Ball in the court of Congress, UML




Yuba Nath Lamsal
Given the tone and tenor of the two major parties especially after the election to the second Constituent Assembly, in which the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML emerged as the largest and the second largest parties, it looks as though the November election marked a virtual break with the past, which means that they are not in position to take ownership of what had been achieved or done over the last six years since the ongoing peace process started. The clash is likely to begin right from this point.
The third largest party and some other fringe ones have been demanding that the job of the new Constituent Assembly (CA) should begin from the point where the first CA had left. But some parties especially the far-right Rastriya Prajatantra Party Nepal led by Kamal Thapa, which has now emerged as the fourth largest political force in the Constituent Assembly, has objected to this concept and threatened that it under any circumstances would not allow the present CA to own the past decision.  According to this party, the present Constituent Assembly is not the second edition or version of the first Constituent Assembly but a brand new one with its sovereign right to begin afresh on all the issues concerning the new constitution.  Rightly or wrongly and deliberately or accidently, the proposal for the ownership of the decision of the first Constituent Assembly has, so far, not been formally registered in the House, perhaps due to lack of confidence of the major parties and also the lack of mutual trust among them. This could be an apparent reason but the inherent one could have been the hesitation on the part of the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML not to own the decision made by the UCPN-Maoist dominated previous House.
The reason is obvious as the presently two largest parties do not want to give credit to the UCPN-Maoist in the constitution making process. If the past decisions are accepted, this would mean their consent on the decisions made by the body in which the UCPN-Maoist as the largest party had a dominant role. The CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress had agreed on certain issues with half heart because of the pressure from some of their own members belonging to janajati and adivasi (indigenous) communities. Now these two parties probably want to go to the reverse gear on these issues through indirect way, for which the rejection of the earlier decisions would be their best bet, for which their hope is the Kamal Thapa-led RPP-N on whose support these two parties want to undo the decisions made in the past. Thus, on the façade would be Kamal Thapa and his party but the real string pullers from behind would be the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML in not allowing the Constituent Assembly to take the ownership of the decisions made by the first Constituent Assembly.
The real problem and clash in the Constituent Assembly is going to start. In legal and technical terms, the present Constituent Assembly is not obliged to own the decisions of the earlier Constituent Assembly. The present Constituent Assembly is definitely sovereign, independent and fully capable of making its own decisions. But that may not be politically correct. This Constituent Assembly is a part of the whole political process that had begun right after the signing of the 12-point agreement. The Jana Andolan II, republican set up, secularism, inclusiveness, Constituent Assembly and army integration are the part of the entire process. Several decisions had been taken in the past either by political consensus or by the Constituent Assembly to advance the political process that had begun after the 12-point agreement. The decisions taken by the first Constituent Assembly are also the part of this process which need to be owned by the present Constituent Assembly and conclude the process accordingly. Since the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are party to this entire process, they cannot run away from the responsibility of all decisions made in the past and should wholeheartedly own the previous decisions if the new constitution is to be written and promulgated well within time they have promised to the people.  Otherwise their intention to give the country a new constitution within a year may be in question.
Much water has already flown down the Bagmati and Bishnumati after the 12-point agreement was signed. Since then the country has seen many positive and progressive changes. The proclamation of the republican set up in place of over 240 years old monarchical state was indeed a historic task that has marked a new era in Nepal’s political history. This is not an ordinary political change in Nepal and such event takes place only once in an era, which was achieved through a huge sacrifice of the Nepalese people. This hard-won republican system has to and will stay here in Nepal forever and the country can never go back to the old monarchical era, despite the wishful thinking of some right-wing parties. The provision concerning secularism, federalism and inclusive democracy with proportionate representation system cannot be reversed. Any attempts to undo these achievements will be like an attempt to backpedal the clock of history, which is impossible. The vein attempt of some parties to disown the decisions made by the first Constituent Assembly is intended to undo the past political achievements, which seems to be a day dream in the present political context of Nepal. Nepalese people are definitely resilient and tolerant. But they are tough and unyielding when it comes to democracy and their rights. By nature Nepalese people are democratic and they are not vindictive but they cannot compromise their freedom, democracy and national dignity.
It would be worthwhile in this context to mention UML leader and former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal’s remarks to understand and analyze the mood and intention of the presently ruling parties on the new constitution. Buoyed  by the unexpected results of the November 19 election in which the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML won almost equal number of seats in the newly formed Constituent Assembly, UML leader Mr Nepal remarked that the 1990 constitution was the best.  It was interpreted by many that Mr Nepal’s intention was to revive the 1990 constitution which meant the revival of the monarchy and reversal of the entire political process. When greeted with widespread flak over his remarks, he quickly withdrew his words and said the 1990 constitution was best sans monarchy. The public mood was still downbeat.  Thus, it is necessary to assure the people that the parties are not going to reverse the political trend but ensure progressive changes by incorporating and institutionalizing all the previous achievements, for which the decisions of the first Constituent Assembly must be owned by the present Assembly and the constitution writing process should move ahead from the point where the last Constituent Assembly had left.
The second Constituent Assembly is not the break with the past but a continuation of the political process that had begun right after the 12-point agreement. This process would be complete only after the present Constituent Assembly delivers a new constitution with all the previous achievements and agenda duly and formally incorporated and institutionalized. The role of the parties in the present Constituent Assembly has definitely changed but the responsibility remains unchanged.  In the previous Constituent Assembly, the UCPN-Maoist had its dominant presence with 240 seats in the body with the strength of 601, while the combined strength of the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML was even less than the total number of seats the UCPN-Maoist had enjoyed. However, in the present Constituent Assembly, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have slightly less than two-third majority whereas the UCPN-Maoist has the diminished strength of mere 80 seats. If desired the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML can enact a new constitution as they can muster a two-third majority with support from some fringe parties. But attempts to enact a new constitution on the basis of majority bypassing other forces both within and outside the Constituent Assembly and ignoring their views and voices would be a grave mistake, which would not solve the country’s political problem but invite further conflict and confrontation. Thus, the constitution must be announced on the basis of consensus with all forces within and outside the Constituent Assembly, for which the two largest forces namely the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML are required to be more responsible, serious, flexible and accommodative. The ball is, hence, in the court of the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML.

Comments