Political polarization intensifies in Nepal

Yuba Nath Lamsal

With the unceremonial demise of the Constituent Assembly (CA), a new kind of polarization is taking place in Nepali political scene and the process is fast intensifying. Parties and people have been polarized into two poles. The issue that has polarized the people and the parties is the model of federalism. All have to side with either of the two groups or two federal models—ethnic federalism or non-ethnic (viability based) federalism.  No adult and informed citizen seems to be the fence sitter on this issue.

The public opinion, too, is sharply and strongly divided between these two models of federalism, which has also raised the question of patriotism. Both opinions and views are strong and logical. This is the issue that led to the collapse of the historic Constituent Assembly that had been elected to write the much-hyped constitution but utterly failed. The issue was strong and complex that the parties and members of the CA had kept on shelving the federalism issue for four years and they did not arrive at an agreeable conclusion in the eleventh hour, which led to demise of the CA without delivering a constitution.

The demise of Constituent Assembly has not concerned the people. What has concerned is its utter failure to produce a constitution even when two additional years were given for the same. Some are even happy that the country was saved from sliding into another round of conflict in the name of federalism.

Originally, the Interim Constitution had stipulated that the CA had to come with the constitution in two years since it was formed through an election. The parties and candidates had also promised that they would accomplish the job within the timeline specified by the constitution. However, the members of the CA were so faceless that they not only failed to deliver the job within the stipulated time but kept on extending the tenure of the Constituent Assembly.  The decision to extend the CA was taken by the people as a move to ensure the perks and facilities of CA members.  The CA, thus, deserved its demise as the state cannot keep this white elephant for indefinite time. But the main concern of the people was that whatever had been agreed upon in the CA in four years were wasted. Almost 80 per cent of the works concerning the constitution had been completed, that could have been formalized from the CA floor before announcing its demise. Ca had agreed on almost all matters except on the two issues were disputed on which decision had not been made. These two issues were governance model and federal structure. On the issue concerning the model of governance, parties had almost arrived at a middle point. But the crux of the problem was federal model. The CA could have announced the constitution pending the federal model.

Some people are now crying foul over the demise of the CA. The CA had already over-stayed because its life had been prolonged by amending the constitution four times. The government has now declared fresh election. People are also not interested in another round of election, although election is the best democratic way to get people’s mandate and involve them in the political process. Even if another round of election was held, the results would be similar to what we saw four years ago. Thus, we cannot expect better results from the same process as similar faces are most likely to be elected to the newly formed CA.

Moreover, the election on the date announced by the government is most unlikely to be held. There are constitutional and legal hurdles and problems for another election for the Constituent Assembly. The Interim Constitution has not visualized the scenario of the failure of the Constituent Assembly and also another CA election. In fact, the election for the Constituent Assembly is not something that should be held time and again. CA election is held once in the life of a country and it completes the process once it is formed. In Nepal, the demand for the election of Constituent Assembly had long been raised. But the demand of the people was always scuttled in the past by the monarchy, elite rulers, some foreign powers and their agents in Nepal. The agenda of the Constituent Assembly was accepted by all political forces of Nepal when the 12-point agreement, which was the basis of the peace process, was signed in New Delhi. This decision definitely made Nepalese people a bit optimistic about Nepal’s better future. However, people got skeptical because of the choice of the venue to sign such a historic document. Since the 12-point agreement was reached in foreign soil (New Delhi), India tried to claim ownership of the peace process and started interfering in the affairs of political parties and Nepal’s internal matters. Our political parties too became so docile that they started seeking external advice even for minor decision. The parties could have met and signed the agreement inside Nepal and carried ahead the peace process.

Some even suspect external hand behind the demise of Constituent Assembly. They are of the view that foreigners mainly New Delhi was behind the demise of CA because they thought the equation of the CA was not in their favor and that would not serve their interest. On federal issue, Indian and Western interest clashed. Western countries want federalism in ethnic line and wanted maximum number of states in the hilly and Himalayan regions based on ethnic identity.  Western Interests in Nepal’s hilly ethnicity is to have strong foothold to infiltrate into Tibet and instigate anti-China activities. India, too, has interest in the mid hills and Himalayan region because of China. The western and Indian interest converge in the hills and Himalayas only to the extent they together work against the interest of China. India is less interested in hilly ethnic communities compared to Western countries because Nepal’s hilly ethnic communities are patriotic and anti-Indian in sentiment. New Delhi’s primary concern is its security and wants to squeeze Nepal just to keep the Himalayan republic under its security umbrella for which New Delhi has instigated Terai people. While western countries are pushing for the concept of multi-states ethnic federalism in the hills, India is instigating some Terai-based parties and people for a single Madhes state.  This means there should be single state in the entire southern stretch right from Mechi to Mahakali. The single Madhes state is being raised in the Interest of India. If multi-states were created in Terai, India may find it difficult to deal with different state governments. If there is one single state, it would be easier for India to control and tighten its grip in Nepal. If it was not the case, why they are pushing for multiple ethnic states in the hills and single geography-based state in the Terai? If ethnic federalism was to be implemented in the hilly regions, there should also be multiple ethnic states in the Terai too, because there are many indigenous and ethnic nationalities like Tharus, Satar, Musharar, Dhimal etc who are sons of soil in the Terai.

Federalism in itself is not a bad idea. There are countries which have prospered under federal structure.  But the way federalism issue and federal model are being raised in Nepal is dangerous. The political parties in the beginning raised this issue with benign motive of delivering service to the people at their door steps. Now federalism is being pushed not to deliver services to the people but to create several unitary states and ensure upper hand in politics and state affairs for a certain group, clan and families. The very concept of federalism in Nepal is flawed. That is the reason why this issue created complication that ultimately led to failure of the Constituent Assembly.

Federalism issue has already divided the people of Nepal and it is being viewed as against the interest of Nepal. Some external forces that want to further weaken Nepal and ultimately obliterate its sovereignty are vigorously pushing for federalism.  Federalism should be homegrown and not the one to be imposed from external forces. Nepali political parties accepted federalism without making proper assessment whether it was necessary for the country or not. The concept that was imposed without necessary homework often boomerangs, which has been well reflected in the case of federalism in Nepal.  Now, one chapter of uncertainty has come to an end paving the way for another round, which may be more challenging. Thus, political parties must be responsible before they arrive at a conclusion on issues having far-reaching impact for the country. Now the question of patriotism, sovereignty and national independence has emerged more strongly than ever before. Already in semi-colonial state, Nepal has further faced external domination and meddling. Against this background, people have to be more vigilant and watch the parties and leaders who are the real patriotic forces and who are traitors. If we are to safeguard our national identity, sovereignty and independence; we must collaborate with the patriotic forces and join hands in condemning the traitors who are working for the interest of foreigners.