By Sagar Prasai
Around midnight on May 27, when
most Nepalis were waiting for the new constitution to be unveiled, Prime
Minister Baburam Bhattarai announced a fresh election for Nov. 22, 2012, from a
hurriedly put-together press conference at his residence.
With that announcement, Nepal’s Constituent Assembly(CA) – elected four years
ago specifically to draft a new constitution – ended its tenure without
even a draft.
 |
| (Nepal's political parties in the Constituent Assembly failed to agree on a new blueprint for the nation by their deadline of midnight May 27. Now, citizens anxiously await next steps after the premier called new elections. Photo by flickr user eriktorner.) |
It was only around 3 p.m. earlier
that day that TV channels in Kathmandu were busy announcing a breakthrough in
the talks, raising hope of a new constitution and perhaps an end to Nepal’s
four years of transitional instability. By about 10 p.m., the TV tickers had
started to change their tack, and by midnight it was clear that the CA process
had burnt about $100 million of public funds and wasted four years of
deliberation.
What exactly happened between 3
p.m. and 10 p.m. is still murky, and the political motive behind the snap poll
announced by the prime minister remains unclear. For now, Nepali politics is
embroiled in accusations of blame.
What we do know is that the big
issue is federalism. The political demand for federalism in Nepal has come from
a long-standing aspiration for self-governance in regions outside of Kathmandu.
From their standpoint, the Nepali state is seen as a distant and unresponsive
authority that has historically failed to recognize the ethnic diversity of the
country in a politically meaningful manner. These aspirations have been
politically articulated and electorally consolidated by different geographic and
ethnic constituencies as well as identity movements in Nepal. The Unified Communist
Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPNM) and the larger parties from the Terai (the
grasslands at the foot of the Himalayas) have understood and electorally
capitalized on the political undercurrent of these identity movements much more
effectively than the older national parties such as the Nepali Congress (NC)
and the Unified
Marxist-Leninists (UML). The political rewards of federalism have been
unequal for Nepali political parties for some time, with polarized positions on
federalism persisting until the CA’s dying moments. Whether the divergence on
this issue alone motivated the UCPNM prime minister to allow the CA to dissolve
is another story.
Determining the basis of
federalism in Nepal has been a contentious process from the outset. The reality
is that Nepal’s ethnic mix and settlement pattern is not amenable to an ethnic
or linguistic division of provinces. Analyses show that no matter how the
boundaries are drawn it is impossible to produce an ethnic majority in any
province, even with significant gerrymandering. And resorting to an all-out
carving of the state would result in provinces too small to remain economically
viable. Despite this reality, the political demand of many of the larger ethnic
groups in Nepal has been to create single-identity ethnic provinces. The UCPNM
and the regional parties are determined to appease seven of these large ethnic
groups in order to consolidate their own electoral prospects in the
post-constitutional elections. The NC and UML too sense an electoral base ready
to be captured among other ethnic groups beyond the seven who are opposed to
single-identity provinces. From the parties’ point of view, in a country with
103 recognized ethnic groups, the political field is highly fertile if the game
is played right.
Taking decisions on federalism
had become especially difficult for parties in the run up to the May 27
deadline. From about early May, a multi-nucleated political contestation among
those demanding single-identity provinces, those rejecting single-identity
provinces, those demanding large geographic provinces, those demanding smaller
linguistic divisions and those opposing federalism had started in earnest. All
across Nepal there were demonstrations and bandhs (general shutdown). Over
the last two weeks Kathmandu itself was under gripping bandhs called
by those opposing and supporting single-identity provinces. There were no smart
win-win solutions available as giving in to one meant denying the other. In the
end parties decided not to decide.
Now, the abrupt call for an
election has ended any possibility of a shorter, less-expensive and politically
acceptable alternative to the CA. But the announcement of the election itself
has raised several constitutional and political questions. The interim
constitution never intended to have a re-elected CA beyond its tenure;
constitutionally, there is no basis for holding a CA election for the second
time. What, for instance, should be the tenure of the re-elected CA? Who gets
to determine it?
A Supreme Court verdict that
disallowed further extension of the CA recommended seeking a fresh mandate if
the CA failed to deliver. The prime minister has taken that as the basis for
announcing a fresh election; but after expiry of the CA’s tenure there are no
legislative or constitutional assemblies left to endorse this decision. A
number of parties, including the NC and UML, have already rejected the call for
elections questioning its legality and political relevance. A faction leader
within the UCPNM, Kiran Baidya – who supposedly holds about 100 Members of the
Constituent Assembly in his grip – has asked the prime minister to resign and
rescind his announcement of the election. The president in Nepal is a
ceremonial one, with limited ability to intervene and provide a political
alternative to election. The parties too cannot legally remove the prime
minister without an election.
What happens next is difficult to
predict. The prime minister might not be able to conduct the election as his
majority in Parliament appears to be gradually defecting to the other side, as
recent developments within the Maoist party suggest. The Supreme Court may be
able to block the election on technical grounds but will not be able to give a
political solution to the crisis. In the end, the parties have to come together
again, and find a way to stitch together a national government and
constitution. The prospect of Nepal’s constitution being written by an
all-inclusive, 601-member, elected Constituent Assembly, however, appears to
have been lost forever.
This article was originally
published on East Asia Forum on May 30, 2012.
Sagar Prasai is The Asia
Foundation’s deputy country representative in Nepal. He can be reached at sprasai@asiafound.org. The views and
opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The
Asia Foundation.
Courtesy:
No comments:
Post a Comment