Fissures in parties: Impact on government and constitution writing

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Of late early symptoms of fissures and friction between the two key partners of the present coalition government headed by Sushil Koirala have surfaced in Nepal’s political landscape. If not timely managed and the dispute was allowed to further flare up, the coalition government may land in crisis pushing it into the brink of collapse, which will also have serious and negative impact on constitution writing process.

The recent disputes is between the CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress over mainly the issue concerning parliamentary endorsement for President Dr Ram Baran Yadav and Vice President Pramananda Jha, whose tenure, according to the Interim Constitution, would last until the promulgation of the new constitution. The CPN-UML party in general and its chairman KP Sharma Oli in particular are demanding the implementation of the seven-point agreement signed between the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML prior to the formation of the present government. On the basis of this agreement the coalition government was formed. The CPN-UML, thus, argues that since the seven point agreement is the fundamental basis of the formation of the coalition government, the validity of the government would cease to exist if this agreement was not respected in its letter and spirit. One of the clauses of this agreement clearly states that the new parliament will have to endorse the President and Vice President. Despite clear constitutional provision on the tenure of the President and the Vice President, the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML signed an agreement in contravention to the country’s fundamental law just for power and position. Now the Nepali Congress is insisting that the Interim Constitution has to be strictly followed and implemented, which means the Congress is against the endorsement of the President and Vice President from the House, while CPN-UML is pressing for strictly implementing the seven point agreement. It cannot be said that these two parties have not gone through the provisions of the Interim Constitution. Thus, it can be clearly said that the two largest parties treated the constitution just like a piece of paper. Otherwise how could they dare to sign an agreement that clearly violates the constitutional provision?

Secondly, since they have signed an agreement, they should stick to it. On this ground, the position of the CPN-UML is correct as it is demanding the implementation of the deal. It seems that the Nepali Congress does anything, both constitutional and unconstitutional, for power. If the Nepali Congress thinks that the issue concerning the endorsement of the President and Vice President from parliament is against the constitutional provision, it should have rejected it right in the beginning when this issue was first raised. Why it did not think it before signing the deal? We cannot believe that the Nepali Congress leaders are illiterate and cannot read and write. Most of the Nepali Congress leaders are well educated and well verse in legal and constitutional issues. Even if they are confused, they would have consulted the constitutional and legal experts on the legality and constitutional implication on any issues and decisions they tend to make. Thus, we cannot believe that the Nepali Congress leaders signed the seven-point deal with the CPN-UML out of ignorance. The deal was well calculated design and decision of the Nepali Congress to grab power and later to discard it after its interest was served.  

Some CPN-UML leaders have even started questioning the fate of the present coalition government if the Nepali Congress was not prepared to implement the deal in its letter and spirit. Given the tract record of the CPN-UML, it is not likely that this party would stick to the decision and stance firmly. The CPN-UML has the history of vacillation as it decides one thing and does something else.  But KP Oli as a person is viewed as a different leader.  One may not agree with the views and ideology he carries, but Oli has the image in public that he is the man of words and he normally does not back out from his stance. On the issue concerning parliamentary endorsement for the President and Vice President, Oli is expected to maintain his earlier image and stance.

This is a beginning of fissures and friction between the two coalition partners. If Nepali Congress agrees to UML’s demand, it will have to compromise the stance and if it rejects the demand, the coalition government would be in crisis. Thus, Nepali Congress is no win serious dilemma. Nepali Congress does not have majority to have its own government without the support of other parties. Chairman of the Nepali Congress and Prime Minister Sushil Koirala is under tremendous pressure from his party colleagues not to give in to CPN-UML demand. Even the President is not happy with the seven-point deal as it was against the constitution provision. President Dr Ram Baran Yadav wants the constitutional provision to be strictly followed.

When the Interim Constitution was drafted, it did not visualize the scenario of second Constituent Assembly election. The lawmakers, too, did not ever think of this scenario when they amended the Interim Constitution to institutionalize the republican set up. It had been visualized that the new constitution would be ready and promulgated within two years.  Thus, initially the tenure of the first President and Vice President was determined for two years. But their tenure has been more than five years. Given the lackluster performance in constitution drafting process, the new constitution is not likely to deliver the constitution within the promised period of one year. This will prolong the tenure of the President and the Vice President further.

The logic of the CPN-UML, too, has sense. According to the argument of the CPN-UML, the tenure of the President cannot be for indefinite period. Since the Constituent Assembly that elected the president was over and the new Constituent Assembly has been formed with fresh mandate of the people, so the fate of the President and Vice President should have been accordingly. KP Oli a few months ago had said in parliament that the President and Vice President had been elected by the earlier Constituent Assembly and the new Constituent Assembly does not even recognize them. Oli is right in his saying that the new Constituent Assembly has every right to know the President, for which either the election should be held to elect a new president or the present President has to be endorsed by the Constituent Assembly. But the Nepali Congress is not willing to accept the demand of the CPN-UML for the endorsement of the president.

The political parties have so far vowed to deliver the new constitution within a year since the first meeting of the present Constituent Assembly was held. It has now been almost seven months since the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held. According to the calendar fixed by the Constituent Assembly, only a couple of months are left to prepare the draft of the new constitution. Given the progress in constitution writing, it is less likely that the first draft of the constitution would be ready within the next two months. If the first draft was not prepared within the next two months, constitution would not certainly be promulgated within the promised period of one year. As per the schedule and calendar of the Constituent Assembly, its members are to go to the people with the draft constitution to solicit suggestions from the grassroots level before giving final nod to the new statute.  Moreover, festival season has already started and not much work will be done during this festive seasons. Next will begin the crop harvesting season in which hardly anyone will be available for discussion on constitutional issues in villages as farmers will have to be busy on farms for rice harvesting. Given this situation and other developments, the new constitution is not likely to be promulgated within the promised period of one year. Then what if the constitution was not delivered within this period? It will have no legal and constitutional complications as the tenure of the Constituent Assembly, as per the Interim Constitution, is four years and the CA can come up with the new constitution anytime within the period of four years. Even if the Constituent Assembly does not deliver the constitution, it cannot be challenged in the court of law. But it will definitely raise political and moral question of credibility of our parties, leaders and the member of the Constituent Assembly.