Partisan Interests Mars Constitution Writing
By Yuba Nath Lamsal
Old habits die hard. This is truly applicable to our political parties. Given the activities and performances over the last three years, it seems that our political parties and leaders have not learnt the lessons from the history. They are repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
In the multi-party democracy, parties are the key players and the genuine protector of democratic system. It is with this belief that people entrusted the political parties and came to the streets to rally against the tyrannical regimes in the past. Be it in 1951 or 1990 and 2005, people gave full support to the parties which overthrew the authoritarian regimes and put the democratic polity in place. Each time when the parties went to power after the success of the movement, they have not lived up to the expectations of the people. People have a feeling that parties have often betrayed them once they are voted to power.
After the 1951 political change, which could be possible with the massive support of the people, parties and leaders got bogged down in more in power grabbing than in consolidating the democratic system. The dirty power struggle did not even spare commanders of the 1950/51 democratic revolution like BP and Matrika Koirala. The sharp difference between the two Koirala brothers was not based on principle and values but on issues who should go to power. As BP prevailed in the party, Matrika walked out of the Congress and formed his own party just to go to power. As a reward for breaking the mother party, the King appointed Matrika Koirala Prime Minister. During this period, many other parties sprang up in the Nepali political scenario. These parties fought bitterly among themselves which gave a good opportunity for the king to play one party against the other. As a result, the king consolidated his power and weakened the parties and also the democratic polity. Had there been unity among the parties, the elections could have been held quite early which would have strengthened democracy and would not allow the king to manipulate. The king grabbed the opportunity and sacked the democratically elected Prime Minister only to impose his absolute regime.
Although the king’s ambition and conspiracies were chiefly responsible for the set back to democracy in 1961, the parties and their ugly power bickering was also partially responsible for this incident. As a result, the country had to remain under king’s absolute regime for 30 long years. But parties still did not learn lesson from it. Even after the king’s coup and imposition of one-party Panchayat regime, Nepalese parties did not unite for the sake of democracy. They were so divided that their fighting only prolonged the longevity of the Panchayat regime. The Nepali Congress and the communists who enjoyed the support of the Nepali people took each other as their arch foe and they never came to a common platform so that a joint movement could have been launched against the king’s regime. Nepali Congress adopted anti-communist policy and chose to make an alliance with the king rather than working together with the communists. The communists, too, took the Nepali Congress as their enemy number one.
The situation changed and both the Nepali Congress and the communists also realized the importance and strength of the unity and joint movement. In 1990, the Nepali Congress and communists agreed to launch a joint movement against the king’s regime in which people overwhelmingly participated, thanks to Ganesh Man Singh’s determined leadership. The people’s power finally triumphed and multi-party democracy was restored in the country.
But the unity and collaboration soon broke between the forces that had worked together during the movement. It was not only between the parties but fighting and bickering intensified within the parties as well. As a result, the country saw a height of instability and frequent change of government in the period after 1990 movement. The poor service delivery and rampant corruption gave rise to public apathy towards the parties and leaders. Out of this situation, the Maoist insurgency emerged, which virtually paralyzed the country politically. The king tried to take advantage out of the situation and again imposed his absolute rule.
The parties began agitation against the king. But people did not come out in their support as they were fed up with these parties and leaders. The people’s hesitation to come out to the street was not because they were against democracy but because they had a little faith on the political parties and their leaders. There was no compatibility between the words and action of the leaders. Their street protests did not attract people for three years. But the leaders finally realized their mistakes and publicly apologized that they would not repeat the mistake of running after power again. After this only, people poured into the streets which forced the king to bow down and established democracy.
But people’s trust has soon evaporated and the parties again have shown their true faces— be it the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, the Maoists or other parties. The period after the constituent assembly election has seen the same old partisan practice. Power and positions appear to be dearer to our leaders than the interest of the country and the people. If that was not the case, the parties would not have been so preoccupied with the ugly battle of grabbing and retaining power. The fundamental agenda has taken to a back seat whereas other frivolous issues have dominated the debate and activities in the constituent assembly that was formed to write a new constitution. If the same lackluster attitude and partisan interests of the parties continue, it is very unlikely that the new constitution would be written in time.
The Interim Constitution clearly states that the writing of the new constitution must be completed within two years since the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held. It has already been fifteen months since the first meeting of the constituent assembly was convened. If analyzed the activities of the constituent assembly over the last 15 months, this period has not at all been encouraging. The people’s representatives, who were elected by the people to write the constitution, got engaged more on partisan issues rather than on the issues related to the constitution making.
The glaring example of parties’ lack of interest in the main task of constitution writing is the continued obstruction of the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly. In the process of blocking the works of constituent assembly/parliament, all major parties are responsible. But the Maoists are ahead of other parties. The other issue that indicates the parties’ laxity in the constitution making is the failure to choose the chairperson of the Constitutional Committee. This committee is the mother of all thematic committees of the Constituent Assembly. In the absence of the chairperson of this committee, much of the works relating to the constitution writing has been hampered. The chair of this committee has been vacant for more than three months ever since the Madhav Kumar Nepal was elected Prime Minister. But parties are not serious on this matter and they are rather scrambling to grab this post, which is yet another example of partisan politics and personal interest.
As a result of parties’ nonperformance in the constituent assembly and continued obstruction of the proceedings of the House, the calendar of activities relating to the constitution making has been changed five times. The delay and changes in the calendar of activities have reduced the time for public debate on the draft of the constitution. Now we have only nine months left for the constitution writing as per the Interim Constitution. Given the slow progress, the people may not have adequate time to take part in the debate and discussion on the draft of the constitution. If that is the case, people’s voice would not be genuinely incorporated in the constitution. If their voices are not genuinely represented and incorporated, people may not take ownership of the constitution.
