The Attitude of Drafting a New Constitution of Nepal
Prakash Bom
October 05, 2009
Drafting of a new constitution ought to be inspired with revolutionary expectations against the establishment of status quo. In spite of the revolution born of diverse and conflicting perspectives the new proposal must redirect the nation for an overall structural change. The new proposal must address, therefore, the "ground-breaking reality" against the status quo. Otherwise, the proposal will fail to render fair constitution to honor civilian rule.
There are many among us in Nepal, particularly the political leaders and founders of main political parties who will not at all agree with aforesaid statement. For example, the incumbent Prime Minister MK Nepal while addressing a program in New York tried to assure the critical mood of audience regarding the statute of a new constitution with the analogy of his own past experience of drafting 1990´s constitution. He confirmed that there are few issues that are new to us such as republic state and federal structure but the rest won´t be that different from 1990´s constitution model.
The assurance was rather pro-status quo – anti-revolutionary and hopeless from the perspective of overall democratic changes for good governance, civilian rule and justice that 1990´s constitution had failed to deliver. The 1990´s constitution, as a matter of fact, gave the birth to the corrupt government system that lacked civilian rule and justice. Basically, it failed to address the diverse issues of entire nation at the grass-root level with the top-down hierarchical administrative structures.
But the need to drafting a new constitution has been inspired with revolutionary expectations to address diverse issues of nation to set up a federal state structure for a full civilian rule that can be built with "bottom-up" structures to democratic system that is completely run by people´s elected representatives.
But the mood of Nepalis in general seems critical about the drafting of a new constitution. People doubt even if the drafting of a new constitution is accomplished in stipulated time it will not be inspired by the revolutionary expectations for civilian rule and justice. It might end up with 1990´s model of constitution that give power to unelected elites - the creators and the beneficiaries of the old system, who are ordained to carry on the culture of unfairness.
The solution to the current political crisis between the coalition of incumbent government and the main opposition party CPN-Maoist on the president´s move to overrule former Prime Minister´s decision under Maoist led government to remove army chief may need amendment of interim constitution to avoid future crisis as such, but it can not guarantee the drafting of a new constitution within stipulated time to shun prime minister from calling an indefinite state of emergency, if consensus among main political parties reach nowhere.
That is the fear which lures the minds of Nepalis who doubt the ways current politics is unfolding against the aspiration of people for a ground-breaking transformation. There are yet many fundamental issues that need thorough discussion in the Parliament to institutionalize the functions of federal state structures at central, province or state, and local government.
Basically, the current state structures, government system and interim constitution can not be the model of the new constitution because under the federal state structure the functions and relation between central, state and local government ought to be governed by the elected representatives to establish inclusive civilian rule.
It seems difficult for status quo of the creators and the beneficiaries of the old system to get rid off their own mind-set. But their stake in the new constitution will prevent innovation in new state system. For example, the current political crisis instigated with the president´s overuse of jurisdiction under the interim constitution.
There is very little hope whether main political parties NC, UML and CPN Maoist can consolidate with their differences in order to find ways to reach consensus on democratization of Nepal Army, civilian supremacy, and president´s jurisdiction under interim constitution. But, still the ground reality of statute of a new constitution is barely moving forward.
For example, the Constituent Assembly that has the mandate of drafting a new constitution nearly held 57 meetings. But few of them were attended by the top leaders – GP Koiral, MK Nepal and PK Dahal ´Prachanda.´ Instead, as reported they have been busy attending their own internal party meetings that have no connection with the new statute.
GP Koirala attended a single meeting; Prachanda attended only four; and Prime Minister MK Nepal was present through three. Since the Constituent Assembly was elected April, 2008, many of its members have been abroad on trips that have no bearing on drafting constitution.
The humor the Prime Minister MK Nepal made at one of the meetings in New York about the attitude of main political party leaders to make eleventh-hour solution was not credible towards the duty and responsibility of the government and Constituent Assembly to the statute. Instead it gave the impression "we big leaders can resolve differences in the eleventh-hour" that resembles bygone Nepali rulers´ haunting stubbornness.
Nonetheless, it won´t be any near to the aspiration of people for revolutionary changes as opposed to the current state structure and the ways the government does business. All the old ways will keep rolling with the laws and administrations without any mandate to overall change for civilian rule and justice.
