nepal, which is better known for its value judgment than for objective reporting, does not have any position on this matter. Their appetite for democracy remains minimal.
In fact, the champions of the CA have all disappeared from the strip. The Nepalese versions of American founding fathers — George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay — are all conspicuously absent from the political scene. There is no more pressure for a new Constitution. The West remains optimistic, but on slender grounds.
In summary, this is the Alice in Wonderland world of CA. This is definitely a reflection of the system in crisis. This crisis may get prolonged given the poor performance of the opposition in the Assembly. It is the function of the opposition to take the critical lead in holding the government accountable for its actions and inactions, and policies and proposals. It has to be able to review the situation and comment on them independently when necessary. Apparently, the opposition is as extraordinarily shortsighted as the other stakeholders. It is not the time to only focus on governance issues at the expense of constitution making.
As the main opposition party, the Nepali Congress has the right to be offered the first and most extensive opportunity to know what is happening out there. One could think of the official opposition advocating a new set of policies which are significantly different from those of the government, which try to maintain democratic credentials of the proposed system, and contest the government formulations based on established standards. It has not even been able to ask the government to explain this enforced immobility of the Assembly.
In any case, the power and ability of the Nepali Congress to perform this role effectively is open to question. As one can see, not only does the Congress face fragmentation within its rank and file, its public support is now much slimmer than it was in the past because of vanishing support of conservative democrats and ‘BP-ite’ nationalists. Girija Prasad Koirala’s steady and gradual parting with Nepali Congress’ foundational values, including the principle of national reconciliation, and his movement away from maintaining an independent foreign policy for Nepal, have caused many interest groups, lobbying and advocacy organizations, and research institutes to walk away from the Congress banner in search of other dependable democratic and nationalist outlets. This has definitely weakened the capacity to guard the constitution making process.
Other smaller parties may also find it increasingly difficult to make sure that Nepal adopts a democratic constitution that satisfies the thirst of the common people. Two factors are important: the importance of ‘behind the scenes’ contact with the government and discussion in committees, which is usually more effective for the opposition than debate on the floor. Both could be especially useful prior to the first reading, ensuring that opposition views are taken into account from the outset.
The CA is not a workout in the ‘Wonderland.’ It is often difficult to decide what is in the national interest if there is no transparent debate on important constitutional matters. It might, in any case, be best served by continuing to put forward an alternative view on every position. Several decisions have been taken in the past to evade these debates and deprive people from exercising their franchise. The choice is not always simply between national and party interest — sometimes they need to look upon important international issues as well. After all, it is the proxy forces that have been making history in Nepal, and there does not seem to be any change this time around as well.
There are deep forces at work: social, cultural and political identities have become fluid as old political ideologies are replaced by a web of ethnic, religious and demographic distinctions between people. Their democratic management is certainly essential. But the revolutionary arrangements that are being negotiated behind the curtains are keeping the CA inert and do not have any link with the demands of the people.
lawyers_inc_nepal@yahoo.com