The constitution is regarded as the supreme law of the country. A country needs a new constitution to achieve specific objectives. Global experiences show that many post-conflict societies choose to write a new constitution to restore sustainable peace in the country. With internal conflict going on for over a decade, making an inclusive and democratic constitution has posed a great challenge to Nepal. One of the most important objectives of creating a new constitution in Nepal has been to achieve sustainable peace and mitigate the internal conflict originating from the decade-long Maoist movement, the Madhes movement and other ethnic, social, economic, regional and political conflicts.  

Nepal has had six constitutions — the constitutions of 1948, 1951, 1959, 1962, 1990 and the Interim Constitution of 2007. The constitution making process before the 1990 constitution was non-participatory and non-inclusive in nature. They were all produced by a committee of a few people. The promulgation of the 1990 constitution was the result of the people’s movement for democracy in 1990, popularly known as Jana Andolan I. Although an attempt was made to consult the people during the making of the 1990 constitution, the constitution was neither extensive nor systematic. Consultations were limited to a few government officials and members of Dalit, ethnic and marginalised communities. The Constitution Commission consisted of an elite group of nine persons mostly from a legal background and representing three power centres — the king, the Nepali Congress and the United Left Front.

It is widely believed that representation of marginalised groups in the decision-making process worsened under the 1990 constitution. The disparity increased in favour of well-off communities. The 1990 constitution failed to address the problem of exclusion and discrimination. The Interim Constitution 2007 is the result of an understanding between the CPN (Maoist) and the seven-party alliance and is absolutely non-participatory. Therefore, all the constitutions that have been produced in Nepal do not follow the basic principles for a successful constitution-making process and excluded the roles and participation of marginalised groups. The provisions included in each constitution represented the dominance and hegemony of a particular community, especially Brahmins and Chhetris, in the country’s decision-making process.   

The constitution that is presently being written is the result of the people’s movement of 2006 which is popularly known as Jana Andolan II and the Madhes movement of January-February 2007. The Madhes movement led to the Interim Constitution 2007 being amended twice including provisions of federalism and proportional representation based on population. The aim of this constitution is to make an inclusive and just new Nepal. The making of the new constitution is expected to be more participatory through a Constituent Assembly (CA) which would mitigate the internal conflict and restore sustainable peace in the country. 

Nepal is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-cultural country. After a long people’s struggle, the historic people’s movement of 2006 and the Madhes movement of 2007, the Interim Constitution 2007 has declared Nepal an inclusive and federal democratic republican state to bring an end to discrimination based on class, caste, language, gender, culture, religion and region.

Dalits, Janjatis, Madhesis, Muslims, persons with disability, people of Karnali zone and women have been identified as socially, economically and politically excluded and marginalised groups in Nepal. All these excluded groups have had very low participation in governance from the very beginning to the present in Nepal’s history. The domination of Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars continued ignoring the reality of the diversified and pluralistic characteristics of Nepali society. The proportion of Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars in all the bodies of governance — the main political parties, cabinet, parliament, legislature, judiciary and the civil service — has been dominant and has increased over time. Their dominance in the civil service increased from 70 to 90 percent between 1985 and 2002.

Women have never gained more than 6 percent of the seats in the lower house. The Madhesi community makes up 32 percent of the country’s total population, but their representation in governance has been less than 10 percent. Similarly, the representation of Dalits and Janjatis has also been very low. The per capita government expenditure across regions remains highly unequal. The per capita capital expenditure in all the Tarai districts has been far below the national average. The expenditure need of the mountain districts is higher than other ecological regions due to difficult geographical condition and high incidence of poverty. But this need has never been addressed.  

Although the Nepal Human Development Report 2009 reveals that the HDI value increased by 8 percent from 0.471 in 2001 to 0.509 for the whole country in 2006, it varies more widely by caste and ethnicity. In every human development indicator, Dalits and Janjatis rank below the national average. The report shows that among the dominant groups, Brahmins and Chhetris, who constitute about 31 percent of the total population, have a representation of more than 65 percent in all the sectors of governance except the private sector. The Newars, who constitute 5.5 percent of the total population, have a representation of more than 10 percent. On the other hand, Madhesis, Janjatis and Dalits, who constitute 31.5, 23.1 and 7.9 percent of the total population respectively, have very low representation in governance compared to their population.

Without a fundamental restructuring of society, neither sustainable peace nor the long-term challenge of development can be tackled. The marginalised groups have a strong demand to include the recognition of ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity in new constitution to protect an essential component of a person’s dignity and self-respect. Therefore, the new constitution will have to define identity issues in ways acceptable to the diversified communities and regions which will promote Nepal’s integrity, independence and sovereignty.

The hegemony of high-caste elite Brahmins, Chhetris and Newars dominates the nation socially, politically and economically. Therefore, the new constitution will have to provide sufficient scope for inclusion of all the marginalised communities in the decision-making process of the country. The need of federalism in Nepal has been realised by all to deal with its diverse population as in many small countries with small populations like Switzerland, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The issues of identity with protection of language, culture and traditions; federalism with substantial powers (autonomy); proportional representation; affirmative action based on population in government, constitutional organs, private sector, multilateral and bilateral agencies, and INGOs and NGOs; and specific opportunities to resources for excluded groups have to be guaranteed by the new constitution in order to mitigate the internal conflict and restore sustainable peace in the country.

us_prasad@hotmail.com

(The author is a lecturer in economics at CEDA, Tribhuvan University)

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.