Unconstitutional and parliamentary exercises

Yuba Nath Lamsal

By the time this piece of writing appears in the print form, it is expected that the fortnight-long power-sharing row between the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML will have been resolved and the present government headed by Nepali  Congress chief Sushil Koirala given a full shape. But the long-running suspicion and mistrust will continue to persist between these two parties which may surface anytime in future that may ultimately break the alliance. In such an eventuality, frantic search for another alliance will begin probably courting the third largest force the UCPN-Maoist by both the Congress and the CPN-UML. In such an eventuality, the primary job of the parties and the Constituent Assembly may once again take a back seat while the old ugly game of forming and pulling down the government would soon begin. Such a situation will be unfortunate for the country and the people that would once again push the country into yet another phase of uncertainty and instability.

Nepal has already faced and suffered several political ups and downs; many forms of exploitations and discriminations; revolutions and retributions; and upheavals and retrogressions. Arriving at the present state of republican democracy, Nepalese people suffered a lot and sacrificed a great deal. Still the revolution does not seem to be complete. Even the achievements of the latest political change of 2006 have not been institutionalized in the absence of a new constitution to be written by the elected representatives of the people, for which a Constituent Assembly has been formed through an election. The process of writing the constitution by the elected people’s representatives is underway. But it is not yet certain that the new constitution would be given within the period the parties and candidates had promised during the election. Although the constitutional provision allows the new Constituent Assembly to deliver the constitution within four years, the parties have promised that they would give the country a brand new constitution within a one year. More than a month has already been spent and parties have still bogged down in power-sharing deal. The representatives have not yet started the real job of constitution writing due mainly to over occupation in power-sharing deal.

The political situation in the country is complex and so is constitution writing. Given the mood and vibes of the parties and their leaders, constitution writing seems to be in their least priority. Although the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML  combined command slightly less than two-third majority in the Constituent Assembly and they can easily muster arithmetic majority to pass the constitution, it would boomerang them if they fail to take along other parties especially the UCPN-Maoist on the issue of constitution writing. There is already a strong voice outside the Constituent Assembly that has been raising the question of legitimacy of the November 19 election. These political parties that did not participate in the election are not likely to accept the constitution written by the Constituent Assembly. If the UCPN-Maoist and some of its allies were not taken into confidence, the new constitution would not be accepted by a large section of the country. In such a situation, there would appear a big popular legitimacy question of the new constitution. The Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have to give a serious attention to address the concerns of opposition parties within the Constituent Assembly and outside, if they at all want a constitution to be acceptable to all. 

Given the developments and agreements reached between the two largest political parties in the Constituent Assembly, it seems that they are in the mood of moving ahead in the name of majority. The Congress and the UML have recently signed a seven point deal for power sharing, which in itself is unconstitutional. This deal has infringed upon the independence and jurisdiction of the Constituent Assembly. The seven-point deal comprises the status and position of the president, vice president, prime minister, chairman and vice chairman of the Constituent Assembly. This is unconstitutional because these are the issues that should be decided by the Constituent Assembly and not by a handful of leaders outside the Constituent Assembly. Given this unconstitutional deal, the Congress and the CPN-UML are not likely to make compromise with other parties. This situation is likely to invite confrontation within and outside the Constituent Assembly. These are the preliminary indications but whole drama will be unfolded in the days to come.

If the Congress and UML decide to ignore the concerns of other parties, there is likelihood of new political polarization in the country. The Congress, UML, RPP and some fringe parties may be in one side while the UCPN-Maoist, Madhesi parties and other small parties that are seeking identity-based federalism will stand on other camp. The position and stance of the far-right RPP-Nepal led by Kamal Thapa is not yet clear. But it may not side with any of these two camps since its agendas do not match with any of these two blocs. The political forces that are outside the Constituent Assembly may also join hands with the UCPN-Maoist-led camp on issue concerning the constitutions. In such a situation, confrontation and further political chaos are inevitable.

This is the likely scenario in our future political landscape. Since the Congress and the UML have comfortable majority in parliament to give a country a stable government as well as almost two-third majority for the enactment of the constitution, the ball is thus in the court of these two parties whether to move ahead with broader consensus for peace and stability in the country or to invite confrontation in the name of arithmetic majority. The early scenario is definitely not positive. If these two parties had at all been serious and wanted sustainable peace and stability, they would have brought other parties especially the third largest party the UCPN-Maoist on board. Like it or not and accept it or not, the entire political process is revolving around the agenda of the UCPN-Maoist. The Constituent Assembly is Maoist agenda. Republic is Maoist agenda. Secularism and inclusiveness are also the Maoist agenda. And federalism, too, is the agenda jointly pushed by the Maoists and the Madhesi parties. But the irony in our politics is that the force or forces that put forth the agenda are being sidelined.

The mandate of the people during the election should definitely be respected. But the mandate is not to jointly run the government by the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML. The Congress-UML alliance is neither in conformity with the people’s verdict of November election nor the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy. By making the first party in parliament, people definitely want the Nepali Congress to lead the government. The Nepali Congress does not command majority neither in first-past-the post electoral system nor in the proportionate representation system. That means that parties have to forge an alliance and cooperate with one another for the formation of the government and governance of the country. The position of the second largest party is the mandate not to join the government but to sit in the opposition bench as a watch dog in parliament. Nowhere in parliamentary system in the world, have the largest and second largest parties joined the government. It is against the fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy. In parliamentary democracy the majority party forms the government. In case, no single party has majority to form the government, the largest party forms the government in partnership with other parties, while the second largest party sits in opposition bench. In the present case of Nepal, the Nepali Congress should have formed the government in for the formation of the government only when the Nepali Congress fails to form the government or command majority in parliament.

Thus, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML have started unparliamentarily exercise by teaming up for power and positions. Similarly, their agreement outside the Constituent Assembly to distribute some coveted posts and position is clearly in violation against the jurisdiction of the Constituent Assembly.  Thus, can moral, political and democratic practices expected from these parties since they have right from the beginning trampled the fundamental values and norms? Their actions and activities are a clear testimony of the fact that these parties are merely hungry for power and they are not serious enough for the country, people and political culture. Against this backdrop, how can the Nepalese people expect a democratic constitution to be acceptable to all? Perhaps, the future political course would answer this question. It would be in the interest of the country and people if these two ruling parties prove this scribe wrong and steer the country out of the political quagmire.