Two-third or Simple Majority

By Siddhi B. Ranjitkar

After the election for a Constituent Assembly (CA), debate about the requirement for an amendment to the Interim Constitution for replacing the two-third majority required for forming or changing a government with a simple majority has been going on in some quarters. Let us see the possibility of such an amendment and its results.

On May 21, 2008, leaders of the so-called three major political parties such as Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist and Leninist (CPN-UML), Nepali Congress (NC) and Madheshi People’s Rights Forum (MPRF) agreed on amending the Interim Constitution for replacing the two-third majority required for forming or changing a government with a simple majority, and making the provision for a president, vice-president with some power, and prime minister with the executive power. All of them are to be elected by the CA.

Without taking the smaller parties into their confidence, the so-called major three political parties have taken the decision on amending the Interim Constitution thus clearly demonstrating their power even before the proposal for amendment to the Interim Constitution was presented to the CA not to mention the amendment. So, clearly, major political parties would monopolize the power if the simple majority were made for forming or changing a government.

The CA would split into two main political parties: the party in power and the opposition if the simple majority were to replace the two-third majority for forming or changing a government. In such a case, the majority will rule the CA, most probably without considering the voices of the opposition. This is not what the CA is for.

Some leaders might even argue for providing the chief executive with the prerogative to dissolve the CA and go to the voters for a fresh mandate if the opposition submitted a no-confidence motion against the chief executive. No logically thinking persons would agree to make such a provision in the Interim Constitution as it means dissolving the CA that is unthinkable. Some politicians might even laugh at such a proposal. However, some politicians do not feel ashamed of changing the provision for the two-third majority made in the Interim Constitution.

Nepalis have bitter experiences in how the simple majority worked after the general election held in 1994. Nepalis did not give a majority to a single party in this election. Actually, Nepalese voters wanted both the NC and the CPN-UML to form a grand coalition and run the administration jointly. However, neither the CPN-UML nor the NC wanted to abide by the people’s mandate but went on their own way and formed a coalition with the small third party called Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) of the former Panchas (politicians of the disgraced no-party system called Panchayat) with the disastrous results. They did nothing for the welfare of the people but they outrivaled the Panchas at abusing the power and looting the national treasury. They disgraced not only themselves but also all politicians in general.

This time too, if the simple majority comes to play at the CA, possibility of the MPRF taking the role of the RPP in making and breaking the government cannot be ruled out; then, nothing might happen as the Nepalese voters wanted that all the representatives of 25 political parties work in unison. It would be dishonor to the voters if the wishes of Nepalese voters were not honored, indicated by the results of the election for a CA. The country might return back to chaos and bloodshed.

Nepalese voters did not want to see a government of three or four parties or two parties but of all 25 parties and craft a new constitution within a period of two and a half years. They want all political parties on the CA to work together to craft a new constitution and run the administration jointly. The CA is only for the maximum period of two and a half years pursuant to the Interim Constitution. It cannot last more than the period. Probably, some political leaders are dreaming of extending the life of the CA beyond this period. So, they want to turn the CA into a simple parliament invoking the fundamental attribute of a parliament i.e. rule by a simple majority. It would be unfortunate to the country if it were so.

The argument put forward by the proponent of the amendment to the Interim Constitution for making room for a simple majority for forming or dissolving a government is that any government formed by the two-third majority would need two-majority to remove it, and becomes authoritarian. It is true that to break up such a government, two-third majority is required but it is hardly true that such a government would be a dictatorial because such a government would not be of a single party but of all 25 parties on the CA. All the representatives of all parties on the CA need to cooperate with each other to come to consensus on all the matters they like to decide. So, the leaders of the so-called large parties would need to listen to almost all the members of the CA to make or break any resolution.

The opponents of making an amendment to the Interim Constitution for replacing the provision made for two-third majority with simple majority in the Interim Constitution for making or breaking a government say that the interim legislators needed to amend such a provision before the election for a CA. After the election, the configuration of the status of all political parties has changed and new political parties have emerged. So, the political parties have no rights to change the Interim Constitution for that matter.

However, one thing is clear that the CA cannot amend the Interim Constitution, as it is for crafting a new constitution and for running a provisional government pursuant to the Interim Constitution. So, the current Interim-Legislature-parliament needs to amend it if all parties concerned want it to do so. Once, the CA members are sworn in, it has no rights to do so, as the Interim-Legislature-parliament has handed down the Interim Constitution to strictly follow it.

Some political leaders particularly of the NC, CPN-UML, and MPRF have put forward their own conditions on joining the government. Knowingly or unknowingly they have been violating the people’s mandate given through the election for a CA refusing to wok together without getting their demands met. If they think coolly no party could put forward its conditions on joining or not joining the government, as the CA is the place where every member has equal rights to agree or disagree on any subject matter with anybody. So, they need to sort out all sorts of their problems working together on the CA rather than threatening one party or another to not work with other.

Refusing to form an alliance with one party or another is only an excuse for trying to disrupt the CA. If any political party is continuing to talk in this language then such a party is certainly betraying the voters that have voted for the candidates of such a political party. Nepalese voters want everyone elected to a CA cooperate with another to craft a new constitution for building a new Nepal following the dream of the Nepalis that have sacrificed their lives for the successful movement in April 2006.

After the election for a CA, the CPN-Maoist has emerged a largest party. So, nothing could be done on the CA without the nod of the CPN-Maoist. Therefore, all-political parties need to work together to achieve the building of a new Nepal. Any political party obstructing the way to achieve this noble goal forwarding various conditions including the amendment to the Interim Constitution will be branded as a black sheep.