E-Kantipur

This week could be one of the most crucial in Nepal’s history. Even though the ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) did not come with finality, it has acted as a compelling push for the parties and the parliament, particularly the Speaker. The question of the constitutionality of the process of electing the prime minister will have to be decided one way or the other. Thankfully an agreement has been reached on the budget. These issues are tied with other equally vital ones. The question of concluding the peace process is directly related to the formation of a stable government. Involvement of the Maoists in the government is indispensable for sustainable peace. Similarly, the issue of the drafting of the new constitution, the main mandate of the Constituent Assembly (CA), is even more important.

Let us start with government formation through the election of a new prime minister. After CPN-UML Chairman Jhalanath Khanal withdrew his candidature from the first round, there was an indecisive race between Pushpa Kamal Dahal and Ram Chandra Poudel for seven rounds. But Dahal too pulled out after the eighth round, leaving Poudel to contest a lone battle. This was an avoidable wastage of time and financial resources. After the SC ruling, the NC has started to claim that the sole candidate, Poudel should be declared the unanimous winner. This is untenable. If such a move was within the bounds of the Interim Constitution (IC), the Speaker should have taken the option right away at the end of the eighth round. The nation could have been spared the long impasse. But the Speaker chose not to interpret the IC according to his liking. 

Another option for him would have been to force the Maoists and the UML to participate in voting. It was their abstentions which made the voting inconclusive. This is a serious question: Do the parties have the right to perennially boycott the election? And can the Speaker compel the parties to stop their abstention? He could perhaps have used his influence to persuade the parties. But the Speaker is traditionally thought of as a neutral institution. Yes, Subas Nembang could have acted a little more persuasively. But although some parties were pushing for a change in the process, the Speaker could not initiate such a change personally.

What about the flawed electoral process? Could a single candidate permanently prolong the process? This is a very serious issue. If that is the case, there is no constitutional or legal outlet. The solution has to involve a change in the process. Such a change can only come with the collective will of the political parties. The abstaining parties could have mobilised support to initiate the change. It was their failure not to do so. If they had taken the initiative, the Speaker could have summoned a special session of the parliament. But the parties choose to sit back and do nothing until the SC decision.

The best course of action would have been consensus on the formation of a national government with the participation of all the parties, or at least all the major parties. But this is unlikely at this juncture. So, the abandonment of the one-man race and a change in the electoral process through two-thirds majority would be the most practical solution. Ram Chandra Poudel can facilitate this process and save his face by withdrawing his candidature. What about the budget? No government can operate without budget. The Maoist defiance of the budget was a strategic as well as a moral blunder.

The peace process has progressed in fits and starts. If all the parties had been serious about the process, it would have been settled within the two year period from the date of the CA formation. But that seriousness is yet to be seen. The Maoists do not seem to be in a hurry. Other parties, particularly the NC, have placed several conditions on and oppose the integration of the Maoist combatants into security outfits, but they have yet to provide viable alternatives. The last term of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) is likely to expire without the parties agreeing to rehabilitate the combatants. This problem is now tied to the problem of finding a stable government. If there is an agreement on a consensus government, the problem of the peace process could move ahead. It is hoped that better sense will prevail among the parties, especially the major ones, in the days ahead.

The biggest problem, however, remains completing the writing of the constitution. All the three conditions described above have hampered constitution drafting. No constitution can be written in the absence of a government. The constitution could not have been written in the absence of a budget, nor was it possible to write it by sidelining the issues related to the peace process because peace is the first condition for statute drafting. These four processes are indispensably intertwined. If Nepal is to be saved from a dire political failure, they need to be addressed together. There is fresh hope though as the parties now seem to be a little more serious after the SC verdict last week.

There are over 250 unresolved issues regarding the constitution. The multi-party steering committee headed by the leader of the largest party has started to tackle some of them. This is a good sign. If this collective cooperation is continued in all the outstanding issues including the peace process, the remaining period of the CA, it is hoped, will be more fruitful and the nation will ultimately get a new constitution. The SC could have made a clear legal decision. Its inconclusive directive indicates that the political process is the determining factor in times of crisis. If there is political will, it will surmount the legal hurdles and create a new base.

knsad66@yahoo.com

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.