However, I believe such a movement, while necessary, must be pursued with caution and has to be based on the vision of an egalitarian society guaranteed by a constitution that is not only timely but also just and inclusive.
The so-called political parties, regardless of the multiple names or guises in which they appear, have failed the Nepali people over and over again. Therefore, they do not deserve to “rule” or “govern”, not that they have been doing either; they have simply been chasing power and money like a dog chases its own tail. The result: A country in disarray, and an entire nation looking for an alternative. The frustration is probably compounded for the youth, who have one eye to the dismal situation of the nation and another to the world of possibilities that exists around us. Yet, I write today as a 24-year-old “youth” to appeal for caution, calm, and wisdom from the new revolutionaries-- any revolutionary really-- to achieve long-lasting, peaceful, and just solutions to the many problems we face today.
There is a difference between an alternative and a good alternative. Lest we forget, we elected the Maoists in 2008 because they provided us an alternative to the “status-quo” of Congress and Communist politics. We gave them the boot and, against all predictions, gave the Maoists a chance to redeem their revolutionary claims to “change the country for the better.” Unfortunately, the Maoists have done nothing in the last three years to prove they are any different from the status-quo. But now, I digress. The point is that every alternative is not necessarily a better alternative. As such, Nepalis now need to be careful and mindful of any new revolution we might want to launch, being clear not only about our goals but also our methods, ideologies, and intentions. It is without a doubt, we need a revolution, however, that does not mean that any revolution, whether led by the youth or someone else, will necessarily provide a solution to the problems at hand.
There is no such thing as a homogenous youth. As much as I would like to believe that all young people want to make the country a better place, the stark reality is that there are multiple stakes and interests even among us. While it is easy to be euphoric of the possibilities for the future and join arms with others to wage a revolution against the establishment, this alliance has to be based on a robust ideology that seeks human rights and social justice for all. We will have to go all the way and deliver on the promises while also making sure we do not make the same mistakes of the past. This is no easy task but saving the nation, as naive as that might sound, is still the ideal and the goal. Those who end up participating in any such revolution, I hope, will never forget the ideals that first motivated them. Even then, the difficult task of figuring out the nuts and bolts (such as electoral system, political structure, and power mechanisms) to realize those ideals still remains, but we have to start from somewhere.
It is with this new revolution in mind-- one that has at its heart individual rights, human dignity, and social justice-- that I want to raise an issue that has gone virtually unnoticed amongst our many claims. No one seems to be asking what the constitution actually stands for, what it entails, and to what ends it will be implemented.
It is with this new revolution in mind-- one that has at its heart individual rights, human dignity, and social justice-- that I want to raise an issue that has gone virtually unnoticed amongst our many claims. Every politician, bureaucrat, journalist, student, or youth concerned about the country, seems to be fixated on the need for a timely drafting of the new constitution. These concerns are perhaps necessary but not sufficient. No one seems to be asking what the constitution actually stands for, what it entails, and to what ends it will be implemented. It is paramount that we draft a constitution that is comprehensive, just, and inclusive by taking into account the deprivation, suffering, and misgivings that Nepali people have had to face so far. I fear that in our rush to pass a constitution, we will make do with one that does not reflect the values to which we should aspire. The questions we should be asking first are not about the timing but the content of the constitution.
Who is actually drafting the constitution? What is being written in it, and for what reasons? Who is being consulted and who is not? How will it be similar to and how will it be different from the old constitution? How will it take into account our difficult history while also reflecting our aspirations for the future? Will the constitution, whenever it is ratified, provide the legal preamble to ensure a just and egalitarian society for all Nepalis?
These are difficult questions that need thoughtful consideration and deliberation. That is not to say that those involved in the drafting process, whoever they are, are necessarily engaged in a serious exercise to address these concerns. But they should be, and they should involve the rest of the country in a comprehensive participatory mission that seeks to not only inform but also include people in the process. Not interim “two-week” consultation periods between some politicians and their constituencies, but genuine grassroots-based participation like the Ubudehe in Rwanda, where citizens are at the front and centre of the process. The need for such a bottom-up approach is especially obvious in Nepal because, according to a 2008 survey carried out by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 59 percent of people surveyed did not even know what a Constituent Assembly is! In addition, at a time when Iceland is electing 25 ordinary citizens to draft their new constitution, we do not know who is writing ours.
We are at a historic juncture where the consequences of our actions are multiplied several folds. This is an opportunity to not just establish legality but also achieve legitimacy from the people, which is possible only through complete transparency. As we push for a better constitution, we as citizens have to be vigilant about the process. Any constitution that is not “of the people, by the people, for the people” must be treated with scepticism and suspicion. Simply put, if most people do not know about the constitution or its content, how are we to be certain of its intentions and future repercussions?
We have to be equally mindful of the context within which the constitution is ratified, if ever such a day comes to light. Political parties are so fickle and short-sighted now that they will probably sell their soul for a quick buck, but we cannot let them do that with the constitution. The basis for Nepali political alliance, as recent coalitions have proven, is not ideology or political pragmatism but simply greed; everyone is willing to make a deal with the devil, as long as they become a minister. I worry that even the constitution will be ratified for the immediate material gain of politicians. I know most constitutions around the world have short “half-lives” and so the timing rather than the content might appear important. Yet, given the particular socio-political context of Nepali politics, ratifying a half-patched constitution with support from a half-patched political “alliance” could have severe future repercussions. At least our ideal should be to draft a proper, lasting legacy, not a vague, baseless compromise that will lead to more bickering and conflict in the future. Our reaction, while being measured and peaceful, will have to be strong and decisive to make sure that our nation is not sold, over and over again.
It is not only a time to be sceptic and hopeful, but also careful. After over ten years of a gimmick revolution that has failed to provide any real gains to the population, it is time for a real revolution that galvanizes the masses around not just power and authority but justice and ideology. We have to learn from our mistakes, though, and I urge all revolutionaries, everywhere, to arm ourselves with peace, not violence, to take guard of our country once and for all. If Gandhi could lead a nation to freedom decades ago, so can we. The enemy does not have the same face as colonialism, but it can be more powerful precisely because it is faceless, and has permeated throughout society, as Sharma noted in his article. With a resolute heart and a defiant soul that will stop at nothing but peace, equality, and justice, we will succeed. The constitution is the first step towards those goals; let’s unite to ensure we move towards that direction, not away from it.
Writer is an M Phil student in Development Studies at Oxford University
shrochis@gmail.com
Related story
New revolution possible: Baidya
-1779842101.webp)
