The party leaders, who had made a little headway in ironing out some minor disputes over the preliminary report prepared by the Constituent Assembly (CA) thematic committee on determining the system of governance, have failed to resolve disputes relating to other thematic reports.[break]
A meeting of the taskforce held at Singha Durbar on Thursday could not decide whether there should be a bicameral or unicameral parliament at the central level, one of the thorniest issues.
Maoist leaders stuck to their previous stance in favor of a unicameral parliament while leaders from the Nepali Congress (NC) and CPN-UML, among others, stood for the bicameral model.
At the meeting the taskforce endorsed the decision to go for unicameral parliaments in the provinces as suggested by leaders entrusted with responsibility for assisting the high-level taskforce.
Determining the form of legislature in the provinces, however, was not a complex issue as the parties, while preparing the committee´s thematic report, had already agreed to adopt the unicameral model at the provincial level. But the issue was included after some lawmakers, during deliberations on the thematic report at the CA meeting, demanded that the new statute ensure bicameral parliaments in the provinces as well.
"We have not been able to resolve any of the important issues so far as the leaders have not budged from their previous stances," said NC leader Ramesh Lekhak, a regular participant in the discussions.
They could not make much progress on the thematic report of the CA committee on determining the form of legislative bodies as they failed to choose one of two models-- unicameral or bicameral.
"Once we determine the model, a long list of questions related to it will be sorted out at once but we have failed to shorten the list -- except for settling a few very minor issues -- as we are yet to decide the model," he said.
Though the leaders entrusted with assisting the taskforce held discussions on the preliminary report prepared by the CA committee on determining the judicial system, they failed to yield any result.
The taskforce did not enter into the report on judicial system as the meeting of ´their assistants´ held Thursday morning to lay the groundwork for talks among the top leaders itself failed to reach any agreement.
According to Lekhak, leaders from all the parties have maintained their previous stances in connection with the judicial system as well.
The Maoists are pushing for a provision that makes parliament the final authority for interpreting the constitution and other laws while the NC and CPN-UML are for the apex court as the final authority for that purpose. Similarly, the Maoists are for authorizing parliament to take action against justices and even sack them while the other parties want to give this authority to the Constitutional Council (CC).
There is also dispute over the mechanism for the appointment of justices. The Maoists are for appointing justices through parliament while the NC and UML are for continuing the existing system under which the head of state appoints them on the recommendation of the CC.
While the Maoists have argued that SC justices should be made accountable to the people´s representative body-- parliament-- the other two parties have said that parliament can oversee their performance and sack them through impeachment if and when needed. CC nominees for SC justices are subject to parliamentary confirmation hearings.
"No progress has been made in connection with resolving disputes over judicial system because we have put it clearly that we are against a controlled or guided judiciary," Lekhak said.
The taskforce was formed with a view to settle or narrow down the list of around 220 disputes that surfaced in eight of the 11 thematic reports. It was supposed to submit its progress report to the meeting of 27 political parties on October 24. Since Maoist Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, who heads the seven-member taskforce, is scheduled to leave on a week-long visit to China, it is certain to miss the deadline.
thirbhusal5@gmail.com
Related story
'Lifestyles of PM, DPM at odds with property statements'
