An election too far

JUN 25 -

The complexity of Nepal’s political situation has heightened in the immediate aftermath of the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly (CA) leading to visible economic deterioration. This calls for immediate attention from the responsible political leaders and their parties.

Splits in the UCPN (Maoist) and the Madhesi parties are one of the outcomes as well as causes of the present fluid political situation. A question may arise as to why dissidents in a radical party like the Maoists or the Madhesi parties are able to break away and form new parties. The reason is not simply, as is generally claimed, differences in political principles and agendas or political ambitions of dissident leaders. An opportunity for dissidents to split the party comes directly from its inability to implement its populist programmes and meet the high expectations it has raised among the people. This inability or disinterest disillusions a section of the party, and it becomes a breeding ground for another political party.

Radical parties make various excuses to explain their inability to fulfil their promises. But this does not last long as the people become aware of the situation and become disillusioned with the political party. Ambitious leaders take this opportunity to form a new party. This process has been taking place repeatedly in Nepal, and it has happened with the Maoists too.

Like the mother party’s rhetoric during its initial years, the newly formed parties also resort to radical and revolutionary agendas. They also include the word “revolutionary” in their names, reminding the public that the mother party has given up the “revolutionary” cause. But they often forget that revolutionary or transformative in words alone has no meaning. It needs to be translated into people’s lives in terms of a minimum provision of basic services, security and employment opportunities. But most of the so-called radical or revolutionary parties do not have doable agendas for such social transformation in terms of people’s improved lives, which indirectly leads to divisions within the political parties.

The present political scenario of fragmentation among the major parties and disillusionment among the people has made the future political process difficult and complex. It is now clear that another CA election is not possible without support from the major parties, nor is there a guarantee that another CA will deliver a constitution without their agreement on a common minimum agenda for change. The newly formed political parties are against holding an election. Even if an election is held, it is sure that it will produce a mixed result, and getting a large majority by one party, or by an alliance of a few parties, is almost impossible. Then the question of consensus may arise like in the past CA, and this could lead to a similar future for the proposed new CA.

The dismissal of the CA, or the absence of a constitution, has brought adverse economic consequences. Lack of a constitution and running a government on an ad hoc basis has given the impression of impending instability in the political situation leading to a decline in economic activities. This economic problem will further exacerbate the political crisis, and a vicious cycle will ensue. There is also a school of thought that Nepali politics has matured, and that the present crisis is just a hiccup in the process, and that the government and bureaucracy are running smoothly. We cannot deny the fact that Nepal will run as it is even without a government and a constitution. This is precisely so because of the strong

community relationships and low standard of living. We can argue whether

we need a high standard of living like in the developed countries, but the goal of the government or political process is precisely to bring such planned development and increase the standard of living of all the people. In this endeavour, the government or the political process has failed utterly. 

In order to break the vicious circle of economic and political crises, it is important to have political stability. In the absence of a formal government, political wrangling and lack of a constitution, the feeling of instability and insecurity has run high. In such a situation, it is important to have a government based on an agreement among the major political parties, and then develop a mechanism to write a constitution by building on the progress made in the past CA. At this juncture, we need to remember that the constitutions of most of the countries were not developed by a CA, but through another political process. In many cases, experts wrote the constitutions which were later ratified by the people’s representatives. The US constitution was also written in such a manner. This method has been followed even in countries where there were CAs for this purpose.

Against this backdrop, Nepal can also embark on another mechanism to write its constitution utilising the progress made in the last CA. This would also give political legitimacy as the decisions of that CA constituted by the people’s representatives are to be incorporated. For this, a political body consisting of representatives of all the parties in the last CA could be formed to manage government affairs and write and formalise the constitution. There will surely be disagreements. But the constitution that will be written will at least be a “workable” constitution which can be refined as the political process progresses. Therefore, contentious issues can be solved by further political processes like another election or referendum. The relevance of this alternative method of writing the constitution has increased with the split in the UCPN (Maoist) and further fragmentation of the Madhesi parties leading to mounting voices against the planned election.

 


Source: http://www.ekantipur.com/2012/06/25/oped/an-election-too-far/356119/