By DIPD, July 19, 2012
Six major political parties of
Nepal – UCPN-Maoist, Nepali Congress, Unified Marxist Leninist, Madhesi Rights
Forum – Nepal, Madhesi Rights Forum – Democratic, and Tarai Madesh Democratic
Party have been partnering with DIPD since February 2012 to strengthen their
party organizations at the local level. DIPD asked two representatives
from different parties within our steering committee of six parties to
present their perspectives on the current political situation in
Nepal. The views presented are thoughts of individual party representatives
partnering with DIPD. DIPD does not subscribe to any of those views.
How to break the
political deadlock in Nepal?
Thoughts from Jeetendra Dev,
General Secretary of the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum- Democratic party
A new federal Democratic
Republican constitution through an elected Constituent Assembly had been the
much cherished dream of Nepalese people since many years. Finally, the dream of
the Constituent Assembly (CA) materialized after a long and relentless struggle
by the Nepalese people which also saw huge loss of lives including many
casualties and destruction of physical infrastructures. Unfortunately,
the Assembly on which many Nepalese had pinned great hopes, could not deliver
the new constitution and its’ tenure was expired at the mid-night of 27 May
2012. Since dissolution of the CA, the political process has been almost
stagnant, motionless and deadlocked (despite declaration of a new Constituent
Assembly elections on 22 November 2012)
Why did the constituent
assembly dissolved? Who and what factors were responsible for this unpopular,
painful and unexpected incident?
The Interim Constitution had
originally stipulated the tenure of the Constituent Assembly for two years.
However, three extensions were made through constitution Amendments. Even after
three extensions, the new constitution could not be finalized. The first
extension was endorsed by the Supreme Court as a constitutional step. The
second extension was also legitimatized on the basis of a ‘doctrine of
necessity’. The third extension was also endorsed by the Supreme Court but the
Court warned: ‘… it was a last extension and the CA could not be further
extended. The Supreme Court also categorically directed that if the new
constitution was not finalized within the deadline set by the third extension,
three options should be considered. One, holding referendum on contentious
issues; two, holding fresh election for a new Constituent Assembly; and three,
opting for any other constitutional arrangement.
What were the issues
contentious among the political parties?
First ─ state restructuring,
second ─ forms of government, third─ electoral system, fourth ─ system and
structure of judiciary, and fifth ─ issue of citizenship. Among five
contentious issues, four were almost resolved. Till the last moment state restructuring
was the only and major bone of contention. Essentially, the number, name and
boundaries of the federal units formed the core of contentious issues.
The state restructuring and power
allocation committee (a thematic Committee inside the Constituent Assembly) had
formally provided two main fundamental bases for state restructuring ─ the
identity and viability. Identity was defined as ethnicity, language, culture,
common history, continuity of geography and common psychology. Viability was
defined as overall economic strength, natural resources, strength of revenue,
state of infrastructure and state of administrative delivery.
Up to the mid-night of 27 May,
major political parties could not forge unity on state restructuring. Basically
the Nepali Congress party and Unified Marxist Leninist did not agree to the
views and proposal provided by the state re-structuring committee inside the
CA. They neither supported the fourteen provinces proposal of the committee nor
supported ten province proposal recommended by the high-level State
Restructuring Commission. Most importantly, these two parties did not allow
voting on the issue which should have been the obvious process in the
democratic framework (when decisions could not be reached through political consensus).
In this context, Maoist party and
the United Democratic Madhesi Front (an alliance of Madhesh-based parties which
are in the present coalition government led by the Maoists) had limited options
to save the Constituent Assembly in the new form and avoid the
vicious-circle-typed prolonged confrontation among the political parties. So,
these two political forces consented to go for the new elections to the
Constituent Assembly. Accordingly, the government declared 22 November 2012 as
a date for the new elections. It is also important to note that at this moment,
there was no possibility of extension due to the Supreme Court’s decision to
reject government’s proposal for the extension. On this special, complicated
and challenging political circumstance, the government also did not opt for
declaring a state of emergency as a tool for the extension of the Constituent
Assembly.
Present Political Deadlock
Since 27 May, there has been
allegations and counter-allegation among the major political forces. The opposition
parties, mainly Congress and Unified Marxist Leninist have been demanding
resignation of the prime minister as a pre-condition for resolving the
political deadlock. Constitutionally there is no provision to dislodge the
present Prime minister from the post. As there is no Constituent Assembly, this
government is an election government.
