Question of ownership of political process

Yuba Nath Lamsal

The question of ownership over the current political process has emerged as a new issue that is likely to stall and complicate the constitution making process, although all political parties, at least in rhetoric, appear to be committed to early promulgation of the new constitution. This issue has come up more visibly only recently particularly after the November 2013 election results in which Nepali Congress emerged as the largest force while rendering the UCPN-Maoist into a distant third position. But it had always remained in the latent in Nepal’s political spectrum after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on November 21, 2006, through which political parties agreed to hold an election for a constituent assembly with the objective of writing the constitution of the country through the hands of people’s elected representatives.  Now parties have scrambled to own up this agenda as to who first propagated the idea of the constituent assembly in Nepal.

This polemics cropped up when Prime Minister Sushil Koirala, while speaking in a function organized to mark the democracy day last week, said the constituent assembly was the agenda of 1950-51 revolution, which has now come to fruition.  By saying this, Prime Minister Koirala, who is also the chief of the ruling Nepali Congress party, indirectly claimed that constituent assembly is his party’s agenda. These remarks irked the UCPN-Maoist as it claims that constituent assembly is its brain child and other parties including the Nepali Congress accepted it only under compulsion.

Before making any definite conclusion and judgment as to who is right and who is wrong, we need to go little back to history and analyze the events and developments after 1951. It was true that the then king Tribhuvan, who returned to Kathmandu after tripartite Delhi agreement, he had clearly said that a new constitution would be written by people’s representatives, which meant the election of the constituent assembly.  On 18 February 1951, King Tribhuvan announced Nepal’s first experiment of democracy with a historic proclamation which stated that the country would be governed under an interim constitutional arrangement until the people’s representatives wrote and delivered the constitution. But that day never came as king and the Nepali Congress did not think it necessary to hold the election to the constituent assembly to write the constitution rather they opted for parliamentary election. The decision to scuttle the constituent assembly election was more in the interest of the king because the constitution made by the constituent assembly could have curtailed king’s powers, which shrewd and ambitious king Mahendra did not want. The king proposed parliamentary election on the basis of the king’s constitution. The Nepali Congress, the principal party of that time, happily and enthusiastically accepted. As a result, king gave a constitution which reserved special and decisive power with him that proved fatal not only for the Nepali Congress but also the country and its democracy in 1960 as king dissolved democratically elected government headed by Nepali Congress leader BP Koirala and trampled democracy. Had the constitution written by people’s representatives through the constituent assembly, there could definitely have been some clear provisions of checks on king’s power and the king would not dare to take such an undemocratic step. But it was a grave mistake on the part of the Nepali Congress not to understand the king’s design. Only communists demanded the constituent assembly but rest of parties opposed it. Thus, the issue of constituent assembly had definitely been raised in 1951 but this process was scuttled by the king in collusion with the Nepali Congress. Thus, Nepali Congress cannot own up the agenda of the constituent assembly. Thus, there is no truth in Prime Minister Suhil Koirala’s claim.

Now let’s also delve little into some newer developments and also analyze them in the context of Maoist claims. The Maoists are the ones who rejected all political arrangements and agreements from 1951 till 1990 terming them as ploys to ruin people’s liberation struggles.  Soon after the tripartite Delhi agreement brokered by India was signed among king Tribhuvan, Rana rulers and Nepali Congress in the wake of heightened popular movement for democracy in Nepal, Nepalese communists straight away condemned it saying  that it as a ‘betrayal to people and popular movement. Similarly, they demanded the election to constituent assembly to write the new constitution and they kept on repeating time and again. Even when the political change took place in 1990 restoring multi-party system in the wake of popular movement and a new constitution as promulgated, a section of the communists critically accepted the new constitution with reservation on several of its provisions while another section completely rejected it on the very ground of the process adopted to deliver the constitution. The section that critically supported the constitution included the CPN-UML but those who rejected it were the Maoists.

The 1990 constitution had been drafted by king-nominated nine-member committee representing the king, Nepali Congress and the United Left Alliance (ULF, of which CPN-UML was a part). A section of radical communists, who later got organized under the umbrella of the CPN-Maoist (now UCPN-Maoist), opposed the very process of the constitution-making and instead demanded the constituent assembly to write the constitution. The Nepali Congress had given up the agenda of constituent assembly right in 1951 while the CPN-UML, too, joined NC band wagon as it accepted the constitution, though critically,  made by a committee of nine-hand-picked members. Only the Maoists pursued it as a fundamental demand. After the Maoist launched armed insurgency, the constituent assembly was its major demand. But both CPN-UML and the Nepali Congress were opposed to it in the beginning and were of the view that some amendments could be effected in the 1990 constitution to accommodate certain demands of the Maoists. But the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML agreed on constituent assembly only after king Gyanendra trampled democracy and imposed his absolute regime. As a result, the seven-party alliance including NC and CPN-UML signed a 12-point agreement with the Maoists in 2005 formally agreeing for a constituent assembly election. This is how the issue of the constituent assembly came up in Nepal, which is, therefore, not the agenda of the NC and UML but clearly of the Maoist.

The constituent assembly was definitely an agenda of 1951 but it remained unaddressed for six decades. But it was not an agenda of the Nepali Congress. It was and is the agenda of the communists and at present of the UCPN-Maoist. There should not be any doubt on it and parties should not raise unnecessary polemics on this issue. If the constituent assembly writes and promulgates the constitution, the Maoist agenda will be established and failure to do so will mean the defeat of Maoist agenda. But constituent assembly has now become a national agenda to which all parties have committed. Thus, there should not be any attempts from any quarters to scuttle this process and fail the constituent assembly in the name of taking ownership of this agenda and the ongoing political process. Now the Nepali Congress is in the driver seat of constitution-making process and it will be definitely credited if the constitution as delivered at the earliest.