Nepal is heading for yet another crisis with the self-imposed Constitution drafting deadline lapsing today (January 22) without much progress. Since 2008 Nepal’s political parties have failed to resolve their differences and write a new Constitution for their country. During this period two elections to Nepal’s Constituent Assembly – which doubles up as the country’s Parliament – have only amounted to a game of musical chairs with almost all major parties getting a shot at government. But sans a Constitution, Nepal continues to be in limbo with governance taking a heavy beating.
For the peace and political processes in Nepal to reach fruition it is imperative that the Himalayan nation completes the Constitution drafting exercise. As much was impressed upon the Nepali leadership by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his last visit to Kathmandu for the 2014 Saarc Summit. However, bipartisanship among Nepal’s political parties remains elusive. Instead of taking to the Constitution drafting process with an open mind and an accommodative approach, the parties appear to be more interested in preserving their constituencies and capturing power.
In fact, earlier this week members of the opposition Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the Madhesi parties wreaked havoc within the Constituent Assembly to scuttle any chances of meeting the Constitution drafting deadline. Their excuse that they had to intervene because they thought the ruling combine of the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) was trying to pass a draft Constitution through majority voting simply doesn’t wash. Nothing can justify elected representatives resorting to violent behaviour and damaging property within the Constituent Assembly.
Besides, even if the ruling combine was initiating the process of voting it was justified since the opposition alliance stands guilty of being extremely rigid. The points of disagreement between the two sides essentially boil down to four issues: Form of government, constitutional court, electoral system and federalism. While the gap between the parties appears to be closing on the first three – the Maoists have hinted they are willing to accept, with a dissent note, the government proposal of a reformed parliamentary system, while both sides have more or less agreed to a mixed electoral system and the institution of a constitutional court for 10 years – federalism remains the sticking point.
While the Maoists want 10 identity-based provinces, the ruling combine is in favour of just 6 provinces sans Pahadi-Madhesi demographic identifiers. Understandably this is an important issue. But the opportunity cost of holding up the Constitution drafting process on this one point is simply too much. For the sake of consensus, the opposition should allow the ruling combine’s proposal with a dissent note since the latter has shown flexibility on the constitutional court issue. Besides, once the Constitution becomes a reality the Maoists or any other political party could always amend the foundational statue through a two-thirds vote in Parliament at a future date. A states reorganisation commission could also be tasked with redrawing provincial boundaries.
All Nepali political parties must understand that their continued intransigence is hurting Nepal and its people. The cost of not drafting the Constitution in a timely manner is easily surmised from Pakistan’s experience. The latter had to make three attempts to draft a permanent Constitution producing three separate versions (1956, 1962 and 1973). This fundamental instability is reflected in Pakistani polity even today. In contrast, India’s Constitution drafting experience was much smoother, resulting in a politically stable democratic framework.
Hence, Nepal’s political parties have to choose. They can either go the Pakistan way and jeopardise Nepal’s development and prosperity. Or they can learn from the Indian experience and draft Nepal’s Constitution at the earliest. Time is running out.