The monkey obtains a balancing-scale to be able to make a neutral decision. The monkey—sensing the uncompromising attitude of the cats—devises a scheme to take advantage of the discord. He breaks the bread into two unequal pieces. When the scales don’t balance, the monkey pretends to make the pieces equal by biting out from the heavier piece. The monkey repeats this process several times, each time taking a bite from the heavier piece. At the end, only tiny pieces of the bread are left. The cats sense their mistake and agree to take back whatever is left of the bread. But the clever monkey claims the remaining pieces as reward for his labor.
Constitutional history
There has been a sort of monkey business with regard to constitution making in Nepal since the idea of a constitution—setting the boundaries for rulers to exercise power—first emerged at the end of the Rana regime in 1950. During the hundred plus years of Rana rule and, prior to that, nearly a century of absolute monarchy, the idea of a constitution was meaningless because there was no demand for it—the ruling dynasty was thought to be under an obligation to observe certain norms in the exercise of power. State power was obtained by the use of guns and that power had to be exercised until it was taken away by someone possessing still bigger guns.
The system of gun-based rule had to end when democracy-fighters took over government reins in 1950, which meant they needed to have a constitution-based rule.
They very wisely framed an interim constitution, which was soon to be replaced by a new democratic constitution. It was not envisaged in 1950 that haggling among the parties would be so drawn out that there could be no constitutional government until about a decade later. A new constitution and a new government did materialize by 1959 but the protracted negotiations over the bits and pieces of constitution had sucked the strength out of democratic consensus, which provided vital opening for anti-democracy forces to regroup. An elected government was installed in 1959 but it could not exercise power, which had shifted to the King, unnoticed and unopposed. The democratic government lasted no more than 18 months and not even a small demonstration—much less gun-fight—occurred when it was dismissed and political leaders were put in jail.
When the political parties sat down to write the constitution for the second time in 1990 it appeared like some lesson had been learned from the 1960 debacle. A democratic constitution was agreed upon within a year, followed by general election in May 1991. However, cracks soon emerged in the new leadership. The new order was marred by infighting and reluctance of the ruling party to make sharp departures from old ethnicity-based politics practiced under the Panchayat regime. In large part, the democratic constitution of 1991 seemed to preserve the country’s monolithic culture and mono-ethnic identity, which didn’t sit well with ethnic and cultural minorities which had felt excluded and discriminated under Panchayat.
The Maoist insurgency which came on stream in 1996 and the subsequent Madhesh movement resulted from old ways of family-and clan-based politics which continued under the new dispensation. Not surprisingly, the ascendancy of hitherto excluded and marginalized groups destroyed both the monarchy and feudalistic democracy. While the monarchy failed to yield to the global democratic wave, the ruling parties failed because they could not accommodate diversity.
Democracy vs diversity
We have lost precious time since the political change of 2006 which, however, wouldn’t have occurred had the King been wise enough to go with the need of the time—to work within the democratic framework by, say, embracing GP Koirala, and welcome diversity by, say, inviting Prachanda and, maybe, Upendra Yadav, for negotiated settlement. Such wisdom and magnanimity were called for at a time when both monarchy and mono-ethnic democracy were under great stress. It was in the monarchy’s interest to embrace Maoist insurgency and Madhesh movement that it inspired.
Looking back, there is little credibility in the allegation that leaders of both these movements had set out to destroy democracy. On the contrary, these movements have helped spearhead grassroots opposition to what I call bourgeoisie democracy under Nepali Congress. In most aspects, NC democracy functioned no differently than the Panchayat. We must then realize that Panchayat democracy and later NC democracy failed because they couldn’t convince the general population that they could make substantive changes in government operations to help improve living conditions of average Nepalis.
The Maoist and Madhesi movements helped spearhead grassroots opposition to bourgeoisie NC democracy.
Both the Panchayat and NC-led administrations paid scant attention to the common perception that in Nepal special privilege that came with family name and ethnic identity mattered more to one’s career development and social standing than personal achievement. It was not surprising then that opposition to ethnic-and-privileged-group-based democracy quickly gathered momentum and toppled Panchayat and later the monarchy, and is likely to do away with NC/UML brand of democracy altogether, unless they change course and embrace diversity.
Democracy will survive
An overview of Constituent Assembly’s accomplishments and its unfinished tasks tells the story of why the CA made little progress during its four years of existence and why the next CA will perform little better. Of about a dozen assigned tasks, CA was able to complete only four, none of which required consensus or voting. Those that called for voting or consensus were not completed, including preparing a rough draft of the constitution, which called for a consensus, although not a binding one.
Differences over key aspects of the constitution remain as wide as they were at the beginning of the CA term in 2008. Should there be Presidential or parliamentary system; a Federal system with strong provincial governments or a dominant center; should the provinces be named and divided along ethnic lines with ethnic names or be neutral with respect to ethnicity; should there be many languages or one national language, with the implication for one culture, one dress-code versus many; and what degree of constitutional protection should minority rights enjoy?
There continues to be deep divide between two sides—one led by the Maoists, the other by NC-UML—over these important issues. Whatever the outcome of the next CA polls, neither group is likely to compromise on basic principles. This could make the country go off the course, making it an easy target for a third force. Both sides to the current dispute will then be the losers, no less than the cats in the story cited at the beginning.
Related story
Vegetarian's Wurst nightmare? Germany's sausage hotel
