The new constitution is now almost ready. With the backing of over 90 percent lawmakers in the Constituent Assembly, it will unquestionably be a legitimate document. But although its legal legitimacy is a given, many still doubt if the constitution of the federal democratic republic of Nepal will be able to address the concerns of the marginalized communities that suffered so much under the unitary state. More than the shape and size of the new constitution, or the federal model outlined therein, this will depend on the political will of our leaders. Even the 1990 constitution had provided for 'empowerment' of all marginalized communities through meaningful 'devolution' of power. Had the political and administrative powers really been devolved, and had the marginalized communities felt empowered, the country, arguably, would not have had to go through a bloody civil war. Nor, after the 2006 changes, would there have been spontaneous identity movements in every part of the country. Since most of our national political actors are unchanged since 1990s, there continues to be a question mark over their commitment to the federal project and meaningful devolution of political power.This is the big challenge for Big Three leaders. As far as the much-contested seven-province federal model is concerned, we are not entirely happy with it either. But it is something we can work with. First, the number of federal states can (and should) be changed as and when needed. The Tharus, for instance, can eventually have a province of their own, where they can be ruled by their own representatives. The map of Madhesh can be similarly adjusted as per the wishes of the local population clusters. In other words, the genuine grievances of the protestors who have come out in the streets of the Tarai belt can, in one way or the other, be adjusted within the framework of the new constitution. So instead of blindly opposing it wholesale, the democratic forces protesting against the constitution should appreciate its good aspects even as they oppose what they believe are its discriminatory provisions. If they are still unsatisfied, they can try to convince the people to vote for them in the next election so that they have the legislative strength to establish their agenda. This is how things get done in a democracy. And this is why efforts from some quarters to downplay people's mandate expressed in the second CA polls and try to portray it as no more than 'numerical strength' is so troubling. They don't seem to have much faith in the democratic process.
We would like to urge all the democratic forces, both those who support the new constitution and those who oppose it, to internalize the centrality of the democratic process in a functioning democracy. There will always be differences in a democracy, but the only legitimate way to settle these differences is through timely elections. If you want to establish your agenda, go back to the people and try to regain their confidence. Democratic actors think long term. That said we don't for a moment believe implementation of the new constitution will be easy. It will be contested every step of the way and the country could witness a level of political instability far into the future. But why be so pessimistic? Why not hope that the new constitution will be the first building block in the making of the New Nepal that people from every background can proudly call their home?
Related story
PM Dahal to take vote of confidence on March 22
