Nepal’s tryst with probabilities

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Politics is said to be the art of possible. In other words politics is the practice of exploring the best out of many probabilities. The tryst with many probabilities in politics, may have given birth, rise and fall of many political ideologies, systems and regimes on this planet since human civilization germinated.

In the period of more than two hundred years of Nepal’s turbulent history, many trials and experiments were made in our political front. We experienced and experimented systems and governments of different colors and nature in the past. But none of the previous systems lived up to popular expectations and eventually failed in the test of people’s court compelling people to seek better alternatives. In the quest of seeking better alternative, Nepalese people dumped Shah’s dynastical absolute monarchy, Rana’s oligarchy and multi-party system under monarchy into the trash of history. Now we are making yet another experiment of republican democracy with federalism, secularism and inclusiveness in all decision-making levels. This is a new experiment and perhaps the best of all trials we made in the past. Still, we are debating how we can make this system work better and deliver to the people.

Ever since our new republic was founded some five years ago, there has been vigorous discourse on the issue of governance and superstructure of the state. The ideological polemics still remains unresolved. The super structure of the state can be determined only when ideological disputes and political problems are resolved. By abolishing monarchy, Nepal has resolved one political problem. This is because Nepalese people arrived at a final conclusion, after long and arduous trials and errors, that democracy and monarchy are incompatible in Nepal. Our experiences have exhibited the fact that as long as monarchy remained in place and vibrant, democracy always came under threat and often became casualty of king’s misadventure. This is not mere assumption and accusation but based on facts and proofs. Nepalese people led three decisive revolutions and were able to oust the despotic regime to be replaced by democratic dispensation. But there was fundamental flaw in the overall outlook that democracy would thrive under monarchy. This viewpoint proved to be fatal as the monarchy played against the wish of people and trampled multi-party democracy in 1960 and 2005.  Now this issue has been resolved after the declaration of republic and we are now experimenting to make this republican system better and more functional.

Even after the dawn of the republican democracy, our political journey has not been as smooth as expected. We have not been able to write a new constitution. The Constituent Assembly that was formed through election failed to deliver a new constitution and finally saw its unceremonious demise further prolonging the painful political transition. The ‘push and pull’ factor in the Constituent Assembly among the key political actors ruined the fate of the constitution which made it necessary to go for a fresh mandate for a new Constituent Assembly. We chose this option because we have no other better alternative to write the constitution.

Thus, the election has been announced and polling date fixed for the second Constituent Assembly by the Interim Election Council of Ministers headed by Khil Raj Regmi. Now the election to be held on November 19 this year will give the country a new elected body with the mandate of writing the much-needed new constitution and also the government accountable to the people. This decision has not only dispelled apprehensions and skepticism of the people about the possibility of the election as well as the intention and commitment of the government but also has once again revived optimism that country’s protracted transition and political crisis will finally come to an end sooner rather than later.

In a democracy, the final arbitrators are the people on any issue of national importance. Thus, the election is the best possible alternative in the present context of Nepal. The previous Constituent Assembly elected in 2008 failed to deliver a constitution, which was its sole mandate and objective, even after two additional years extended to complete its job. The constitution could not be promulgated despite, as had earlier been claimed by the parties, the completion of more than 80 per cent of the works concerning the writing of the new constitution. During the four years since the election to the Constituent Assembly until it ceased to exist, intensive debates were held and meticulous exercises were made both within and outside the Constituent Assembly to strike a compromise on some key issues to be incorporated in the constitution. But the single issue of federalism and its model defeated the entire exercise made in the four years. Ultimately, the May 28, 2012, proved to be fatal as the historic Constituent Assembly saw its dissolution upon which none wept and regretted. Instead political parties and their leaders started trading blame game against one another for the failure and demise of the Constituent Assembly. After the demise of the CA, leaders appeared jubilant and victorious, which could be seen from their rhetoric and body languages. It appeared as though parties and leaders got something they had desired the most. Leaders and parties may have won but the country and people were defeated. The entire nation was shocked and saddened, which was evident from the state of solemn silence for a few days after the Constituent Assembly was dissolved. It was as though the nation was bereaved of something it loved the most.

The single issue of federalism took a huge toll in our national politics as well as in the historic process of constitution writing. On the surface, all parties seem to be committed to federalism, at least in principle, barring the two—Chitra Bahadur KC-led National People’s Front and Kamal Thapa-led Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal. In reality, parties seemed to have taken federalism just for a face value and also for immediate political benefit.  Situation developed in such a manner that these parties did not want to risk their political future by standing against federalism nor they could agree on different models of federalism they themselves had proposed and advocated in the past.

The UCPN-Maoist is the first party to raise the issue of federalism, which was later backed by the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. The UCPN-Maoist went one step ahead to push for identity-based federalism. Other regional and ethnic parties were quick to endorse it and demanded that it be implemented in its letter and spirit. It is this agenda that earned popularity of the UCPN-Maoist among the hitherto oppressed and discriminated ethnic communities and emerged as the largest party in the CA election. Nepali Congress and CPN-UML arrived at the conclusion that the UCPN-Maoist would be further established and become more popular if the identity-based federalism was accepted. This obsession led the Congress and the UML to stand against the identity-based federalism. Had there been voting in the CA, there was high probability that identity-based federalism issue might have mustered majority. Even some ethnic CA members representing Congress and the UML had been advocating identity-based federalism, while there was a fair chance of getting support of Madhesi parties on this issue. In this backdrop, Congress and the UML might have concluded that the demise of the CA was better for them.

There was other scenario as well. Given the power equation in the Constituent Assembly, the Maoists and the Madhesi parties did not have adequate members to pass the constitution of their choice. If they wanted the constitution, they should have had to make compromise with the Congress and the UML on several issues including the one concerning federalism. Congress, UML and some other parties were determined not to let the ethnic-based federalism to get the final nod of the CA. The Maoists and Madhesi parties did not risk losing their agenda of identity-based federalism by pushing for voting on this issue in the CA without the guarantee that it would be passed and thus chose to let the CA die. All parties, thus, saw their interest served in the demise of the CA. Although the demise of the historic Constituent Assembly was the convergence of interest and a win-win for all parties, it served a blow to the country and the people.

Despite this dire situation, hopes are still alive and parties have begun afresh for a new mandate of the people through the election scheduled for November 19. But the issues and problems that led to the demise of the first CA have not yet been resolved. There is no certainty that the new CA, too, would be able to deliver the constitution without resolving these issues because parties are adamant on their posture and position. But there is no other route to seek solution to the myriad of problems and complexities. We must be optimistic and accordingly seek solution to our problems by ourselves by means of trials and errors.