The constitutional process
We are disheartened by the opposition alliance’s outright refusal to come to the negotiating table without a guarantee of ‘consensus’ constitution. First of all, it is not up to the ruling parties to decide the shape of the new constitution, nor to determine the way to that ultimate goal. The only legitimate authority on this is the sovereign Constituent Assembly. Our political leadership made a big mistake by trying to bypass the CA the last time around. They should not make the same mistake again.The constitutional process
We are disheartened by the opposition alliance’s outright refusal to come to the negotiating table without a guarantee of ‘consensus’ constitution. First of all, it is not up to the ruling parties to decide the shape of the new constitution, nor to determine the way to that ultimate goal. The only legitimate authority on this is the sovereign Constituent Assembly. Our political leadership made a big mistake by trying to bypass the CA the last time around. They should not make the same mistake again.
The leader of the opposition alliance, UCPN (Maoist), perhaps realizing its weak bargaining position as a distant third party in the CA, is now threatening to take up arms. As a condition for talks, it has said that the ruling alliance must completely do away with the voting process in the CA. Temporary suspension of the process, the opposition says, is not enough. But didn’t the parties that are now in the opposition commit to constitution through ‘due process’ in their election manifestos? Didn’t they also agree in the Interim Constitution to a new constitution through two-third majority?
In a functioning democracy, there can never be absolute consensus on anything. It is for this reason political parties inserted a provision in the Interim Constitution whereby the new constitution could be promulgated on the basis of two-third majority in the CA. A simple majority, it was thought, would not be enough to draft a document as important as the constitution of new Nepal. But two-third majority, everyone agreed, would suffice. But just because the Maoist and Madheshi parties found themselves in a position of weakness in the second CA, courtesy of the sovereign people, they have gone back on their electoral promise and have refused to honor the rules of the game—the rules they set themselves.
It is true that a constitution based on broad consensus is still the most desirable option, by a long shot. But since efforts at such consensus have so far failed, again and again and again, we should now follow the legitimate process outlined in the Interim Constitution. Voting is, in fact, the heart and soul of democracy.
We urge the 30-party opposition alliance to immediately abandon their current course of violent protests and come back to the talks table. They know better than anyone that Nepali Congress and CPN-UML cannot accept their undemocratic demand that the new constitution be had only through consensus. As things stand, the opposition is in a wait-and-see mode. They hope to ‘flood’ Kathmandu with their supporters on February 28 in a ‘show of strength’. Such a show, they believe, will give them an upper hand in deliberations on new constitution. Even if a sea of red does materialize in support of the opposition parties, surely, the mandate of the people so clearly expressed in the second CA polls is much-much bigger than street support for particular parties. The question now is whether the Maoists and Madheshi parties are ready to unconditionally accept the democratic process, or if they will take the democratic path only when it suits them.