Nearly after two months of the 16-point deal that paved a way for constitution, 35 days after the Constituent Assembly unveiled draft constitution and two weeks after nationwide public feedback collection on the draft, constitution making process seems to have gone back to square one. This is troubling. While the four parties to the deal do not seem serious enough, rift has surfaced between the ruling Nepali Congress and CPN-UML. NC and UML are disputing whether draft constitution should be improved based on public feedback or whether to complete constitution process based on the 16-point agreement. NC views, rightly so, that not making change in the draft constitution will mean "undermining public feedback." UML leaders fear that flouting the 16-point deal will "open Pandora's Box," potentially derailing constitution process yet again. Both concerns are legitimate. People have expressed diverse views on system of governance, federalism, secularism, citizenship, qualification requirements for the ministers and lawmakers and so on. Ignoring their feedback will be a mockery of feedback collection process, while deviating from the 16-point deal could defer the constitution process to an indefinite period.But NC-UML dispute does not seem limited to constitution process alone. NC accuses UML of "hurrying" to lead the government post-constitution, hence its impatience for constitution, while UML accuses NC of trying to prolong its stay in power until NC's general convention, scheduled for September this year. The fresh trust deficit between the ruling parties, when they should be standing together on constitutional issues, is unfortunate. Moreover, parties are reverting to their earlier stand on federalism. NC and UML have now floated 6-7 states, which is against the 16-point deal. It is a given that federalism will be hard to settle. For the past eight years, major political parties discussed every imaginable federal model, but could not come to a conclusion. If the parties take the same perilous path, constitution process is unlikely to move head. There are also fears that new development is the result of top leaders' Delhi visit. As has been obvious from public feedback program, people want a number of changes in the draft constitution but they also want the constitution at the earliest.
The parties to constitution should, therefore, approach naming and demarcation of federal provinces with utmost flexibility. We are aware that it will be practically impossible to accommodate the dissenting voices of all parties. But a broader consensus among major forces will still be necessary. For this each group—including Madhesh-based parties—needs to give up their hard stand on federalism. There is a danger that the hard-achieved unity among four major parties could break down. This must not be allowed to happen. Federalism cannot be settled unless there is more willingness to give and take. Sticking to respective stands won't help. This process must not wait and parties must come to a negotiated settlement as soon as possible. As we have been maintaining in this space, constitution is a document of compromise. With each party sticking to its rigid stand, such a document will not see the light of the day.
Related story
How to become more flexible
