Widen the vision

The State has already spent billions of Rupees for the Constituent Assembly (CA), which has two important tasks to accomplish—end the peace process and draft a new constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. Although the tenure of the CA has been extended four times, it is not sure whether the constitution will be drafted before May 27. And even if it is drafted within that deadline, the present political chaos indicates that the new constitution may not lead toward stability.
There are some critical issues that the three decisive major political parties and the Madheshi Front have to bear in mind at this delicate juncture. The first and the most important issue is that handful of leaders from the major political parties and the Madheshi Front, who are leading negotiations behind closed door are not representative of all the people. How can we believe that leaders, who cannot even claim to represent their party, are able to represent the people and the wholenation? Even then, why are meetings among political parties alwaysinconclusive?
It is apparent that political parties seem to be ideologically fragile and schizophrenic in their commitments (take the CPM-UML stand on the Unity government, for instance). They seem to be uncertain and unsure about their own and their parties’ future, as well as that of Nepal. On the one hand, they are not able to develop consensus in their own parties. On the other, they think that whatever they agree is acce-ptable for the people. This kind of contradiction and a misconception of who the leaders represent is a major setback for the delay in constitution writing and are likely to turn the CA into a failure. Italso sets a bad precedent for the future of democracy in Nepal.
Political parties lack both critical studies on nation building and negotiation skills. After the work of the thematic committees of the CA was over, the leaderships of three major parties have ignored the very existence of the CA. From a layman perspective, although negotiation and consensus among parties are required, it is not good to make the CAa rubber stamp. Rather, every contentious issue should be discussed in the CA to help parties reach logical conclusions.
People have foreseen that even if the constitution is drafted within May 27, it may not be acceptable for Janajatis, Dalits, women, Madhesis, and even Brahaman-Chetris. First, political parties have already irritated people by not reaching logical conclusions on many crucial issues. In addition, there are stark differences among political parties regarding the nature of federalism. While the Maoists seem to favor ethnic federalism, Nepali Congress and UML are arguing for making geography and economic viability additional criteria in demarcating federal states. While Brahmans-Chetris are against ethnic federalism, Janajatis are not ready to accept federalism that does not address their ethnic identity. Likewise, the Madheshi front’s ‘One Madhes One State’ is not acceptable to Tharus and other Janajatis in the Tarai. This kind of contention has created a volatile situation in the country. For example, Janajatis have already started criticising Nepali Congress and UML as anti-Janajati parties. As the demand for ethnic federalism mounts, Janajatis leaders from Congress and UML have already crossed their party lines and started putting pressure on their leaderships for ethnic federalism. Likewise, the Maoists are blamed for provoking ethnic agenda, and those against ethnic federalism argue that it may push the country into ethnic conflicts and violence. Contrary to this, Janajatis argue that without ethnic federalism the long-running features of feudalism and exclusion cannot be removed.
In this contentious situation, political parties should be cautious and become more serious about federalism. They should not only think about drafting a constitution for the sake of meeting a deadline and having a constitution, but should also analyse whether or not it represents the peoples’ aspirations.
It is time to think about what happens if the people do not accept the constitution. Who will be responsible for the conflict and instability invited by the new constitution? How will the newly formed states function smoothly in such climate? Political parties should discuss these issues critically. But as there is no time for taking the draft of the constitution to the people for their comments, it is almost certain that the constitution is going to be just an ideological mixture of Maoists, Congress, UML and Madheshi Front. As there is not enough time to inform people and incorporate their voices before it is promulgated, it isalmost certain that the new constitution will only serve to legitimise ideologies of three major parties and allow them to share credits for drafting the constitution.
The myopic vision of Prachanda, Shushil Koirala, and Jhalanath Khanal is no longer helpful to forge consensus for the timely and sustainable drafting of the constitution. These three key players of the constitution drafting process should be ready to listen to the voices of people from all walks of life. Rather than having futile meetings among them, they should propose and organise a conclusive round table meeting with Janajatis, Dalits, women, Madhesi and the larger civil society representatives. This is a more democratic process to finish the constitution drafting process and lead the nation to a new era.