Sushil-led Government-7

 Delivering A New Constitution Within A Year

Siddhi B Ranjitkar

Prime Minister Sushil Koirala has shown the symptoms of losing the concepts of time, volumes of work to be done, and obstructions to remove on the way to delivering a new constitution. As recently as April 8, 2014, Prime Minister Koirala said that he would deliver a new constitution within a year, and he would try to build a consensus on the contested issues if he were not able to do so then he would take the issues to the people for final decisions on those issues. He also said that the identity-based federalism was defeated in the elections, and a number of provinces or states would be made depending on the resource capability of the country.

Speaking to the reporters at his Baluwatar official residence on April 8, 2014, Prime Minister Koirala said that he would delivery a new constitution to the people within a year. He must have lost the memory of the month he started off saying so. It must be at least six months since he had been saying so. If we were to count the year for the delivery of a new constitution from the day of the elections to a new Constituent Assembly (CA) held on November 19, 2013, then it had been already more than four months, or from the day he became prime minister it had been already two months. So, Koirala had been saying the delivery of a constitution within a year, losing the time concept.

To the same reporters on the same day, Koirala said that he would try to build a consensus on the debated issues such as a system of governance, federalism, electoral and judicial systems. If Koirala had not lost the memory, then building a consensus on these issues had been impossible in the past. So, the previous CA ended without promulgating a new constitution. Trying to build a consensus on these issues was not wrong but he needed to think whether it was a reality or not.

Elections to a new CA held on November 19, 2013 ousted the Maoists and the Madhesis, and put the Congresses in the government. Both the Maoists and the Madhesis had been on the opposition. Probably, one of the reasons voters had voted out the Maoists and the Madhesis might be for not being able to build a consensus on the strongly debated issues, and not being able to promulgate a new constitution. Some election analysts believed that both the Maoists and Madhesis lost the elections because their own erstwhile political parties particularly the CPN-Maoist had contributed to the defeat of the Maoists and the Madhesis in the elections.

Probably, as a prime minister, Koirala must have been thinking that the responsibility for building a consensus on the highly disputed issues had been on his shoulder but he was not sure enough to build it. In fact, he had not initiated to do so. He said that his government had been slow in acting because of the need for building a consensus of all political parties. Two months had already gone since Koirala took the office but he had been doing almost nothing to build a consensus on the undecided issues. He had been talking about building a consensus and so on at the functions he had been attending almost every alternate day. So, he had no time to work on the issues of a new constitution.

If Koirala were serious enough to build a consensus of all political parties on the contested issues, he had delayed in talking to the perpetual warring comrades of the CPN-Maoist. They had not participated in the elections to a new CA. They had been insisting on calling a round table conference to deliver a new constitution believing the CA could not craft a people-oriented new constitution, as the previous CA failed in doing so. They had been posing the challenge to the prime minister for delivering a new constitution within a year. They said that they were going to launch street protests if Koirala and his gang were to deliver a new constitution sideling the CPN-Maoist.

Speaking to the reporters at his Baluwatar official residence on April 8, 2014, Prime Minister Koirala said that he would take the heavily debated constitutional issues to the people if he were not be able to build a consensus on them. He said that he would hold a referendum on those issues. In saying so, Koirala had lost belief in building a consensus on the debated issues. He also was not sure to settle those issues in the CA by the two-thirds majority votes. He demonstrated that he had lost the concept of the volume of work to be done for holding a referendum if he were to repeat that he would deliver a new constitution within a year.

If Koirala were to be sincere to the words he said to the reporters at his official residence on April 8, 2014 that he would hold a referendum on the disputed constitutional issues, then he would not be able to deliver a new constitution to the people within a year. Holding a referendum required time, money and a consensus of all political parties on it. Obviously, Koirala had not considered all these aspects of a referendum. Mr. Koirala had been saying many things that did not make senses at all.

Mr. Koirala’s previous speeches, and the recent words given to the reporters at his residence indicated that he might be sincere to saying he would hold a referendum, as it would give him the rights to stay on in power for some years even though he would like to portray him as a saint and he had been saying that he would like to quit the office as soon as possible.

