The reason we had to have second CA polls was precisely because the first CA had failed—and how!—to give us a constitution acceptable to a broad section of the society. The composition of the first CA, it was felt by the end of its tenure, was uniquely unsuited for meaningful results. Countless attempts were made for 'consensus constitution'. But it slowly dawned on political parties that in a diverse society like Nepal such absolute political consensus was impossible and it was time for a track-change.So, heading into the second CA vote, all three of our big political parties asked people to give them, individually, two-thirds majority so that they could single-handedly write the constitution. Notably, this marked a clear break from the commitment of all major political players to move ahead on the basis of consensus—in keeping with the spirit of the 2006 Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the various political accords signed thereafter.
Strangely, prior to the second CA vote, it was the hardline CPN-Maoist led by the fire-breathing Mohan Baidya—which had declared the 2006 CPA null and void—that alone was for continuation of consensus politics. The outcome of the second CA elections, the party believed, would not be very different to the results of the first CA elections, resulting in another bitterly divided assembly. If that is the case, wouldn't it be a much better idea to try to hammer out outstanding constitutional issues through an all-party roundtable conference? But a marginalized political player, no one paid any heed to Baidya Maoists.
The major parties decided to push ahead with the second CA polls and the results came out more or less as foreseen by Baidya and co, as the elections once again resulted in another bitterly divided assembly. But that is the difficult choice the political parties made, and they now have no option but to live with the consequences. And it's in this context that we need to view the new pitch for national unity government. For however noble its intent, it seems doomed from the start.
Start with its leadership. The most likely contender to replace the ailing Sushil Koirala, if the noise emerging from recent inter-party negotiations is anything to go by, is KP Oli, the leader of the second biggest party in the CA. Koirala is apparently unfit on health grounds, to say nothing of his obvious failings as a leader and a statesman. But Oli, someone who has to leave the country for extended periods for health treatment every couple of months, and who has to be looked after 24/7, is surely as unsuited on health grounds to lead the country. Moreover, it is hard to believe such a divisive figure could lead a government of national unity.
So who else is in the picture? Prachanda?BaburamBhattarai? Khil Raj Regmi? Who? Given, SushilKoiralahas a hundred failings. But he is the prime minister of the country for a reason. He is the elected leader of the largest party in the CA. He is clean, honest, and a conciliator by nature.
If he is to be replaced, the candidate replacing Koirala, a prime minister who commands the support of over two-third lawmakers, will have to have impeccable credentials, and none of the names currently being bandied about remotely fits the bill.
This being the case, there is now talk of handing over leadership to someone from young generation whom a large section of Nepalis can trust. Such a rising political star, everyone agrees, would be the ideal (if an improbable) candidate to lead the country in these difficult times. Again, it's impossible to believe our seasoned senior leaders will easily agree to such a radical proposal. But even if they do, it is far from certain the new prime minister will be able to do much, hobbled as he will be by the unique compulsions and unholy compromises that characterize all unwieldy ruling coalitions (just ask BaburamBhattarai).
For the lack of better option, the best option right now would be to covert the current ruling coalition into a government of national unity—if we at all need such a government. Why do our political parties always have to be in the government? Surely, the beauty of democratic process is the culture of check and balance a responsible opposition brings to the table.
Since billions of dollars will change hands in the next few years in the process of rebuilding the devastated country, such an impartial outside oversight will be crucial. Otherwise, with all and sundry in the government, everyone will be looking to milk the state for their personal benefit. Even if our politicians have the best interest of the country at heart, the vast network of interests groups on whom they depend will clamor for piece of the reconstruction pie.
Nor is it clear how such a unity government will push through a viable constitution. The assumption is that the recent tragedy will galvanize national polity and everyone will be ready to compromise for the greater good of the country. But the constitutional disputes, allowed to fester for the last eight years, have in the time become deep wounds, the pain acutely felt by people of one region and ethnicity when someone from the outside touches their wounded nerve. There will be no easy compromises here, not even in the face of the biggest challenge in the country's history.
Why disturb the apple-cart when political instability is the last thing the earthquake-ravaged country needs right now? A government of national unity, if it's ever formed, will undoubtedly have some things going for it. But again, at what cost?
@biswastkm
Related story
Unethical 'political pragmatism' must stop
