Nepal Constituent Assembly Extension- Much Ado About Nothing

The few days before the date of termination of the two-year period of the Constituent Assembly (CA) witnessed exchanges of lots of gossips between the media, the political entities and the general populace. There was excitement in the dirty air of Kathmandu. Busses buzzed with people asking each other what would happen after the tenure of the assembly expired. Media printed analyses, speculations and commentaries, and yes also interviews of people who are supposed to be influential in the Nepalese socio-political landscape. This leader and that went to the usual neighboring country and talked matters that are always subjects of serious speculation and no transparency.

And then the big day came. It came with a night before that saw a quasi- illegitimate deal being done by the three best represented political parties in the CA. Why do I call the deal illegitimate? Well before we get into the deal itself, let us look at the response to the deal.

Come May 29th and all media houses published news of the deal in such a note as if Nepal had just been declared the super power by all the countries of the world. There were words of promises and hopes and, respect of popular will painted almost every newspaper. Honestly I was then seriously asking myself why the state of Nepalese journalism is so pathetic. Why publish the three point deal on the first page? Why is it so important? Have we ended violence? Or has the deal figured a way out of the spiraling poverty that has entrapped us for decades and seems to be tightening the screw on us?

No.

How often have we had such deals? What has the fate of such deals been?

We have had such deals in the past. And without meaning to be mean towards such dealing parties I have to express what I think has happened to such deals. And that is that little attention has been paid to sticking to the deals.

Unfortunately similar things are happening these days. Not that we had not expected that to happen but there are certainly many amongst us who had hoped, prayed that this time around there would be serious adherence to the deal. Now that clearly is an illusion that we are subjecting ourselves too. The way Mr. Oli who emerged to be the kingmaker of the current deal responded to journalists after he reportedly convinced the prime minister to be “willing to resign” was perhaps an indication of how serious the dealing parties are. It was publicized that a few minutes with Oli changed the prime minister’s stance and the deal was made possible. But by the way it looks now, it seems Oli had not convinced Madhav Nepal to be willing to give up power but rather had taught Mr. Nepal the art of lying. My apologies, I did not mean to doubt that Mr. Nepal has mastered the art of lying. What I meant and still believe is that Mr. Oli is a much refined liar- one who has mastered the skills of lying big- with the head held high and no flicker in the eye.

Had it not been lying that Mr. Oli secretly built Mr. Nepal’s confidence in, one of two things should have happened by now. The government would have explicitly stressed on the expectations from the part of the Maoists and mentioned the fulfilling of those expectations as the conditions to the much demanded resignation. Alternatively Mr. Nepal would have resigned. None of the two things happened in a timely manner. The government failed to come honest on its preconditions, and floated those expectations only after the deal was done. Thus more than anything the government was eager to extend the CA and thus its own term. And for that they needed the Maoists. They lured the Maoists into signing the deal by saying the cabined would resign. And with the prolongation of the CA they secured their power. They started seeing colors then. Mr. Nepal thought, perhaps, why should I resign? I am not the foolish Prachanda who resigns from the highest executive post of the country.

Over a week have gone again of the fifty-two that they quasi-illegitimately extended their terms for and where are the signs of co-operative politics that the country desperately needs in these very fluid times. Where is the respect towards the other idea? And above all where is the self-respect and patriotism on the part of the “leaders” of the country?

I suspect the weeks will pass by just like that. One year seems now to be enough time to write a constitution. Well it doesn’t have to be. If the army or the king, or any other force with dictatorial intentions were to take over executive power of the country, the constitution could be drafted in a few hours and declared within a day or two. But if democracy is to prevail, dialogue on constitutional rights and practice is a must. There needs to be serious dialogue on why our bureaucracy has the impression of being so corrupt and how the constitution of the country could contribute towards reducing the corruption that has eaten us to emptiness within. There needs to be serious thought-playing and experience-exchanges on why anarchy is so rife and how that issue could be addressed by the constitution. Can a country’s constitution contribute towards poverty alleviation? Can it ensure individual rights and social harmony at the same time? The constitution of 1990 makes for a wonderful read into the guiding document of a peaceful country, but it clearly was not enough. Despite law and order being defined to a good standard things happened that by popular sentiment, should not have, that by the spirit of the people’s movement that paved the way for the constitution should not have, and were still declared constitutional, or within the constitutional framework by the apex court of the country. So constitution building needs to base itself on social and individual values and not on deals that are signed between two parties whose primary interest is practicing executive power in the country. But that needs constant dialogue not just among power hungry CA members but also between the real writers of the constitution and the real people who will have to live within that. And that is going to take time. In that sense a year is not a long time. We have seen what has been achieved in two years. It’s the same puppets in the CA, the same sentiments and the same players holding the threads that make these puppets of leaders sing, dance and be merry or even die and disappear. So where is the ground for enthusiasm that the extension of the CA by a year means good for the nation and its citizens?

In fact it is saddening that as soon as the CA was prolonged there is little talk about the CA. Well the media has been busy with Dr. Bhaktaman, World cup etc. But is the extension of the term equal to the writing of any constitution within the next year, and more importantly the writing of an agreeable constitution? I am on the no side of the answers. To those on the yes side, I honestly pray you will be proven right.

Now let us get to the question of legitimacy of the deal they did. The interim constitution clearly mentions that it will be void once the new constitution comes into force. The constitution goes one step behind to speculate on the possibility of an emergency situation in the country, should there be fear of civil war etc. and says that in such a circumstance the CA can be extended by six months. I asked a lawyer recently whether the CA can overlook the clause talking about CA term extension and can overrule the process described by the current constitution to extend the term technically by revising the constitution, because such a thing is allowed by the current constitution itself. He said it is alright. I was a bit surprised. For why did the then constitution drafters waste the time, energy and most importantly words to talk about the six months extension and its condition. There is already a place in the constitution that says what governs emergency rule, and there is another place where conditions of revision of a part of the constitution is written. So why write that extra bit on the six-months-extension-under-emergency-situations that seems to be legally so weak? He did not want to talk more over it. But I was left unconvinced. With the CA as it has been and the government too, it were perhaps wise to limit the possibility of the revision of the constitution. Imagine this- what if these CA members went on indefinitely extending the term of the CA? And do you believe they have some shame left in them to not do that? I don’t.

Let’s hope for the best of the underprivileged and politically cheated people of our country.