There has been tremendous coverage in all forms of media on how our political leaders and the past constituent assembly failed us in giving us a constitution even after four years of formal existence. How can we expect a system that failed us once to do the same job again if the actors are mostly going to remain the same? Why isn’t anybody, especially the political leaders, bold enough to say, why not ask the people in the upcoming election what they have to say regarding the critical issues that could not be decided upon by the defunct constituent assembly.
A lot of important issues from secularism to becoming a federal republic were decided without following a proper process. I do not know about the others, but I certainly believe that our constituency did not send Mr. Hridesh Tripathi to make ad-hoc decisions. We sent him to write a constitution and if he along with the other assembly members had incorporated these issues in a new constitution and that had been ratified by the people then we would honor it and abide by its provisions.
As it is, the previously elected constituent assembly failed us in this regard but went on and made some important decisions that changed the identity of our country without having those decisions backed by a popular mandate. We saw plutocracy in action and not democracy. Given the past experience, what is there to prevent the new constituent assembly from being bogged down with the same issues and fail us again? This is a more likely event given we are talking about the same political faces and leaders that existed before and will exist after the election unless we come up with some novel mechanism to move the process forward. This is what I propose and I say this knowing full well that nobody is going to take it seriously and nothing is going to come out of what I say. However, it is presented so it can start a debate.
First, let us use the up-coming election and give the people the right to decide on major issues that could not be decided upon or were decided without following due process. This includes the issue of secularism, removing constitutional monarchy, quantifying the number of states, how they should be delineated, and so on. This can be done with a small incremental additional cost and a round table meeting of political parties can come up with a list of questions to ask the people. Let us hope the people are not as divided as the political parties are and will by their votes give the new constituent assembly direction on how they should proceed on major issues. It should also make it easier for any new constitution that is drafted to be ratified.
Second, if this is going to be an election of a constituent assembly then let us give them just that one mandate. By this I mean, the new constituent assembly will have no other obligations but to draft a constitution. They cannot elect or participate in the government, make other laws and engage in other activities that a normal parliament would do. There is no reason why the current government cannot go on for one more year under the current amended interim constitution. In fact, this arrangement may push the political parties to act and draft a constitution so they can elect a normal parliament and take part in the responsibilities that come with it.
Third, this limited constituent assembly will only have a life of 1 year and no more from the first day the parliament is called. Since they have only one task to do with much of it already having been done by the previous assembly and the contentious issues having been defined by the referendum, this is sufficient time if the political parties have the will to write the constitution. Frankly if they had the will, the constitution would have been written years ago.
Fourth, once the election is completed and the assembly is called, let us sequester them, i.e. the assembly members will not be permitted to leave the capital until the constitution is written. In fact, I would strongly argue that they should be sequestered in the parliamentary premises and permitted to leave the premises only in the event of emergency, tasks related to the constitutional drafting process, or after their daily work is done. Presence in the parliament should be mandatory every day and any prolonged absence by any parliamentary member without due cause should void their seat in the constituent assembly and their right to participate in the constitution drafting process. Such voided seats should be left vacant and not be filled. The government should arrange for members to stay in select hotels and bus them in and out of the parliament and provide for their daily needs.
Finally, when the final constitution is drafted, the government will call a referendum to have it endorsed by popular mandate followed by an election to a new parliament as envisioned by the new constitution.
Without some drastic measures as mentioned above, I have no confidence that our existing political leaders will ever take the writing of constitution seriously. Nepal will again muddle through another four years of political bickering and shortsightedness without achieving anything substantial.
I am fully aware that none of this is going to happen because many of things I propose are not envisioned by the current interim constitution and more importantly, I strongly believe that the political parties and the so called social commentators who support the actions to date of the political parties are very afraid that the general people might have a substantially different view from their own on many of the issues. They talk about democracy, people power, but are afraid to practice it. I say LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE and let us then have the courage to abide by the PEOPLE’s DECISION.
A lot of important issues from secularism to becoming a federal republic were decided without following a proper process. I do not know about the others, but I certainly believe that our constituency did not send Mr. Hridesh Tripathi to make ad-hoc decisions. We sent him to write a constitution and if he along with the other assembly members had incorporated these issues in a new constitution and that had been ratified by the people then we would honor it and abide by its provisions.
As it is, the previously elected constituent assembly failed us in this regard but went on and made some important decisions that changed the identity of our country without having those decisions backed by a popular mandate. We saw plutocracy in action and not democracy. Given the past experience, what is there to prevent the new constituent assembly from being bogged down with the same issues and fail us again? This is a more likely event given we are talking about the same political faces and leaders that existed before and will exist after the election unless we come up with some novel mechanism to move the process forward. This is what I propose and I say this knowing full well that nobody is going to take it seriously and nothing is going to come out of what I say. However, it is presented so it can start a debate.
First, let us use the up-coming election and give the people the right to decide on major issues that could not be decided upon or were decided without following due process. This includes the issue of secularism, removing constitutional monarchy, quantifying the number of states, how they should be delineated, and so on. This can be done with a small incremental additional cost and a round table meeting of political parties can come up with a list of questions to ask the people. Let us hope the people are not as divided as the political parties are and will by their votes give the new constituent assembly direction on how they should proceed on major issues. It should also make it easier for any new constitution that is drafted to be ratified.
Second, if this is going to be an election of a constituent assembly then let us give them just that one mandate. By this I mean, the new constituent assembly will have no other obligations but to draft a constitution. They cannot elect or participate in the government, make other laws and engage in other activities that a normal parliament would do. There is no reason why the current government cannot go on for one more year under the current amended interim constitution. In fact, this arrangement may push the political parties to act and draft a constitution so they can elect a normal parliament and take part in the responsibilities that come with it.
Third, this limited constituent assembly will only have a life of 1 year and no more from the first day the parliament is called. Since they have only one task to do with much of it already having been done by the previous assembly and the contentious issues having been defined by the referendum, this is sufficient time if the political parties have the will to write the constitution. Frankly if they had the will, the constitution would have been written years ago.
Fourth, once the election is completed and the assembly is called, let us sequester them, i.e. the assembly members will not be permitted to leave the capital until the constitution is written. In fact, I would strongly argue that they should be sequestered in the parliamentary premises and permitted to leave the premises only in the event of emergency, tasks related to the constitutional drafting process, or after their daily work is done. Presence in the parliament should be mandatory every day and any prolonged absence by any parliamentary member without due cause should void their seat in the constituent assembly and their right to participate in the constitution drafting process. Such voided seats should be left vacant and not be filled. The government should arrange for members to stay in select hotels and bus them in and out of the parliament and provide for their daily needs.
Finally, when the final constitution is drafted, the government will call a referendum to have it endorsed by popular mandate followed by an election to a new parliament as envisioned by the new constitution.
Without some drastic measures as mentioned above, I have no confidence that our existing political leaders will ever take the writing of constitution seriously. Nepal will again muddle through another four years of political bickering and shortsightedness without achieving anything substantial.
I am fully aware that none of this is going to happen because many of things I propose are not envisioned by the current interim constitution and more importantly, I strongly believe that the political parties and the so called social commentators who support the actions to date of the political parties are very afraid that the general people might have a substantially different view from their own on many of the issues. They talk about democracy, people power, but are afraid to practice it. I say LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE and let us then have the courage to abide by the PEOPLE’s DECISION.
No comments:
Post a Comment