Old habits die hard. This is truly applicable to our political parties. Given the activities and performances over the last three years, it seems that our political parties and leaders have not learnt the lessons from the history. They are repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
In the multi-party democracy, parties are the key players and the genuine protector of democratic system. It is with this belief that people entrusted the political parties and came to the streets to rally against the tyrannical regimes in the past. Be it in 1951 or 1990 and 2005, people gave full support to the parties which overthrew the authoritarian regimes and put the democratic polity in place. Each time when the parties went to power after the success of the movement, they have not lived up to the expectations of the people. People have a feeling that parties have often betrayed them once they are voted to power.
After the 1951 political change, which could be possible with the massive support of the people, parties and leaders got bogged down in more in power grabbing than in consolidating the democratic system. The dirty power struggle did not even spare commanders of the 1950/51 democratic revolution like BP and Matrika Koirala. The sharp difference between the two Koirala brothers was not based on principle and values but on issues who should go to power. As BP prevailed in the party, Matrika walked out of the Congress and formed his own party just to go to power. As a reward for breaking the mother party, the King appointed Matrika Koirala Prime Minister. During this period, many other parties sprang up in the Nepali political scenario. These parties fought bitterly among themselves which gave a good opportunity for the king to play one party against the other. As a result, the king consolidated his power and weakened the parties and also the democratic polity. Had there been unity among the parties, the elections could have been held quite early which would have strengthened democracy and would not allow the king to manipulate. The king grabbed the opportunity and sacked the democratically elected Prime Minister only to impose his absolute regime.
Although the king’s ambition and conspiracies were chiefly responsible for the set back to democracy in 1961, the parties and their ugly power bickering was also partially responsible for this incident. As a result, the country had to remain under king’s absolute regime for 30 long years. But parties still did not learn lesson from it. Even after the king’s coup and imposition of one-party Panchayat regime, Nepalese parties did not unite for the sake of democracy. They were so divided that their fighting only prolonged the longevity of the Panchayat regime. The Nepali Congress and the communists who enjoyed the support of the Nepali people took each other as their arch foe and they never came to a common platform so that a joint movement could have been launched against the king’s regime. Nepali Congress adopted anti-communist policy and chose to make an alliance with the king rather than working together with the communists. The communists, too, took the Nepali Congress as their enemy number one.
The situation changed and both the Nepali Congress and the communists also realized the importance and strength of the unity and joint movement. In 1990, the Nepali Congress and communists agreed to launch a joint movement against the king’s regime in which people overwhelmingly participated, thanks to Ganesh Man Singh’s determined leadership. The people’s power finally triumphed and multi-party democracy was restored in the country.
But the unity and collaboration soon broke between the forces that had worked together during the movement. It was not only between the parties but fighting and bickering intensified within the parties as well. As a result, the country saw a height of instability and frequent change of government in the period after 1990 movement. The poor service delivery and rampant corruption gave rise to public apathy towards the parties and leaders. Out of this situation, the Maoist insurgency emerged, which virtually paralyzed the country politically. The king tried to take advantage out of the situation and again imposed his absolute rule.
The parties began agitation against the king. But people did not come out in their support as they were fed up with these parties and leaders. The people’s hesitation to come out to the street was not because they were against democracy but because they had a little faith on the political parties and their leaders. There was no compatibility between the words and action of the leaders. Their street protests did not attract people for three years. But the leaders finally realized their mistakes and publicly apologized that they would not repeat the mistake of running after power again. After this only, people poured into the streets which forced the king to bow down and established democracy.
But people’s trust has soon evaporated and the parties again have shown their true faces— be it the Nepali Congress, CPN-UML, the Maoists or other parties. The period after the constituent assembly election has seen the same old partisan practice. Power and positions appear to be dearer to our leaders than the interest of the country and the people. If that was not the case, the parties would not have been so preoccupied with the ugly battle of grabbing and retaining power. The fundamental agenda has taken to a back seat whereas other frivolous issues have dominated the debate and activities in the constituent assembly that was formed to write a new constitution. If the same lackluster attitude and partisan interests of the parties continue, it is very unlikely that the new constitution would be written in time.
The Interim Constitution clearly states that the writing of the new constitution must be completed within two years since the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held. It has already been fifteen months since the first meeting of the constituent assembly was convened. If analyzed the activities of the constituent assembly over the last 15 months, this period has not at all been encouraging. The people’s representatives, who were elected by the people to write the constitution, got engaged more on partisan issues rather than on the issues related to the constitution making.
The glaring example of parties’ lack of interest in the main task of constitution writing is the continued obstruction of the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly. In the process of blocking the works of constituent assembly/parliament, all major parties are responsible. But the Maoists are ahead of other parties. The other issue that indicates the parties’ laxity in the constitution making is the failure to choose the chairperson of the Constitutional Committee. This committee is the mother of all thematic committees of the Constituent Assembly. In the absence of the chairperson of this committee, much of the works relating to the constitution writing has been hampered. The chair of this committee has been vacant for more than three months ever since the Madhav Kumar Nepal was elected Prime Minister. But parties are not serious on this matter and they are rather scrambling to grab this post, which is yet another example of partisan politics and personal interest.
As a result of parties’ nonperformance in the constituent assembly and continued obstruction of the proceedings of the House, the calendar of activities relating to the constitution making has been changed five times. The delay and changes in the calendar of activities have reduced the time for public debate on the draft of the constitution. Now we have only nine months left for the constitution writing as per the Interim Constitution. Given the slow progress, the people may not have adequate time to take part in the debate and discussion on the draft of the constitution. If that is the case, people’s voice would not be genuinely incorporated in the constitution. If their voices are not genuinely represented and incorporated, people may not take ownership of the constitution.
Comments
Post a Comment