Fear and loathing | Opinion

Discussions about the Constitution are starting to sound pessimistic. A few evenings ago, when I tuned in to one of my favourite radio stations (Radio Sagarmatha, 102.4 Mhz) I was greeted by a clear voice making the following statement, “I used to worry that we won’t have a constitution, now I’m worried we’ll have one.”
Why? I pricked my ears. And who is this person making this paradoxical statement? I got the answer to only one of the questions. It turned out, to my disappointment, that the interview was just about to end. The host thanked the owner of this young and energetic voice. If my memory is correct, it was someone called Rukmini Chaudhary, an Assembly member from an indigenous group in the south of the country.
Her statement stayed with me, probably because I was eager to hear her reasons. The more I thought about it, the more profound it appeared. In fact, I think it’s one of the profoundest comments I’ve heard on the constitution-writing process. (Incidentally, the shallowest thing I’ve heard is that the Assembly is an Indian or donor or a Christian conspiracy.)
The question is: Why should Rukmini Chaudhary be afraid of the constitution? Since I don’t know anything about Rukmini Chaudhary except that she’s a woman and that she’s a Chaudhary, I’m guessing theanswers, in the minimum, have to do with these two things. So I’ve rephrased the question to make it sound a little more theoretical: Why should a woman and a Chaudhary be afraid of the new constitution?
I’ve been reading the newspapers, diligently trying to get to the bottomof this. I do it because I’m convinced much is at stake, and also because the constitutional process is a political, judicial thriller. Because of the deadline set by the Supreme Court, the Assembly will expire on May 27, which is exactly 77 days from today. From the Prime Minister onwards, most people have been reminding us that without a new constitution, the world as we know it is going to end on that fateful day. If you believe that, this country is a time bomb.
Clearly, what’s required is a hero to save the day. So what are the political leaders doing to find a compromise and promulgate the constitution on time? Towards the end of February the big leaders from big parties (the big 3) decided to share the burden. According to the Post’s report from late February:
Top leaders of the major three political parties have shared their responsibilities on resolving the most contentious issues... UML leader Nepal would bring a proposal on possible meeting point among parties on disputes related to constitution writing… We are hopeful that the disputes on peace and constitution writing will be sorted out within a week,” added Nepal.
Do we have a hero here? Of all the people in Nepal, Madhav Nepal, lest we need a reminder, was rejected in two places, in both Madhes and Pahad, in the democratic election for the Assembly. Is it ethical of the big leaders of big parties to give him this responsibility, or for him to take it? This however isn’t the first time ethics hasn’t stopped Madhav Nepal from taking on responsibilities.
Despite the heavy ironies, the choice of Madhav Nepal to sort constitutional issues is a minor point. In any case, in the subsequent days and weeks, Madhav Nepal, for his part, has declared that constitution-writing is not going to move forward until the issue of howto integrate 6,500 Maoist combatants is over. As it stands, the Maoists, want a brigadier general after integration, but UML and Congress aren’t willing to go higher than a Major.
The major point is that at a time when it should hold spirited discussions on substantive issues, the Assembly hall has fallen silent. Instead, the discussions have moved to the living rooms of party bosses.
KATHMANDU, MAR 01 — A meeting of three major political parties is underway at UCPN(Maoist) Chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s residence in Lazimpat on Thursday.
And so it goes. A week later…
KATHMANDU, MAR 08 — Chairman of the UCPN-Maoist, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and President of the Nepali Congress (NC), Sushil Koirala, held discussions at the latter’s residence in Maharajgunj on Tursday.
So much time has been lost in producing the first draft of the constitution that it is no longer possible to follow the procedures of the constitution and discuss each provision, clause by clause. But this will not deter the ‘big three’ parties. It is certain that within the next few weeks, the interim constitution will be amended once more to find a “short cut” to eliminate the procedural requirement.
The terrible price for this is constitution-in-the-living-room process is that despite the Assembly being an inclusive body, it has hardly been the platform for the marginalised groups. As they negotiate gives and takes, I don’t think Koiralas and Dahals sit around discussing women’s emancipation. In fact, if rumours are to be believed, there is an emerging agreement among that the big parties that they should promulgate a constitution without clearly defined federal structures.
The principle problem with this state of affairs is that issues of greatest constitutional importance, instead of being debated on the floor of the Assembly in transparent and principled manner, are left in the hands of the party bosses. No wonder then, that people like Rukmini Chaudhary are afraid of a new constitution.