The major opposition parties have
been instigating the president to take action against the PM. This kind of
short-sighted unconstitutional and undemocratic move will throw the country
into permanent conflict and chaos and could invite a dictatorial regime. So,
how to break the stalemate or deadlock is a major challenge that Nepal faces
today.
How to break the deadlock?
First, we should recall the
essence of the five-point agreement which was signed by the major political
parties before the sad demise of Constituent Assembly. The essence was that the
Maoist leadership will continue up to the final drafting of the new
constitution and endorsement of that final draft by the Constituent Assembly
after which the Nepali Congress would takeover and promulgate the Constitution
in its primeministership. However, when there is no CA or a final draft of the
Constitution, how can the prime minister resign? However, opposition parties
have only one point agenda; that is the resignation of the prime minister. In
this political stalemate, what might be the way out for future?
To find out any kind of solution
to the present political crisis, three things are essential to address. One,
contentious issues of constitution. Two, procedure of modality to promulgate
the constitution, and three, power sharing. It means political consensus
is needed on contentious issues, modality of declaring new constitution and new
power sharing.
In terms of contentious issues,
state restructuring is the core issue. If there is no change in mind-set and
position of parties; solution will not come. Only option to break the present
deadlock would be a new election to the Constituent Assembly. This will ensure
a new power equation. Also, elections are the soul and brain of democracy
through which people exercise their will and preference.
Some forces are talking about
reinstatement of CA as well. But it would be meaningless and unproductive
without having prior consensus on contentious issues; and for this purpose
positive response from the Supreme Court is also essential. If there is
concrete consensus on core contentious issues then CA could be reinstated for
limited days. If there is sincere consensus and agreement on issues then new
power-sharing basis including the change of guard of the government should also
be discussed. Simply the agenda of prime minister’s resignation without forging
consensus on contentious issues and modalities should not or would not be
entertained. Simply resignation would not break the deadlock it would rather
complicate and deepen it.
So, finally the best solution to
end the present deadlock is a new election under the present prime
minister. For this, all major opposition parties should be brought into
the present government with due respect and representation. If agreement would
be made on core issues, reinstatement of CA might be also a quick way out.
Jeetendra Dev has been
involved in the democratic movement of Nepal since 20 years and was also a
member of the Unified Marxist Leninist. Post-Constituent Assembly elections, he
joined MJF-Democratic.
Nepali Congress’s
perspective on the current political scenario
Observation from Binod
Bhattarai
Nepali Congress party is a social
democratic party with special focus on social justice of deprived,
underprivileged and indigenous people of the country. It is an active member of
Socialist International. Nepali Congress believes in pluralistic democracy and
is firmly committed to human rights and rule of law, and believes that
sovereignty lies with the people and they are the source of state power.
‘Nationality, democracy and socialism’ has been the motto of the Nepali
Congress. The Nepali Congress has played crucial roles in all democratic
struggles of Nepal by leading three successful democratic movements in 1950,
1990 and 2006 respectively.
Nepali Congress expresses sadness
on the expiry of the Constituent Assembly’s tenure without adopting the
constitution. Our party stressed on broader political consensus among parties
to take forward the statute and the course of the peace process in the country.
It also emphasized the need of consensus to resolve the present crisis in the
country and also pointed that the ruling Maoist party and particularly Prime
Minister Baburam Bhattarai’s stubbornness was an obstacle in reaching
consensus.
Nepali Congress thought that
Prime Minister’s intention is to cling on to power as long as possible. A
majority of Nepali Congress leaders termed the unilateral announcement of
elections for a new constituent Assembly a ‘Political Coup’. The NC leaders
concluded that Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai’s move to call for polls was
unconstitutional.
Central Working Committee members
of the party urged the party leadership to launch a massive movement to protest
the government’s ‘unconstitutional’ decision to declare fresh elections for
Constituent Assembly. The NC protest will carry two agendas – exposing the
Maoist party’s ill intention behind declaring a new Constituent Assembly polls
and pressurizing the Maoists for national consensus government and correct the
government’s unconstitutional move.
NC party was serious about sensitive
issue like economy and the private sector’s role for the economic growth.
However, there is no alternative to political consensus. Nepali Congress also
said that the government should bring a special budget for regular expenses
only and it is time for dialogue for a consensus so that the constitution can
be framed by addressing the contentious issues.
Courtesy:
Danish Institute for Parties and Democracy (DIPD)
No comments:
Post a Comment