Constituent Assembly (CA) was entrusted with the responsibility to fulfill these objectives. How far have we come through this period to fulfill these objective is a matter of discussion and a prime area of analysis.
The present political scenario is eerily similar to the post-1992 scenario when political horse-trading was rampant. Although Nepali people have supported every democratic movement, institutionalization of democracy has not yet occurred.
Political changes resulting from democratic movements failed to transform discriminatory socio-economic structures as per the people’s wishes. CK Lal, a prominent Nepali columnist, often claims that due to the longstanding clientelist mechanisms of political control inherited from the autocratic Rana and Royal regimes, democratic political leaders in the past failed to reform discriminatory, political, social and economic structures.
Majority of the people who fought for democracy were from the poor, marginalized and excluded backgrounds. The new statute is the only way to fulfill these people’s democratic aspirations. However, fear of losing power has made political leaders do absolutely nothing to change the centralized, dominating, and patronage-based political system.
Political parties fear that new constitution might challenge the status-quo, and are delaying its promulgation. By doing so, they are grossly undermining the achievements of the people’s movement.
It appears that CA was seen a vehicle that could be abandoned as soon as it ceased serving its purpose. There is a strong possibility of major political parties starting movements throughout the country to derail the peace process and stall constitution writing.
Without a broader political consensus, it will be wrong to assume that the Maoist-led government can resolve the political deadlock and be able to take the peace process to its logical conclusion, and promulgate the new constitution. First of all, Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal can continue leading the government until he does not resign. Second, even if he resigns, there is a possibility of him leading a caretaker government.
Third, the UCPN (Maoists) can overthrow the already discredited government either through a cadre-based anarchist movement or through number games in CA. However, even then, they (Maoists) would hardly receive support, solidarity and sahayog from anywhere.
We have to learn the lessons from history. In 1929, Stalin adopted a strategy of ‘revolution from above’. Stalinism has six main features: One party, one ideology, police terror, communication monopoly, weapons monopoly and central economy. The Nepali Maoists’ drive for forming the government is more or less influenced by this Stalinist strategy.
Finding a timely solution would be an intellectual step rather than losing face and power of the government. Consensus is, thus, the only way that can maximize the goals of individual political party and minimize risks of losing political power. However, it does not justify the argument that there is a direct connection between constitution writing, Maoist combatants’ integration and or rehabilitation, and formation of a new government. Understanding the complexities of interests and issues, which are quite different by nature, is indeed difficult, but not impossible.
Any attempt to make a political consensus is directly connected with the issue of essential change in power dynamics, without which, the country will not get a new constitution even after extending the CA term for several years.
Leading the government allows direct access to resources. Facing a resource scarcity to feed full-timer paramilitary forces, the Maoists are hastening their efforts to lead the government. Similarly, why would the present alliance of twenty two political parties resign when it is enjoying the state resources? Who knows whether they will get another such chance or not? By setting aside the national agenda of reforms and strengthening democracy, the leaders are discrediting the democratic system.
The main reason why we have not been able to institutionalize democracy and the society is still suffering from grave injustices. It has set an example that democracy without democrats rarely survive.
Moreover, the new generation, which is more knowledgeable and enthusiastic, simply avoids politics. It perceives politics as the genesis of all problems and confusions. Lack of proper political vision and willingness to work together for country’s good on the part of political leaders has only added to the frustrations among the youths.
The system has failed miserably and the examples abound. Teachers protest when they are stopped from cheating in the teachers’ qualification examination. Doctors padlock hospital emergency wards endangering lives of hundreds of patients awaiting treatment.
Public demonstrations have now become normal. Similarly, the Public Service Commission’s examination is boycotted by the law students wishing to become civil servants, due to the gross negligence on the part of examiner.
Both Nepalis and foreigners are cheated and manhandled by taxi-drivers at Nepal’s “international” airport. Our business houses protest against the government’s decision to regulate tax system.
What can the public do in such a situation? Is this why the people supported the democratic movement? How do families of martyrs feel about the situation? Do political leaders dare ask those involved in the movement about their level of “satisfaction” from the current “change”? What kind of change the mass was expecting and made sacrifices? What is done to address the people’s problems?
This is about time we made democracy function for people, not just the leaders.
Political consensus, participation of people in decision making processes and addressing the public concerns at all levels are the keys to functioning democracy. We have been ignoring the consensus based politics. Addressing public concerns is confined to consolation. People’s participation has been confined to participation in periodic elections without realizing it is shifting the emphasis from ‘users and adopters’ to ‘makers and shapers’ of new constitution.
The benefits of consensus based political-culture include a shift away from the traditional model of power bargaining to the collective decision making that can address the concerns of excluded and marginalized groups.
To unlock a political impasse that continues to hunt the peace and constitution writing, this strategy could be applied in Nepal.
For a win-win situation for both sides, let’s develop TOR for a property return commission. The UCPN (Maoist) too need to abandon violence formally and transform itself into a civil party.
The twenty two party alliance should agree to form a national unity government lead by the UCPN (Maoist). They should all work toward respectable integration and or rehabilitation of Maoist combatants. Avoiding anarchism, Maoism and militarism require a timely civic intervention based on the ‘2 for 2’ foundational blueprint.
Related story
All night long
