THE recent rounds of talks between the Big Three—UCPN (Maoist), Nepali Congress and CPN-UML—to resolve the contentious political and constitutional issues have once again renewed confidence that there might be a breakthrough in the prolonged impasse. The decision of NC and UML to back down from their stand of not holding any talks with the ruling coalition unless PM Baburam Bhattarai cleared the way for a consensus government, is also a welcome step. With each side sticking to its guns, the deadlock looked set to continue for a long-long time, thwarting any hope of a constitution in the foreseeable future. Welcome as it is, we are nonetheless concerned about the lack of inclusiveness in the current round of discussions.
Apparently, the Federal Republican Democratic Alliance (FRDA) has given Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal the authority to negotiate with other political parties on crucial national issues. In that case, the negotiations have the backing of a big section of major Madhesi parties currently represented in the Baburam Bhattarai government. But even that, in our view, does not go far enough in making the talks truly inclusive. For the decisions reached during current negotiations to be broadly acceptable, they must have the backing of the marginalized communities that have been raising their voice for greater inclusion in state machinery and governance, and a place at the negotiating table. This entails getting the Madhes-based parties out of the ruling coalition on board and reaching out to the leaders of the janajati community. Interestingly, even while top NC and UML leaders have been negotiating, the janajati leaders affiliated to the two parties have been expressing serious reservations on the most important constitutional question of federalism. There is no indication that NC and UML leadership has made any effort to enlist the backing of their janajati leaders for the ongoing talks.
One of the biggest criticisms of the constitution-making process in the four years of CA’s existence was that most decisions were made behind closed doors in expensive resorts and private dwellings of top political leaders rather than on the floor of the Constituent Assembly—the most inclusive political body in the country’s history—as should have been the case. What it did was overlook the important voice of the traditionally marginalized groups who had been demanding for the inclusion of their issues in the new constitution. In the end, it was the schisms in political parties resulting from the persistent neglect of this important voice that contributed to the CA’s downfall. But it looks like top leadership of the Big Three have not learned their lessons as yet and hence are again trying to settle vital issues among themselves behind closed doors. Given the bitter past experience, they should realize the limitation of this approach. Without broad participation, any decisions agreed upon by top leaders are not only likely to be rejected by those who feel left out, but could also sow the seed for future social unrest.
Related story
Employers need not be stingy to embrace social security scheme:...
