Given the polarized composition of the CA, the news came as no surprise. In fact, the differences are a fallout of a flawed and incomplete peace deal and a poorly-planned political course agreed between parties who have opposite ideologies, interests and constituencies. The Indian brokered 12-point peace accord signed in Delhi in 2005 and a subsequent agreement, claimed to be the foundations of our future constitution, lack roadmaps of political and constitutional reforms, as both were too incomprehensively drafted and too hastily signed.
That the constitution won’t be written in the stipulated timeframe is all but clear. Now, the question is: Will it ever be written?
In retrospect, it seems that the primary objective of the parties while signing the ‘peace deals’ was to get rid of monarchy; real peace or lasting solution of the country’s problems were secondary for them. Except discussing on how to fight the monarchy, no deliberations ever took place between the diametrically-opposite parties on subjects like future political direction of the country, institutions and plans of national security, basic and major provisions of the constitution, restructuring of the state and programs of socio-economic changes. The poor preparation and lost opportunity will haunt the nation for a long, long time to come.
It’s true that the then seven parties and the Maoists who signed the deal, along with several ethno-linguistic minority groups, had some valid grudges against the institution of monarchy and particularly against the then king, Gyanendra, who foolishly antagonized all of them at the same time. During his direct rule, he also riled the powerful Indian establishment. His actions and attitudes turned enemies of the enemy into friends whose united assault led to his downfall. However, with monarchy gone, the parties are now bereft of not only a common enemy but also any common agenda.
The above-mentioned differences are only the tip of the iceberg; the divide is much deeper and will surface as the constitution-writing process enters the advanced stages. Differences between NC and UCPN (Maoists) are ideological – the former believes in liberal democracy and the latter in classical communism – thus no foreseeable meeting point. Disputes between UCPN (Maoist) and the UML are both ideological and organizational. Each claims to be the ‘mainstream’ communist force making reconciliation further complicated. Despite lack of consensus and clarity within the rank and file with regard to its political and ideological course, UML stands for left-of-the-centre socioeconomic policies and programs, renounces the use of violence for political ends and advocates multi-party democracy, beliefs, practices and interpretations considered as anti-communist by the radical Maoists.
Neither the strength of UCPN (Maoist), who make up two-fifth of the CA, nor the combined force of NC-UML, who form one-third, is enough to write the constitution as all articles including name and preamble require two-thirds majority of the House to pass. Similarly, Madhesi parties, who comprise about one-sixth, have their own agenda. Mostly regional/ethnic in nature, they are even more difficult to handle.
The country is paying the price of the short-sightedness of politicians and their kowtowing to foreign advice/pressure. That the constitution won’t be written in the stipulated timeframe is all but clear. Now, the question is: Will it ever be written? The key to the stalemate lies in co-workmanship between multiple political actors, which so far is virtually non-existent.
Although flexibility is required from all parties, Maoists’ role and responsibility will be the most crucial of all both in drafting the constitution and concluding the peace process. They promised to give up violence and intimidation and they are duty-bound to honor their pledge. They should realize that there is no place for ‘power seize’ in a democracy. The Maoists better not go against the call of time or the dictates of geo-politics. Neither tastes of freedom enjoyed nor heights of political consciousness achieved by Nepali people during the last two decades or the power balance that exists now in the country provides room for a one-party communist takeover. Certainly, Maoist’s differences with others in areas of socioeconomic changes (like land reforms), or in areas of modes of governance (like the prime ministerial versus presidential system debate), should be recognized, honored and sorted out. It will be in nobody’s interest to deepen and perpetuate the political crisis.
jeevan1952@hotmail.com
Related story
Kathmandu Road Division Office starts blacktopping road demolis...
-1779842101.webp)
