Familiar story: Voices being silenced as Nepal writes new constitution

In this challenging situation, which requires honest, concentrated efforts to resolve disputes, leaders of major parties are acting on yet another five-point agreement to form a national consensus government. 

The leaders have tried to build on the seven-point agreement of October 31, 2011, which maintained that a consensus government should be formed along with work on building a constitution.  Unfortunately,  the consensus was prioritised over the constitution, effectively putting the cart before the horse. Many observers smell a rat in the idea of focusing on a consensus government while ignoring the constitution-making process. 

Building a constitution and forming a national government are two different things. It is not necessary to be in government to write the constitution. In fact, even those who are not part of the Constituent Assembly have helped the constitution-building process. Apart from the perspective of opposition parties, it is easier to clarify one’s principles and ideologies while not in government. So why has the issue of forming a consensus government been associated with the constitution, which must be the only focus at this hour? The question is puzzling and the top leaders have not been able to explain the reasons. 

 

No excuse for a consensus government

Forming a consensus government cannot be refuted in some difficult situations, but then again, this country is not at war. The civil processes have restarted and there are no major problems with the general administration. Peace and security has improved compared to last year. There is no reason for a state of emergency. There are no economic or financial crises warranting revolutionary measures. In fact, if there is any problem, then it is regarding the character and culture of the political leadership. There is a problem with the irresponsible view of this group in relation to the country’s priorities. Forming a national consensus government will not solve this problem. 

So, why is a consensus government needed at this juncture? If Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai is acceptable today, why is he unacceptable for May 27? Why should the prime minister leading the constitution-making process be removed on the day of its promulgation? What issues, undecided by the previous and the current government, are to be decided by the new consensus government? These questions need answers. 

During times of peace, the role of the opposition is a prerequisite to make the concept of a constitutional democracy functional, or to ensure that the rule of law is implemented and good governance is carried out. If the people who claim to be leaders were not incapable, dishonest or unreliable, then no democracy would require an opposition. The existence of an opposition is not only a preparation for the next government but also for the constant monitoring of the current one entrusted to rule. If the government takes a wrongful step, the opposition is required to inform the people and warn the government. 

 

An opposition is badly needed

Opposition parties help bring the other side’s views and issues on the table. If the opposition is also inducted in the consensus government then there will be no parties in the parliament to raise issues of national interest. The current situation needs to be analysed closely. There is a competition between the people wanting to continue with an undivided far-west and people wanting a so-called autonomous Tharuhat in the south. There are slogans of ethnic provinces in the east, and there is opposition to that in the west. Some extremists have already struck in Janakpur. 

As May 27 approaches, the possibility of wrong decisions being taken secretly and enforced by the consensus government is also rising. Moreover, it will be a great misfortune if the new constitution cannot be enforced. If it fails to side with the pride of an inviolable Nepal, with its nationality and democracy, it will create an untenable situation. In such a scenario the people need to get their voices heard. For this reason, at least one of the major parties – UML, Nepali Congress or UCPN (Maoist) – needs to remain in the opposition. 

There will be smaller parties in the Constituent Assembly or the Legislature Parliament who will express their opinions about the decisions being made. But any national movement these small parties may attempt will be weak. There is no shortage of parties who simply dismiss these parties as being “regressive” to hide their own regressive overtones. Recently, there were reports of death threats sent from outside Nepal against the leader of Rashtriya Janamorcha, Chitra Bahadur, who is known to be a vocal critic of federalism. This fact, known to leaders of the big parties, shows that the smaller parties are being intimidated and who knows to what extent they are being silenced. 

In the current situation, a weak opposition is unlikely to be able to fulfil its responsibilities. It is, therefore, unwise to bring up the idea of a national consensus government at this juncture. 

Today the nation is facing danger of another type. Attempts are being made to rush through changes that are difficult to be actualised through a democratic process. 

The inability to build a new constitution will deepen this danger. In such an important hour, the talk of forming consensus government does not call into question the moral aspect of the political parties, but also places the nation under threat of bigger conspiracies. 

The chief duty of the major political parties is to focus on the constitution. Today is the time to clarify the beliefs, principles and ideologies put on the table. There isn’t time to waste by running after an elusive consensus government, especially since powerful forces who want Nepal to kneel are everywhere. Rather than a consensus national government, a strong opposition is required to counter this game of thrones. 

 

Bipin Adhikari is a constitutional expert.