Anybody following the political events in Nepal knew that building a consensus on the debated issues, and bringing on board the perpetually warring CPN-Maoist to complete the crafting of a new constitution were next to impossible. Most probably, Mr. Koirala had deliberately not taken any initiative to talk to the comrades of the CPN-Maoist, and to build a consensus of at least three major political parties such as NC, CPN-UML and UCPN-Maoist on the undecided constitutional issues. He knew that building a consensus on the contested issues was not possible if his party were not to compromise on its stand on these issues.

So, Mr. Koirala had thrown his dices of the strategy of holding a referendum on the heavily contested issues. A referendum means postponing the delivery of a new constitution eternally. Unlimited time would be taken to get the agreement of all political parties on going to the people for a referendum. Surely, Mr. Koirala would remain in the office until a referendum was held.

Most probably, Mr. Koirala would ensure holding a referendum on the disputed constitutional issues, as his party was not to compromise on its stand on these highly contested constitutional issues. His party colleagues and he had been saying publicly that they would never compromise with anybody on a democratic constitution, a system of governance, and federalism. Maoist and Mahesis had strongly contested the views of the NC President Sushil Koirala in the past. That had been one of the main reasons for the previous CA not being able to deliver a new constitution.

Mr. Koirala had already punished the voters for making him the prime minister increasing the prices of milk and the petroleum products within weeks of taking the office. Mr. Koirala might have a number of other things in store for punishing the voters. One of them might be telling the people delivering a new constitution within a year but doing nothing to this end.

Mr. Koirala had been the prime minister for more than two months. He had accepted that he had been slow in his work. He had taken two weeks to bring on board the CPN-UML to his government. He had not been for giving the portfolio of the home ministry to the CPN-UML even though both the parties had agreed on it as the CPN-UML leaders claimed. After two weeks, he gave in to the CPN-UML. Eventually, Vice-chairman of CPN-UML Bamdev Gautam became the deputy prime minister with the home ministry portfolio. Mr. Koirala tried to play a political game with the CPN-UML but he did not succeed in it.

Then, Mr. Koirala had been playing a similar political game with the voters stating he would give a new constitution within a year on one hand, and on the other hand, he would take the debated constitutional issues to the voters. Could anybody find sincerity in what Mr. Koirala had been saying? Holding a referendum on the debated issues, and then crafting a new constitution within a year was impossible.

Another strategy of Mr. Koirala keeping him in power was to hold the elections to the local governments. Everybody knew that the most appropriate time to hold elections to the local governments was after promulgating a new constitution. If Koirala were to deliver a new constitution within a year (he did not want to specify when the year would start and end), then local elections had to be held following the provision made in the new constitution. Everybody could conclude that Mr. Koirala’s intention to hold elections to the local governments was to extend the term of his office.

Probably, Mr. Koirala would make come true what the leaders of the CPN-Maoist had been saying that he had been trying to push the country back to the period of the previous constitution by holding elections to the local governments. The warring comrades of the CPN-UML had been saying that the Interim Constitution of Nepal of 2007 had no provisions for the elections to the local governments. So, if Mr. Koirala were serious to hold the elections to the local governments he had to go back to the previous constitution.

Some political analysts said that Mr. Koirala holding elections to the local governments wanted to distract the common folks from the main issue of delivering a new constitution. If the local government elections were to hold then all political parties had to be in the election campaign at least for three months. Drafting of a new constitution would be put on hold for that period.

None of the top leaders of all the political did show up in the CA when the schedule for completing the crafting of a new constitution was to pass. The schedule was passed. However, the CA would be able to work following the schedule was the main concern, as all the top leaders did not show their concern for the schedule. This might be one of the indications that a new constitution would not be delivered on schedule.

Mr. Koirala said that he would change the face of the country for better within a decade. However, he had not disclosed his strategy of the path to take the country to a new status of development. He was fond of saying that a decade of development lost to the people’s war. He did not mention that his party had been in power most of the time during the two decades of the exercise of the parliamentary democracy but the government of his party had failed in building any hydropower plants during that time causing immense troubles to the common folks but Nepalese voters had given his party another chance of doing good political businesses this time, too.

Political stability and an environment conducive to investment were the must for the development in the country and for changing the face of the country for better. However, Mr. Koirala needed to know that the country had been lacking the both. Everybody knew that promulgating a new constitution acceptable to the majority of the political parties would set the political stability but Mr. Koirala had not been serious about it. His government had not been serious about building a favorable environment for investment.