The unelected elites - the creators and the beneficiaries of the old system (through out the political parties and in the government) as usual will profit the most. That´s what Prime Minister MK Nepal´s humor meant to give emphasis on the attitude that can entertainingly obstruct the regular proceedings of Constituent Assembly for members to take their mandated duty and responsibility towards statute.
There are many among us in Nepal, particularly the political leaders and founders of main political parties who will not at all agree with aforesaid statement. For example, the incumbent Prime Minister MK Nepal while addressing a program in New York tried to assure the critical mood of audience regarding the statute of a new constitution with the analogy of his own past experience of drafting 1990´s constitution. He confirmed that there are few issues that are new to us such as republic state and federal structure but the rest won´t be that different from 1990´s constitution model.
The assurance was rather pro-status quo – anti-revolutionary and hopeless from the perspective of overall democratic changes for good governance, civilian rule and justice that 1990´s constitution had failed to deliver. The 1990´s constitution, as a matter of fact, gave the birth to the corrupt government system that lacked civilian rule and justice. Basically, it failed to address the diverse issues of entire nation at the grass-root level with the top-down hierarchical administrative structures.
But the need to drafting a new constitution has been inspired with revolutionary expectations to address diverse issues of nation to set up a federal state structure for a full civilian rule that can be built with "bottom-up" structures to democratic system that is completely run by people´s elected representatives.
But the mood of Nepalis in general seems critical about the drafting of a new constitution. People doubt even if the drafting of a new constitution is accomplished in stipulated time it will not be inspired by the revolutionary expectations for civilian rule and justice. It might end up with 1990´s model of constitution that give power to unelected elites - the creators and the beneficiaries of the old system, who are ordained to carry on the culture of unfairness.
The solution to the current political crisis between the coalition of incumbent government and the main opposition party CPN-Maoist on the president´s move to overrule former Prime Minister´s decision under Maoist led government to remove army chief may need amendment of interim constitution to avoid future crisis as such, but it can not guarantee the drafting of a new constitution within stipulated time to shun prime minister from calling an indefinite state of emergency, if consensus among main political parties reach nowhere.
That is the fear which lures the minds of Nepalis who doubt the ways current politics is unfolding against the aspiration of people for a ground-breaking transformation. There are yet many fundamental issues that need thorough discussion in the Parliament to institutionalize the functions of federal state structures at central, province or state, and local government.
Basically, the current state structures, government system and interim constitution can not be the model of the new constitution because under the federal state structure the functions and relation between central, state and local government ought to be governed by the elected representatives to establish inclusive civilian rule.
It seems difficult for status quo of the creators and the beneficiaries of the old system to get rid off their own mind-set. But their stake in the new constitution will prevent innovation in new state system. For example, the current political crisis instigated with the president´s overuse of jurisdiction under the interim constitution.
There is very little hope whether main political parties NC, UML and CPN Maoist can consolidate with their differences in order to find ways to reach consensus on democratization of Nepal Army, civilian supremacy, and president´s jurisdiction under interim constitution. But, still the ground reality of statute of a new constitution is barely moving forward.
For example, the Constituent Assembly that has the mandate of drafting a new constitution nearly held 57 meetings. But few of them were attended by the top leaders – GP Koiral, MK Nepal and PK Dahal ´Prachanda.´ Instead, as reported they have been busy attending their own internal party meetings that have no connection with the new statute.
GP Koirala attended a single meeting; Prachanda attended only four; and Prime Minister MK Nepal was present through three. Since the Constituent Assembly was elected April, 2008, many of its members have been abroad on trips that have no bearing on drafting constitution.
The humor the Prime Minister MK Nepal made at one of the meetings in New York about the attitude of main political party leaders to make eleventh-hour solution was not credible towards the duty and responsibility of the government and Constituent Assembly to the statute. Instead it gave the impression "we big leaders can resolve differences in the eleventh-hour" that resembles bygone Nepali rulers´ haunting stubbornness.
Nonetheless, it won´t be any near to the aspiration of people for revolutionary changes as opposed to the current state structure and the ways the government does business. All the old ways will keep rolling with the laws and administrations without any mandate to overall change for civilian rule and justice.
The unelected elites - the creators and the beneficiaries of the old system (through out the political parties and in the government) as usual will profit the most. That´s what Prime Minister MK Nepal´s humor meant to give emphasis on the attitude that can entertainingly obstruct the regular proceedings of Constituent Assembly for members to take their mandated duty and responsibility towards statute.