His commitment to change the face of the country would be similar to the commitment of former Prime minister Krishna Bhattarai made in 1990 that he would bring the water from the Melamchi River and wash the streets of Kathmandu. Even after 24 yeas of the previous prime minister saying to wash the streets of Kathmandu by the Melamchi water, Kathmanduites had to be satisfied with the once-a-week supply of water.

Mr. Koirala deliberately or unknowingly lost the concept of hurdles that needed to overcome on the way to delivering a new constitution to the people. Numerous hurdles were on the way to promulgating a new constitution. He might have thought that going to the people for settling the contested constitutional issues would clear off the hurdles but that were not all.

Completing the peace process was the part of delivering a new constitution. However, the basic peace-process tools such as a commission on Truth and Reconciliation, and a commission on Enforced Disappearances had not been set up, yet. Both the victims of the state-sponsored torture and killing, and of the Maoists’s atrocities had continued to suffer from not bringing the culprits to justice. Minister for Law and Justice Narahari Acharya had been saying that he had been working days and nights on the bill on these two commissions for submitting them to the parliament as soon as possible. Ultimately, Minister Acharya submitted the bill on these two commissions on April 9, 2014, after the UCPN-Maoist legislatures stopped the business of the parliament demanding to submit the bill to the parliament.

At the public functions, Mr. Koirala had been saying that identity-based federal provinces or states had been voted down in the elections to the CA. He rejected the concept of identity-based federal provinces or states. However, he should keep in mind that almost half of the voters voted for it. So, the concept of identity-based federal provinces or states would hardly die even though the majority votes had gone against it. Mr. Koirala might not be able to subdue the proponents of identity-based federal provinces or states simply securing the majority votes in the elections.

Mr. Koirala also had been saying that a number of federal provinces or states would depend on resources. The notion of resource-based provinces or states was totally false. All the provinces or states needed not to have the same size of the elected parliaments, and the administration. Each state could have its own size of parliament, and administration depending on the population. For example a Humla State might have a five-member parliament, and the administration of a few staffs to cater the needs of the so small population in this remote State whereas the Bagmati State might have fifty or more members of parliament, and the administration to cater the larger population.

Some political analysts believed that Nepalis had given Koiralas the opportunity of remaining at the helm of the administration for a long time; however, they had not properly used the opportunity for the expeditious development of the country, and for the political stability in the country. For example, BP Koirala put the country in the political disarray not holding elections to a CA and not promulgating a new constitution in 1950s. It led to the stagnation of the political and economic development during the 30 years of the Panchayat system starting in 1960 and ending in 1990. Then in 1990s, Girija Prasad Koirala destabilized the government of his own party just to get into the power, and run the administration almost for 20 years without doing any significant thing for development and for political stability. Currently, Sushil Koirala was in power. His tendency of doing business had already shown that his words and deeds were far apart. He was not the man what he wanted to depict him. Nepalis might need to live in the political confusion, and in the shortage of everything for some time to come until voters stopped voting for the party of such people.

During an interaction with the press at his official residence in Baluwatar on Tuesday, April 8, 2014, Prime Minister Sushil Koirala stated that the government had been slow owing to some decisions could not be made without due deliberations with its coalition partners and within his party. "However, many have made an incorrect impression that it was due to me," he said, asserting that he will not run away from the responsibility. Emphasizing the constitution writing the main priority of the government, Koirala said, "The previous CA had already completed 80 percent task of the constitution writing. We now need to forge consensus on the remaining contentious issues." Koirala was of the view that a federal system with five to seven states would be viable for the nation. The prime minister reiterated to hold a referendum if the CA failed to take decisions on the remaining contentious issues. (Source: Ekantipur.com, April 9, 2014)

Mr. Koirala lacked transparency. He declared that he had only three mobiles but he failed in telling the public the individuals or institutions that had been supporting him for his political life, and for going to the US for the medical treatment at least once a year or whether his three mobiles had been the means of earning his living. Three mobiles were sufficient for somebody to earn his/her highly luxurious life. Everybody knew that most of Koirala’s colleagues that had held the portfolios of different ministers in the previous governments had been corrupt in the past. He must make it clear to the public whether the money earned unscrupulously by his colleagues had been the means of livelihood for him and for his party.

April 14, 2014